NupediaOther collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before Wikipedia, but none were as successful. Wikipedia began as a complementary project for , a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process.Kock, N., Jung, Y., & Syn, T. (2016)
Launch and early growthThe s ''wikipedia.com'' (redirecting to ''wikipedia.org'') and ''wikipedia.org'' were registered on January 12, 2001, and January 13, 2001, respectively, and Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com, and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list. Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view" was codified in its first few months. Otherwise, there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated independently of Nupedia. Originally, Bomis intended to make Wikipedia a business for profit. Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, postings, and web indexing. Language editions were also created, with a total of 161 by the end of 2004. Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing the '' '' made during the in 1408, which had held the record for almost 600 years. Citing fears of commercial and lack of control in , users of the ed from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002. Wales then announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and changed Wikipedia's domain from ''wikipedia.com'' to ''wikipedia.org''. Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of new articles and of contributors, appears to have peaked around early 2007. Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800. A team at the attributed this slowing of growth to the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change. Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because articles that could be called " "—topics that clearly merit an article—have already been created and built up extensively. In November 2009, a researcher at the in found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008. ''The Wall Street Journal'' cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages, The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2009. Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study. Two years later, in 2011, Wales acknowledged the presence of a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, Wales also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable". A 2013 article titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" in '' '' questioned this claim. The article revealed that since 2007, Wikipedia had lost a third of its volunteer editors, and those still there have focused increasingly on minutiae. In July 2012, '' '' reported that the number of administrators is also in decline. In the November 25, 2013, issue of '' '' magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis".
MilestonesIn January 2007, Wikipedia entered for the first time the top-ten list of the most popular websites in the US, according to Networks. With 42.9 million unique visitors, Wikipedia was ranked at number 9, surpassing '' '' (No. 10) and (No. 11). This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when the rank was 33rd, with Wikipedia receiving around 18.3 million unique visitors. , Wikipedia ranked 13th among websites in terms of popularity according to . In 2014, it received eight billion page views every month. On February 9, 2014, ''The New York Times'' reported that Wikipedia has 18 billion s and nearly 500 million s a month, "according to the ratings firm comScore". Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that accumulated improvements piecemeal through " stigmergic accumulation". On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the —the (SOPA) and the (PIPA)—by blacking out its pages for 24 hours. More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced Wikipedia content. On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for '' '' indicated that not only had Wikipedia's growth stalled, it "had lost nearly ten percent of its page views last year. There was a decline of about two billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by twelve percent, those of German version slid by 17 percent and the Japanese version lost nine percent." Varma added that "While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's s project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users." When contacted on this matter, , associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's indicated that he suspected much of the page view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need to click ny further" By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was ranked fifth in the most popular websites globally. In January 2013, , an , was named after Wikipedia; in October 2014, Wikipedia was honored with the '' Wikipedia Monument''; and, in July 2015, 106 of the 7,473 700-page volumes of Wikipedia became available as Print Wikipedia. In April 2019, an Israeli , , crash landed on the surface of the carrying a copy of nearly all of the English Wikipedia engraved on thin nickel plates; experts say the plates likely survived the crash. In June 2019, scientists reported that all 16 GB of article text from the English Wikipedia have been encoded into synthetic DNA.
OpennessUnlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the principleThe procrastination principle dictates that you should wait for problems to arise before solving them. regarding the security of its content. It started almost entirely open—anyone could create articles, and any Wikipedia article could be edited by any reader, even those who did not have a Wikipedia account. Modifications to all articles would be published immediately. As a result, any article could contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant text.
RestrictionsDue to the increasing popularity of Wikipedia, some editions, including the English version, have introduced editing restrictions for certain cases. For instance, on the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article. On the English Wikipedia, among others, particularly controversial, sensitive or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to varying degrees. A frequently vandalized article can be "semi-protected" or "extended confirmed protected", meaning that only "autoconfirmed" or "extended confirmed" editors are able to modify it. A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only are able to make changes. A 2021 article in the '' '' identified Wikipedia's page protection policies as " rhaps the most important" means at Wikipedia's disposal to "regulate its market of ideas". In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors, depending on certain conditions. For example, the maintains "stable versions" of articles, which have passed certain reviews. Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012. Under this system, new and unregistered users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are reviewed by established users before they are published.
Review of changesAlthough changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikipedia provides tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. The "History" page of each article links to each revision.Revisions with libelous content, criminal threats, or copyright infringements may be removed completely. On most articles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's history page. Anyone can view the latest changes to articles, and anyone may maintain a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of any changes. "New pages patrol" is a process whereby newly created articles are checked for obvious problems. In 2003, economics Ph.D. student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low s of participating in a create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favor "creative construction" over "creative destruction".Andrea Ciffolilli
VandalismAny change or edit that manipulates content in a way that purposefully compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include additions of obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also include advertising and other types of spam. Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing content or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information to an article can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the underlying code of an article, or use images disruptively. Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes. However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair. In the Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure in May 2005. Seigenthaler was falsely presented as a suspect in the . The article remained uncorrected for four months. Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of '' '' and founder of the at , called Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales replied that he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced. After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool". This incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people. In 2010, Daniel Tosh encouraged viewers of his show, '' Tosh.0'', to visit the show's Wikipedia article and edit it at will. On a later episode, he commented on the edits to the article, most of them offensive, which had been made by the audience and had prompted the article to be locked from editing.
Edit warringWikipedians often have disputes regarding content, which may result in repeatedly making opposite changes to an article, known as "edit warring". The process is widely seen as a resource-consuming scenario where no useful knowledge is added. This practice is also criticized as creating a competitive, conflict based editing culture associated with traditional masculine s, which contributes to the .
