« Previous post
Next post »

September 12, 2007

Wikipedia: 2 Million Article Milestone

Michael Arrington

29 comments »

Wikipedia had its 2 millionth English language article written on September 10th, the company says.

The two millionth article was on El Horminguero, a Spanish language television show. Wikipedia user Zzxc wrote the article.

Wikipedia, founded in January 2001, is six years old.

  • Sphere It

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 11:29 am and is filed under Company & Product Profiles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. meneame.net

    September 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

  2. escolar.noticia.es

    September 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pm

  3. jasonswadley.com

    September 12th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

  4. Comment on Wikipedia: 2 Million Article Milestone by Deals and Coupons | Coupon Dude

    September 26th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

  5. Weekend Clippings 4 « Burned At Both Ends

    October 27th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

  6. 10 Millionth Article Written on Wikipedia

    March 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  7. www.teletubis.info » Blog Archive » 10 Millionth Article Written on Wikipedia

    March 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

  8. 10 Millionth Article Written on Wikipedia » Club Coffee Bean » Daily internet news clips

    March 29th, 2008 at 10:49 am

  9. Wikipedia 10 milyonun Makaleye Ulaştı | alialtugkoca

    March 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

  10. » 10 Millionth Article Written on Wikipedia CMG Digital Group

    April 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 am

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Don Wilson

    September 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am

    Congrats to Wikipedia, one of my top 5 sites.

  2. Deals and Coupons

    September 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am

    What an accomplishment! Congrats!!!

  3. Steve Spalding

    September 12th, 2007 at 11:46 am

    Great work Wikipedia!

  4. Word Hugger

    September 12th, 2007 at 11:57 am

    Congrats to them, and to the lucky 2 millionth article, as I bet it will be getting LOADS of traffic.

  5. Sam Mishra

    September 12th, 2007 at 11:58 am

    While wikipedia has breadth, there are other resources available on the Net which have depth. For example, Franteractive recently published a 50 page MRD / PRD template for start-ups and hyperactive product managers in bigger firms focused on building superior hardware products and solutions. The document is currently being promoed at $89 only, but hey, browsing is free — feel free to check out all the fifty pages of this industrial strength PRD / MRD at:
    http://software.franteractive......g_0009.htm

    Thanks Mike,

    Sam Mishra, MBA (MIT Sloan)

  6. Charity donations

    September 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Amazing what a network of like-minded individuals can achieve in a very short time.

  7. Gecko

    September 12th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    Just imagine how much money that site could make by including Adsense…

  8. paintless dent repair tools

    September 12th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    Gecko could be the devil for that statement -

  9. randy

    September 12th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    Wikipedia is a FAILURE, and I know I’m not the only one who sees this. Sure, http://wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org] is a huge success, no way to argue that. All the wikipedia SPAM in Google results is impossible to ignore. For better or for worse, Google is now COMPLETELY overrun with Wikipedia results.

    Well, good for Wikipedia.org. But let’s cut to the chase: why don’t the owners of Wikipedia just load it up with ads, soak up their fortunes, and be fucking done with it? What is this virginal libertarian mystique they think Wikipedia has somehow still got? For god sakes EVERYBODY knows the concept of Wikpedia, and its ORIGINAL promise, are a TOTAL failure. The whole thing is an absolute disgrace to its founding principle — openness. The intrigue is LONG GONE. Most of Wikipedia now just a steaming wasteland of locked articles controlled by radical overlords.

    “The open encyclopedia”? LOL, my ASS! There are three types of articles on Wikipedia: LOCKED, FORMERLY LOCKED, and SOON-TO-BE LOCKED. So just give me a Brittanica! What’s the difference? What is the freaking difference?

    Today, if you want to make a correction to an article in this ‘open encyclopedia’, you very often must get the approval of an editor! Pfffft, LOL! Either their tacit approval by carrying out some cumbersome process of posting messages to some extent of previous users (”campers”) in the ‘discussion’ until some sort of hysterical three-way consensus is reached, or their direct approval by meticulously dismantling your corrections line by line to their satisfaction!

    LOL! So what the heck is the difference between this rigmarole and the primitive process our ancestors undertook to report an error to the editors of Britannica in 1885?

    At least with Brittanica I don’t have to cut through 9 pages of emotional GARBAGE that nobody can redact because it’s on continuous 24/7 patrol by some pyscho and a pair of admins! Checkmate!

    Sorry folks, I personally have banned Wikipedia. I’ll return their DNS entry to them when their employees and volunteer staff come back down to Earth. Whoever is in charge there needs to dump their editorial staff altogether, starting with their volunteer brigade of MPs. Then, they need to discontinue all of these ridiculous monitoring beacons and ‘modification alerts’ and all the other zillions of little daemons that enable any one with a the proper security clearance to miraculously parachute in out of nowhere within 120 seconds and LOCK their favorite article each time some poor fool wanders by and (gasp!) tries to make a correction.

  10. Film Asia

    September 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Wikipedia is totally funded by anonymous donors and this is what make it keep going. Without donors they may have to close down

  11. rc

    September 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm

    Great work Wikipedia!

    rc

    trading tennis blog

  12. Velioncho

    September 12th, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Best place for introduction on any technical terminology.

    But we have to move on and think about other innovative ways to share and organize useful information. How do we do wikiaze DIY stff, how do we wikiaze educational videos , how do we wikiaze advice on various issues etc etc.There are solutions but nothing wow so far.

  13. Jon

    September 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    Randy, you do have a very good point… but so far, they where the first and best alternative to traditional sources - I am sure they will stick a google adsense on their shortly under the cover of funding other developments but hey… who cares. It’s a free resource, gives lots of people power trips who otherwise may have no control in their lives and best of all… gives people like you something to rant about ;-)

    Jon

  14. lawrence

    September 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    good for Wikipedia.

    i like them, that site.
    as of late, i’m using it more and more often - because it’s up-to-date, precise and right on the money.

  15. Rollo

    September 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    And “congrats!” too to comment posters #1, #2, #3 and #4, who added nothing to this discussion except rather convenient links to their respective sites.

  16. Steve Ballmer

    September 12th, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    I have to say it, I LOVE WIKIPEDIA!
    There got it outta my system.
    The boys in the basement are working on a clone right now, where only MS employees can post.

    http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

  17. Daniel Softdrink

    September 13th, 2007 at 8:00 am

    Wikipedia removed my band page this year. Long Live SOAR!!!!

  18. liishygo

    September 13th, 2007 at 7:55 pm

    First of all , congratulations to Wikipedia.
    I hope the articles in Chinese grow as fast as possible.

  19. alien

    September 17th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    @randy - you doth whine too much.. get a grip

« Previous post
Next post »