Policies and lawsContent in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, laws) of the United States and of the US state of , where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the and in numerous policies and guidelines intended to appropriately shape content. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors write and revise the website's policies and guidelines. Editors can by deleting or modifying non-compliant material. Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on a translation of the rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent.
Content policies and guidelinesAccording to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-style.. Retrieved April 1, 2010. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",. Retrieved February 13, 2008. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." which generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject. Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized. It must not present original research. A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference to a reliable source. Among Wikipedia editors, this is often phrased as "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the truthfulness of the articles and making their own interpretations.. February 13, 2008. "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This can at times lead to the removal of information that, though valid, is not properly sourced. Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides. All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article. This is known as a "neutral point of view" (NPOV).
GovernanceWikipedia's initial integrated and hierarchical elements over time. An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor, nor by the subject of the article.
AdministratorsEditors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with " ", privileged users who can delete pages, prevent articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes (setting protective measures on articles), and try to prevent certain people from editing. Despite the name, administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to implement restrictions intended to prevent certain persons from making disruptive edits (such as vandalism). Fewer editors become administrators than in years past, in part because the process of vetting potential Wikipedia administrators has become more rigorous. Bureaucrats name new administrators solely upon the recommendations from the community.
Dispute resolutionOver time, Wikipedia has developed a semi-formal dispute resolution process to assist in such circumstances. To determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at appropriate community forums,See for example the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, created to address content falling under their respective areas. or seek outside input through third opinion requests or by initiating a more general community discussion known as a "request for comment".
Arbitration CommitteeThe Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute resolution process. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how an article should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on the specific view that should be adopted. Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted, functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate. Therefore, the committee does not dictate the content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new content violates Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content is considered biased). Its remedies include cautions and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43%), subject matters (23%), or Wikipedia (16%). Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of impersonation and anti-social behavior. When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus or in violation of editing policies, remedies tend to be limited to warnings.
CommunityEach article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated "talk" page. These form the primary communication channel for editors to discuss, coordinate and debate. curators collaborate on the article Hoxne Hoard in June 2010 Wikipedia's community has been described as cultlike, although not always with entirely negative connotations. The project's preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of credentials, has been referred to as "anti-elitism". Wikipedians sometimes award one another "virtual barnstars" for good work. These personalized tokens of appreciation reveal a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation work. Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification. As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked on the project. Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization". In 2008, a ''Slate'' magazine article reported that: "According to researchers in Palo Alto, one percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits." This method of evaluating contributions was later disputed by Aaron Swartz, who noted that several articles he sampled had large portions of their content (measured by number of characters) contributed by users with low edit counts. The English Wikipedia has articles, registered editors, and active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made one or more edits in the past 30 days. Editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk page comments, may implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to a sometimes convoluted dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references". Editors who do not log in are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia, as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation", but the contribution histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their IP addresses cannot be attributed to a particular editor with certainty.
StudiesA 2007 study by researchers from Dartmouth College found that "anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia [...] are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site". Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "[I]t turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users... 524 people... And in fact, the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits." However, ''Business Insider'' editor and journalist Henry Blodget showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most content in Wikipedia (measured by the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled edit) is created by "outsiders", while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders". A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others, although a later commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness and that the differences with the control group and the samples were small. According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".
DiversitySeveral studies have shown that most of the Wikipedia contributors are male. Notably, the results of a Wikimedia Foundation survey in 2008 showed that only 13 percent of Wikipedia editors were female. Because of this, universities throughout the United States tried to encourage females to become Wikipedia contributors. Similarly, many of these universities, including Yale University, Yale and Brown University, Brown, gave college credit to students who create or edit an article relating to women in science or technology. Andrew Lih, a professor and scientist, wrote in '' '' that the reason he thought the number of male contributors outnumbered the number of females so greatly was because identifying as a woman may expose oneself to "ugly, intimidating behavior". Data has shown that Africans are underrepresented among Wikipedia editors.
Language editionsThere are currently language editions of Wikipedia (also called ''language versions'', or simply ''Wikipedias''). As of , the six largest, in order of article count, are the , , , , , and Wikipedias. The and -largest Wikipedias owe their position to the article-creating Internet bot, bot Lsjbot, which as of 2013 had created about half the articles on the Swedish Wikipedia, and most of the articles in the Cebuano Wikipedia, Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias. The latter are both languages of the Philippines. In addition to the top six, twelve other Wikipedias have more than a million articles each (, , , , , , , , , , and ), seven more have over 500,000 articles (, , , , , and ), 44 more have over 100,000, and 82 more have over 10,000.meta:List of Wikipedias, List of Wikipedias The largest, the English Wikipedia, has over million articles. , the English Wikipedia receives 48% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages. The top 10 editions represent approximately 85% of the total traffic. Since Wikipedia is based on the World Wide Web, Web and therefore worldwide, contributors to the same language edition may use different dialects or may come from different countries (as is the case for the English Wikipedia, English edition). These differences may lead to some conflicts over American and British English spelling differences, spelling differences (e.g. ''colour'' versus ''color'') or points of view. Though the various language editions are held to global policies such as "neutral point of view", they diverge on some points of policy and practice, most notably on whether images that are not free content, licensed freely may be used under a claim of fair use. Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language". Though each language edition functions more or less independently, some efforts are made to supervise them all. They are coordinated in part by Meta-Wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki devoted to maintaining all its projects (Wikipedia and others). , :mailarchive:wikipedia-l/2005-March/020469.html, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <Wikipediaemail@example.com> For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia, and it maintains a list of articles every Wikipedia should have. The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, and mathematics. It is not rare for articles strongly related to a particular language not to have counterparts in another edition. For example, articles about small towns in the United States might be available only in English, even when they meet the notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects. Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions, in part because those editions do not allow fully automated translation of articles. Articles available in more than one language may offer "interwiki links", which link to the counterpart articles in other editions. A study published by ''PLOS One'' in 2012 also estimated the share of contributions to different editions of Wikipedia from different regions of the world. It reported that the proportion of the edits made from North America was 51% for the , and 25% for the simple English Wikipedia.
English Wikipedia editor numbersOn March 1, 2014, ''The Economist'', in an article titled "The Future of Wikipedia", cited a trend analysis concerning data published by the Wikimedia Foundation stating that "[t]he number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years." The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was cited by ''The Economist'' as substantially in contrast to statistics for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia). ''The Economist'' reported that the number of contributors with an average of five or more edits per month was relatively constant since 2008 for Wikipedia in other languages at approximately 42,000 editors within narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. The number of active editors in English Wikipedia, by sharp comparison, was cited as peaking in 2007 at approximately 50,000 and dropping to 30,000 by the start of 2014. Should this attrition have continued unabated at the quoted trend rate of approximately 20,000 editors lost within seven years, by 2021 there would be only 10,000 active editors on English Wikipedia. In contrast, the trend analysis published in ''The Economist'' presents Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) as successful in retaining their active editors on a renewable and sustained basis, with their numbers remaining relatively constant at approximately 42,000. No comment was made concerning which of the differentiated edit policy standards from Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) would provide a possible alternative to English Wikipedia for effectively ameliorating substantial editor attrition rates on the English-language Wikipedia.
ReceptionVarious Wikipedians have criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive regulation, criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation, which includes more than fifty policies and nearly 150,000 words . Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias. In 2010, columnist and journalist Edwin Black described Wikipedia as being a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".Edwin Black, Black, Edwin (April 19, 2010
Discouragement in educationMost university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academia, academic work, preferring primary sources; some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations. Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative. Wales once (2006 or earlier) said he receives about ten emails weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia; he told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia," he said."Jimmy Wales", ''Biography Resource Center Online''. (Gale, 2006.) In February 2007, an article in ''The Harvard Crimson'' newspaper reported that a few of the professors at Harvard University were including Wikipedia articles in their syllabus, syllabi, although without realizing the articles might change.Child, Maxwell L.
Medical informationOn March 5, 2014, Julie Beck writing for ''The Atlantic'' magazine in an article titled "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia", stated that "Fifty percent of physicians look up conditions on the (Wikipedia) site, and some are editing articles themselves to improve the quality of available information."Julie Beck. "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia". ''The Atlantic'', March 5, 2014. Beck continued to detail in this article new programs of Amin Azzam at the University of San Francisco to offer medical school courses to medical students for learning to edit and improve health information on Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles on health-related issues, as well as internal quality control programs within Wikipedia organized by James Heilman to improve a group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance up to Wikipedia's highest standard of articles using its Featured Article and Good Article peer-review evaluation process. In a May 7, 2014, follow-up article in ''The Atlantic'' titled "Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?", Julie Beck quotes WikiProject Medicine's James Heilman as stating: "Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality reference." Beck added that: "Wikipedia has its own peer review process before articles can be classified as 'good' or 'featured'. Heilman, who has participated in that process before, says 'less than one percent' of Wikipedia's medical articles have passed."
Quality of writingIn 2008, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that the quality of a Wikipedia article would suffer rather than gain from adding more writers when the article lacked appropriate explicit or implicit coordination. For instance, when contributors rewrite small portions of an entry rather than making full-length revisions, high- and low-quality content may be intermingled within an entry. Roy Rosenzweig, a history professor, stated that ''American National Biography Online'' outperformed Wikipedia in terms of its "clear and engaging prose", which, he said, was an important aspect of good historical writing. Contrasting Wikipedia's treatment of Abraham Lincoln to that of American Civil War, Civil War historian James M. McPherson, James McPherson in ''American National Biography Online'', he said that both were essentially accurate and covered the major episodes in Lincoln's life, but praised "McPherson's richer contextualization [...] his artful use of quotations to capture Lincoln's voice [...] and [...] his ability to convey a profound message in a handful of words." By contrast, he gives an example of Wikipedia's prose that he finds "both verbose and dull". Rosenzweig also criticized the "waffling—encouraged by the NPOV policy—[which] means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history". While generally praising the article on William Clarke Quantrill, he quoted its conclusion as an example of such "waffling", which then stated: "Some historians [...] remember him as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while others continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero." Other critics have made similar charges that, even if Wikipedia articles are factually accurate, they are often written in a poor, almost unreadable style. Frequent Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski commented, "Even when a Wikipedia entry is 100 percent factually correct, and those facts have been carefully chosen, it all too often reads as if it has been translated from one language to another then into a third, passing an illiterate translator at each stage." A study of Wikipedia articles on cancer was conducted in 2010 by Yaacov Lawrence of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University. The study was limited to those articles that could be found in the ''Physician Data Query'' and excluded those written at the "start" class or "stub" class level. Lawrence found the articles accurate but not very readable, and thought that "Wikipedia's lack of readability (to non-college readers) may reflect its varied origins and haphazard editing". ''The Economist'' argued that better-written articles tend to be more reliable: "inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete information".
Coverage of topics and systemic biasWikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has byte#Multiple-byte units, terabytes of disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed encyclopedia. The exact degree and manner of coverage on Wikipedia is under constant review by its editors, and disagreements are not uncommon (see deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, deletionism and inclusionism). Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic. The "Wikipedia is not censored" policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of online petition on Wikipedia Muhammad article, images of Muhammad in the English Wikipedia, English edition of its Muhammad article, citing this policy. The presence of politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in Wikipedia has led to the censorship of Wikipedia by national authorities in China and Pakistan, amongst other countries. A 2008 study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and Palo Alto Research Center gave a distribution of topics as well as growth (from July 2006 to January 2008) in each field: *Culture and the arts: 30% (210%) *Biographies and persons: 15% (97%) *Geography and places: 14% (52%) *Society and social sciences: 12% (83%) *History and events: 11% (143%) *Natural and physical sciences: 9% (213%) *Technology and the applied sciences: 4% (−6%) *Religions and belief systems: 2% (38%) *Health: 2% (42%) *Mathematics and logic: 1% (146%) *Thought and philosophy: 1% (160%) These numbers refer only to the number of articles: it is possible for one topic to contain a large number of short articles and another to contain a small number of large ones. Through its "Wikipedia Loves Libraries" program, Wikipedia has partnered with major public libraries such as the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts to expand its coverage of underrepresented subjects and articles. A 2011 study conducted by researchers at the University of Minnesota indicated that male and female editors focus on different coverage topics. There was a greater concentration of females in the "People and Arts" category, while males focus more on "Geography and Science".
Coverage of topics and selection biasResearch conducted by Mark Graham of the Oxford Internet Institute in 2009 indicated that the geographic distribution of article topics is highly uneven. Africa is the most underrepresented. Across 30 language editions of Wikipedia, historical articles and sections are generally Eurocentric and focused on recent events. An editorial in ''The Guardian'' in 2014 claimed that more effort went into providing references for list of pornographic performers by decade, a list of female porn actors than a list of women writers.''The Guardian'' 2014 (London
Systemic biasWhen multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, systemic bias may arise, due to the demographic backgrounds of the editors. In 2011, Wales claimed that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, citing for example "biographies of famous women through history and issues surrounding early childcare". The October 22, 2013, essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's ''Technology Review'' titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive regulation, policy creep on the #English Wikipedia editor decline, downward trend in the number of editors. Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally, for example favoring certain nationalities, ethnicities or majority religions. It may more specifically follow the biases of Internet culture, inclining to be young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases, intrinsically, may include an overemphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events. Taha Yasseri of the University of Oxford, in 2013, studied the statistical trends of systemic bias at Wikipedia introduced by editing conflicts and their resolution. His research examined the counterproductive work behavior of edit warring. Yasseri contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of counterproductive behavior at Wikipedia and relied instead on the statistical measurement of detecting "reverting/reverted pairs" or "mutually reverting edit pairs". Such a "mutually reverting edit pair" is defined where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to revert the first editor in the "mutually reverting edit pairs". The results were tabulated for several language versions of Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia's three largest conflict rates belonged to the articles George W. Bush, Anarchism, and Muhammad. By comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the Oxford study were for the articles covering Croatia, Scientology, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Researchers from Washington University developed a statistical model to measure systematic bias in the behavior of Wikipedia's users regarding controversial topics. The authors focused on behavioral changes of the encyclopedia's administrators after assuming the post, writing that systematic bias occurred after the fact.
Explicit contentWikipedia has been criticized for allowing information about graphic content. Articles depicting what some critics have called objectionable content (such as feces, cadaver, human penis, vulva, and nudity) contain graphic pictures and detailed information easily available to anyone with access to the internet, including children. The site also includes sexual content such as images and videos of masturbation and ejaculation, illustrations of zoophilia, and photos from hardcore pornography, hardcore pornographic films in its articles. It also has non-sexual child nudity, photographs of nude children. The Wikipedia article about ''Virgin Killer—''a 1976 album from the music of Germany, German rock music, rock rock band, band Scorpions (band), Scorpions—features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked preadolescence#Prepubescence, puberty, and age range, prepubescent girl. The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia article ''Virgin Killer'' was blocked for four days by most Internet service providers in the United Kingdom after the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) decided the album cover was a potentially illegal indecent image and added the article's URL to a "blacklist" it supplies to British internet service providers. In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on Wikimedia Commons contained child pornography, and were in violation of United States obscenity law, US federal obscenity law. Sanger later clarified that the images, which were related to pedophilia and one about lolicon, were not of real children, but said that they constituted "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", under the child pornography laws in the United States#Section 1466A, PROTECT Act of 2003. That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are obscenity#United States obscenity law, obscene under American law. Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools. spokesman Jay Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation, saying that Wikipedia did not have "material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it." Following the complaint by Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete had been made hastily, Wales voluntarily gave up some of the powers he had held up to that time as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing-list that this action was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted". Critics, including Wikipediocracy, noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.
PrivacyOne privacy concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure" in the eyes of the law.Se
SexismWikipedia has been described as harboring a battleground culture of sexism and harassment. The perceived toxic attitudes and tolerance of violent and abusive language are also reasons put forth for the gender gap in Wikipedia editors. In 2014, a female editor who requested a separate space on Wikipedia to discuss improving civility had her proposal referred to by a male editor using the words "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one". Edit-a-thons have been held to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.
Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia movement affiliatesWikipedia is hosted and funded by the , a non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related projects such as Wiktionary and Wikibooks. The foundation relies on public contributions and grants to fund its mission. The foundation's 2013 IRS Form 990 shows revenue of $39.7 million and expenses of almost $29 million, with assets of $37.2 million and liabilities of about $2.3 million. In May 2014, Wikimedia Foundation named Lila Tretikov as its second executive director, taking over for Sue Gardner. The ''Wall Street Journal'' reported on May 1, 2014, that Tretikov's information technology background from her years at University of California offers Wikipedia an opportunity to develop in more concentrated directions guided by her often repeated position statement that, "Information, like air, wants to be free."Jeff Elder, ''The Wall Street Journal'', May 1, 2014, "Wikipedia's New Chief: From Soviet Union to World's Sixth-Largest Site". The same ''Wall Street Journal'' article reported these directions of development according to an interview with spokesman Jay Walsh of Wikimedia, who "said Tretikov would address that issue (conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, paid advocacy) as a priority. 'We are really pushing toward more transparency... We are reinforcing that paid advocacy is not welcome.' Initiatives to involve greater diversity of contributors, better mobile support of Wikipedia, new geo-location tools to find local content more easily, and more tools for users in the second and third world are also priorities," Walsh said. Following the departure of Tretikov from Wikipedia due to issues concerning the use of the "superprotection" feature which some language versions of Wikipedia have adopted, Katherine Maher became the third executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation in June 2016. Maher has stated that one of her priorities would be the issue of editor harassment endemic to Wikipedia as identified by the Wikipedia board in December. Maher stated regarding the harassment issue that: "It establishes a sense within the community that this is a priority... (and that correction requires that) it has to be more than words." Wikipedia is also supported by many organizations and groups that are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation but independently-run, called Wikimedia movement affiliates. These include list of Wikimedia chapters, Wikimedia chapters (which are national or sub-national organizations, such as Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimédia France), thematic organizations (such as Amical Wikimedia for the Catalan language community), and user groups. These affiliates participate in the promotion, development, and funding of Wikipedia.
Software operations and supportThe operation of Wikipedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free software, free and open-source software, open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database system. The software incorporates programming features such as a macro (computer science), macro language, variable (programming), variables, a transclusion system for web template system, templates, and URL redirection. MediaWiki is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and it is used by all Wikimedia projects, as well as many other wiki projects. Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a PhpWiki, PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponential growth, exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker. Several MediaWiki extensions are installed. Retrieved August 18, 2014. to extend the functionality of the MediaWiki software. In April 2005, a Lucene extension was added to MediaWiki's built-in search and Wikipedia switched from MySQL to Lucene for searching. Lucene was later replaced by CirrusSearch which is based on Elasticsearch. In July 2013, after extensive beta testing, a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) extension, VisualEditor, was opened to public use. It was met with much rejection and criticism, and was described as "slow and buggy". The feature was changed from opt-out to opt-in afterward.
Automated editingComputer programs called Internet bot, bots have often been used to perform simple and repetitive tasks, such as correcting common misspellings and stylistic issues, or to start articles such as geography entries in a standard format from statistical data. One controversial contributor, , creating articles with his Lsjbot, bot was reported to create up to 10,000 articles on the Swedish Wikipedia on certain days. Additionally, there are bots designed to automatically notify editors when they make common editing errors (such as unmatched quotes or unmatched parentheses). Edits falsely identified by bots as the work of a banned editor can be restored by other editors. An anti-vandal bot is programmed to detect and revert vandalism quickly. Bots are able to indicate edits from particular accounts or IP address ranges, as occurred at the time of the shooting down of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, MH17 jet incident in July 2014 when it was reported edits were made via IPs controlled by the Russian government. Bots on Wikipedia must be approved before activation. According to Andrew Lih, the current expansion of Wikipedia to millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the use of such bots.
Hardware operations and supportWikipedia receives between 25,000 and 60,000-page requests per second, depending on the time of the day."Monthly request statistics"
Internal research and operational developmentFollowing growing amounts of incoming donations exceeding seven digits in 2013 as recently reported, the Foundation has reached a threshold of assets which qualify its consideration under the principles of industrial organization economics to indicate the need for the re-investment of donations into the internal research and development of the Foundation.Frederic M. Scherer and David Ross,  1990. ''Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance'', 3rd ed. Houghton-Mifflin. and 1st ed. revie
Internal news publicationsCommunity-produced news publications include the 's ''The Signpost'', founded in 2005 by Michael Snow, an attorney, Wikipedia administrator, and former chair of the board of trustees. It covers news and events from the site, as well as major events from other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikimedia Commons. Similar publications are the German-language ''Kurier'', and the Portuguese-language ''Correio da Wikipédia''. Other past and present community news publications on English Wikipedia include the ''Wikiworld'' webcomic, the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, and newsletters of specific WikiProjects like ''The Bugle'' from WikiProject Military History and the monthly newsletter from The Guild of Copy Editors. There are also several publications from the and multilingual publications such as Wikimedia Diff and ''This Month in Education''.
Access to content
Content licensingWhen the project was started in 2001, all text in Wikipedia was covered by the (GFDL), a copyleft license permitting the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work. The GFDL was created for software manuals that come with free software programs licensed under the GPL. This made it a poor choice for a general reference work: for example, the GFDL requires the reprints of materials from Wikipedia to come with a full copy of the GFDL text. In December 2002, the Creative Commons license was released: it was specifically designed for creative works in general, not just for software manuals. The license gained popularity among bloggers and others distributing creative works on the Web. The Wikipedia project sought the switch to the Creative Commons. Because the two licenses, GFDL and Creative Commons, were incompatible, in November 2008, following the request of the project, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) released a new version of the GFDL designed specifically to allow Wikipedia to by August 1, 2009. (A new version of the GFDL automatically covers Wikipedia contents.) In April 2009, Wikipedia and its sister projects held a community-wide referendum which decided the switch in June 2009. The handling of media files (e.g. image files) varies across language editions. Some language editions, such as the English Wikipedia, include non-free image files under fair use doctrine, while the others have opted not to, in part because of the lack of fair use doctrines in their home countries (e.g. in copyright law of Japan, Japanese copyright law). Media files covered by free content licenses (e.g. Creative Commons' CC BY-SA) are shared across language editions via Wikimedia Commons repository, a project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia's accommodation of varying international copyright laws regarding images has led some to observe that its photographic coverage of topics lags behind the quality of the encyclopedic text. The Wikimedia Foundation is not a licensor of content, but merely a hosting service for the contributors (and licensors) of the Wikipedia. This position has been successfully defended in court.
Methods of accessBecause Wikipedia content is distributed under an open license, anyone can reuse or re-distribute it at no charge. The content of Wikipedia has been published in many forms, both online and offline, outside the Wikipedia website. *Websites: Thousands of "mirror sites" exist that republish content from Wikipedia: two prominent ones, that also include content from other reference sources, are Reference.com and Answers.com. Another example is Wapedia, which began to display Wikipedia content in a mobile-device-friendly format before Wikipedia itself did. *Mobile apps: A variety of mobile apps provide access to Wikipedia on mobile device, hand-held devices, including both Android (operating system), Android and iOS devices (see Wikipedia App, Wikipedia apps). (see also #Mobile access, Mobile access.) *Search engines: Some web s make special use of Wikipedia content when displaying search results: examples include Microsoft Bing (via technology gained from Powerset (company), Powerset) and DuckDuckGo. *Compact discs, DVDs: Collections of Wikipedia articles have been published on optical discs. An English version, 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, contained about 2,000 articles."Wikipedia on DVD"
Mobile accessWikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit content using any standard web browser through a fixed Internet access, Internet connection. Although Wikipedia content has been accessible through the mobile web since July 2013, ''The New York Times'' on February 9, 2014, quoted Erik Möller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, stating that the transition of internet traffic from desktops to mobile devices was significant and a cause for concern and worry. The article in ''The New York Times'' reported the comparison statistics for mobile edits stating that, "Only 20 percent of the readership of the English-language Wikipedia comes via mobile devices, a figure substantially lower than the percentage of mobile traffic for other media sites, many of which approach 50 percent. And the shift to mobile editing has lagged even more." ''The New York Times'' reports that Möller has assigned "a team of 10 software developers focused on mobile", out of a total of approximately 200 employees working at the Wikimedia Foundation. One principal concern cited by ''The New York Times'' for the "worry" is for Wikipedia to effectively address attrition issues with the number of editors which the online encyclopedia attracts to edit and maintain its content in a mobile access environment. ''Bloomberg Businessweek'' reported in July 2014 that Google's Android mobile apps have dominated the largest share of global smartphone shipments for 2013 with 78.6% of market share over their next closest competitor in iOS with 15.2% of the market. At the time of the Tretikov appointment and her posted web interview with Sue Gardner in May 2014, Wikimedia representatives made a technical announcement concerning the number of mobile access systems in the market seeking access to Wikipedia. Directly after the posted web interview, the representatives stated that Wikimedia would be applying an all-inclusive approach to accommodate as many mobile access systems as possible in its efforts for expanding general mobile access, including BlackBerry and the Windows Phone system, making market share a secondary issue. The latest version of the Android app for Wikipedia was released on July 23, 2014, to generally positive reviews, scoring over four of a possible five in a poll of approximately 200,000 users downloading from Google. The latest version for iOS was released on April 3, 2013, to similar reviews. Access to Wikipedia from mobile phones was possible as early as 2004, through the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), via the Wapedia service. In June 2007 Wikipedia launched en.mobile.wikipedia.org, an official website for wireless devices. In 2009 a newer mobile service was officially released, located at en.m.wikipedia.org, which caters to more advanced mobile devices such as the iPhone, Android (operating system), Android-based devices or WebOS-based devices. Several other methods of mobile access to Wikipedia have emerged. Many devices and applications optimize or enhance the display of Wikipedia content for mobile devices, while some also incorporate additional features such as use of Wikipedia metadata, such as geographic data and information, geoinformation. Wikipedia Zero was an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to expand the reach of the encyclopedia to the developing countries. It was discontinued in February 2018. Andrew Lih and Andrew Brown (writer), Andrew Brown both maintain editing Wikipedia with smartphones is difficult and this discourages new potential contributors. The number of Wikipedia editors has been declining after several years and Tom Simonite of '' '' claims the bureaucratic structure and rules are a factor in this. Simonite alleges some Wikipedians use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and those editors have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Lih alleges there is a serious disagreement among existing contributors on how to resolve this. Lih fears for Wikipedia's long-term future while Brown fears problems with Wikipedia will remain and rival encyclopedias will not replace it.
Trusted source to combat fake newsIn 2017–18, after a barrage of false news reports, both Facebook and YouTube announced they would rely on Wikipedia to help their users evaluate reports and reject false news. Noam Cohen, writing in ''The Washington Post'' states, "YouTube's reliance on Wikipedia to set the record straight builds on the thinking of another fact-challenged platform, the Facebook social network, which announced last year that Wikipedia would help its users root out 'fake news'." As of November 2020, Alexa records the daily pageviews per visitor as 3.03 and the average daily time on site as 3:46 minutes.
ReadershipIn February 2014, ''The New York Times'' reported that Wikipedia was ranked fifth globally among all websites, stating "With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month [...] Wikipedia trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors." However, its ranking dropped to 13th globally by June 2020 due mostly to a rise in popularity of Chinese websites for online shopping. In addition to logistic function, logistic growth in the number of its articles, Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001. About 50 percent of search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google, a good portion of which is related to academic research. The number of readers of Wikipedia worldwide reached 365 million at the end of 2009. The Pew Research Center, Pew Internet and American Life project found that one third of US Internet users consulted Wikipedia. In 2011 ''Business Insider'' gave Wikipedia a valuation of $4 billion if it ran advertisements. According to "Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011", the average age of Wikipedia readers is 36, with a rough parity between genders. Almost half of Wikipedia readers visit the site more than five times a month, and a similar number of readers specifically look for Wikipedia in search engine results. About 47 percent of Wikipedia readers do not realize that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization.
COVID-19 pandemicDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, Wikipedia's coverage of the pandemic received international media attention, and brought an increase in Wikipedia readership overall.
Cultural significanceWikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases. The Parliament of Canada's website refers to Wikipedia's article on same-sex marriage in the "related links" section of its "further reading" list for the ''Civil Marriage Act''. The encyclopedia's assertions are increasingly used as a source by organizations such as the US federal courts and the World Intellectual Property Organization—though mainly for ''supporting information'' rather than information decisive to a case. Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some United States Intelligence Community, US intelligence agency reports. In December 2008, the scientific journal ''RNA Biology'' launched a new section for descriptions of families of RNA molecules and requires authors who contribute to the section to also submit a draft article on the Rfam, RNA family for publication in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has also been used as a source in journalism, often without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for plagiarism from Wikipedia, plagiarizing from Wikipedia., ''San Antonio Express-News'', January 9, 2007. In 2006, Time (magazine), ''Time'' magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation (along with , Reddit, MySpace, and ) in the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by millions of people worldwide. In July 2007, Wikipedia was the focus of a 30-minute documentary on BBC Radio 4 which argued that, with increased usage and awareness, the number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the word is one of a select group of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar (Google, , ) that they no longer need explanation. On September 28, 2007, Italy, Italian politician Franco Grillini raised a parliamentary question with the minister of cultural resources and activities about the necessity of freedom of panorama. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Wikipedia, "the seventh most consulted website", to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues. File:Quadriga-verleihung-rr-02.jpg, upright=1, accepts the 2008 Quadriga (award), Quadriga ''A Mission of Enlightenment'' award on behalf of Wikipedia On September 16, 2007, ''The Washington Post'' reported that Wikipedia had become a focal point in the 2008 United States presidential election, 2008 US election campaign, saying: "Type a candidate's name into Google, and among the first results is a Wikipedia page, making those entries arguably as important as any ad in defining a candidate. Already, the presidential entries are being edited, dissected and debated countless times each day." An October 2007 Reuters article, titled "Wikipedia page the latest status symbol", reported the recent phenomenon of how having a Wikipedia article vindicates one's notability. Active participation also has an impact. Law students have been assigned to write Wikipedia articles as an exercise in clear and succinct writing for an uninitiated audience. A working group led by Peter Stone (professor), Peter Stone (formed as a part of the Stanford-based project One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence) in its report called Wikipedia "the best-known example of crowdsourcing... that far exceeds traditionally-compiled information sources, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, in scale and depth." In a 2017 opinion piece for ''Wired (magazine), Wired'', Hossein Derakhshan describes Wikipedia as "one of the last remaining pillars of the openness, open and decentralization#Centralization and redecentralization of the Internet, decentralized web" and contrasted its existence as a text-based source of knowledge with social media and social networking services, the latter having "since colonized the web for television's values". For Derakhshan, Wikipedia's goal as an encyclopedia represents the Age of Enlightenment tradition of rationality triumphing over emotions, a trend which he considers "endangered" due to the "gradual shift from a typography, typographic culture to a photographic one, which in turn mean[s] a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment". Rather than "" (), social networks have led to a culture of "[d]are not to care to know". This is while Wikipedia faces "a more concerning problem" than funding, namely "a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website". Consequently, the challenge for Wikipedia and those who use it is to "save Wikipedia and its promise of a free and open collection of all human knowledge amid the conquest of new and old television—how to collect and preserve knowledge when nobody cares to know."
AwardsWikipedia won two major awards in May 2004.m:Trophy box, "Trophy box", (March 28, 2005). The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities of the annual Prix Ars Electronica contest; this came with a €10,000 (£6,588; $12,700) grant and an invitation to present at the PAE Cyberarts Festival in Austria later that year. The second was a Judges' Webby Award for the "community" category. Wikipedia was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby award. In 2007, readers of brandchannel.com voted Wikipedia as the fourth-highest brand ranking, receiving 15 percent of the votes in answer to the question "Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?" In September 2008, Wikipedia received Quadriga (award), Quadriga ''A Mission of Enlightenment'' award of Werkstatt Deutschland along with Boris Tadić, Eckart Höfling, and Peter Gabriel. The award was presented to Wales by David Weinberger. In 2015, Wikipedia was awarded both the annual Erasmus Prize, which recognizes exceptional contributions to culture, society or social sciences, and the Spain, Spanish Princess of Asturias Award on International Cooperation. Speaking at the Asturian Parliament in Oviedo, the city that hosts the awards ceremony, praised the work of the Asturian language Wikipedia users. The night of the ceremony, members of the Wikimedia Foundation held a meeting with Wikipedians from all parts of Spain, including the local Asturian Wikipedia, Asturian community.
SatireMany parodies target Wikipedia's openness and susceptibility to inserted inaccuracies, with characters vandalizing or modifying the online encyclopedia project's articles. Comedian Stephen Colbert has parodied or referenced Wikipedia on numerous episodes of his show ''The Colbert Report'' and coined the related term ''wikiality'', meaning "together we can create a reality that we all agree on—the reality we just agreed on". Another example can be found in "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence", a July 2006 front-page article in ''The Onion'', as well as the 2010 ''The Onion'' article "'L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874 Times Today". In an episode of the television comedy The Office (American TV series), ''The Office'' U.S., which aired in April 2007, an incompetent office manager (Michael Scott (The Office), Michael Scott) is shown relying on a hypothetical Wikipedia article for information on negotiation tactics to assist him in negotiating lesser pay for an employee. Viewers of the show tried to add the episode's mention of the page as a section of the actual Wikipedia article on negotiation, but this effort was prevented by other users on the article's talk page. "My Number One Doctor", a 2007 episode of the television show ''Scrubs (TV series), Scrubs'', played on the perception that Wikipedia is an unreliable reference tool with a scene in which Perry Cox reacts to a patient who says that a Wikipedia article indicates that the raw food diet reverses the effects of bone cancer by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article also wrote the list of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) episodes, ''Battlestar Galactica'' episode guide.Bakken, Janae. "My Number One Doctor"; ''Scrubs (TV series), Scrubs''; American Broadcasting Company, ABC; December 6, 2007. In 2008, the comedic website ''CollegeHumor'' produced a video sketch named "Professor Wikipedia", in which the fictitious Professor Wikipedia instructs a class with a medley of unverifiable and occasionally absurd statements. The ''Dilbert'' comic strip from May 8, 2009, features a character supporting an improbable claim by saying "Give me ten minutes and then check Wikipedia." In July 2009, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a comedy series called ''Bigipedia'', which was set on a website which was a parody of Wikipedia. Some of the sketches were directly inspired by Wikipedia and its articles. On August 23, 2013, the ''The New Yorker, New Yorker'' website published a cartoon with this caption: "Dammit, Chelsea Manning, Manning, have you considered the pronoun war that this is going to start on your Wikipedia page?" The cartoon referred to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning), an American activist, politician, and former United States Army soldier and a trans woman. In December 2015, John Julius Norwich stated, in a letter published in ''The Times'' newspaper, that as a historian he resorted to Wikipedia "at least a dozen times a day", and had never yet caught it out. He described it as "a work of reference as useful as any in existence", with so wide a range that it is almost impossible to find a person, place, or thing that it has left uncovered and that he could never have written his last two books without it.
Sister projectsWikimediaWikipedia has also spawned several sister projects, which are also wikis run by the . These other Wikimedia projects include Wiktionary, a dictionary project launched in December 2002, Wikiquote, a collection of quotations created a week after Wikimedia launched, Wikibooks, a collection of collaboratively written free textbooks and annotated texts, Wikimedia Commons, a site devoted to free-knowledge multimedia, Wikinews, for citizen journalism, and Wikiversity, a project for the creation of free learning materials and the provision of online learning activities. Another sister project of Wikipedia, Wikispecies, is a catalogue of species. In 2012 Wikivoyage, an editable travel guide, and Wikidata, an editable knowledge base, launched.
PublishingThe most obvious economic effect of Wikipedia has been the death of commercial encyclopedias, especially the printed versions, e.g. ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', which were unable to compete with a product that is essentially free. Nicholas G. Carr, Nicholas Carr wrote a 2005 essay, "The amorality of Web 2.0", that criticized websites with user-generated content, like Wikipedia, for possibly leading to professional (and, in his view, superior) content producers' going out of business, because "free trumps quality all the time". Carr wrote: "Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening." Others dispute the notion that Wikipedia, or similar efforts, will entirely displace traditional publications. For instance, Chris Anderson (writer), Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of ''Wired (magazine), Wired Magazine'', wrote in ''Nature (journal), Nature'' that the "wisdom of the crowd, wisdom of crowds" approach of Wikipedia will not displace top scientific journals, with their rigorous peer review process. There is also an ongoing debate about the influence of Wikipedia on the biography publishing business. "The worry is that, if you can get all that information from Wikipedia, what's left for biography?" said Kathryn Hughes, professor of life writing at the University of East Anglia and author of ''The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton'' and ''George Eliot: the Last Victorian''.
Research useWikipedia has been widely used as a text corpus, corpus for linguistic research in computational linguistics, information retrieval and natural language processing. In particular, it commonly serves as a target knowledge base for the entity linking problem, which is then called "wikification",Rada Mihalcea and Andras Csomai (2007)
Related projectsSeveral interactive multimedia encyclopedias incorporating entries written by the public existed long before Wikipedia was founded. The first of these was the 1986 BBC Domesday Project, which included text (entered on BBC Micro computers) and photographs from more than a million contributors in the UK, and covered the geography, art, and culture of the UK. This was the first interactive multimedia encyclopedia (and was also the first major multimedia document connected through internal links), with the majority of articles being accessible through an interactive map of the UK. The user interface and part of the content of the Domesday Project were emulated on a website until 2008. Several free-content, collaborative encyclopedias were created around the same period as Wikipedia (e.g. Everything2), with many later being merged into the project (e.g. GNE (encyclopedia), GNE).The Free Encyclopedia Project
See also*Democratization of knowledge *Interpedia, an early proposal for a collaborative encyclopedia *List of online encyclopedias *List of Wikipedia controversies *Network effect *Outline of Wikipediaguide to the subject of ''Wikipedia'' presented as a tree structured list of its subtopics; for an outline of the contents of Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines *QRpediamultilingual, mobile interface to Wikipedia *Wikipedia Review *Recursion
Academic studies* * * *
Books* (Substantial criticisms of Wikipedia and other web 2.0 projects.) **Listen to: *** The NPR interview with A. Keen, Weekend Edition Saturday, June 16, 2007. * * (See book review by Baker, as listed hereafter.) * * * * * * * *
Book review-related articles*Nicholson Baker, Baker, Nicholson
Learning resources*v:wikipedia#Learning resources, Wikiversity list of learning resources. (Includes related courses, Web conferencing, Web-based seminars, slides, lecture notes, textbooks, quizzes, glossaries, etc.)
Other media coverage
General articles* * * * * * * * * *
Articles re Wikipedia usage patterns
External links* – multilingual portal (contains links to all language editions) (wikipedia.com still redirects here) * *