(/ˌwɪkɪˈpiːdiə/ (_ listen ) WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə_ or /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ (_ listen ) WIK-ee-PEE-dee-ə_ ) is a free online encyclopedia with the aim to allow anyone to edit articles. is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet and is ranked among the ten most popular websites. is owned by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation .
was launched on January 15, 2001, by
As of March 2017, has about forty thousand high-quality
articles known as Featured Articles and Good Articles that cover vital
topics. In 2005, _Nature _ published a peer review comparing 42
science articles from _
has been criticized for allegedly exhibiting systemic bias , presenting a mixture of "truths, half truths, and some falsehoods", and, in controversial topics, being subject to manipulation and spin .
* 1 History
* 1.1 Nupedia * 1.2 Launch and early growth * 1.3 Milestones
* 2 Openness
* 2.1 Restrictions * 2.2 Review of changes * 2.3 Vandalism
* 3 Policies and laws
* 3.1 Content policies and guidelines
* 4 Governance
* 4.1 Administrators
* 4.2 Dispute resolution
* 4.2.1 Arbitration Committee
* 5 Community
* 5.1 Diversity
* 6 Language editions
* 7 Critical reception
* 7.1 Accuracy of content
* 7.1.1 Medical information
* 7.2 Quality of writing
* 7.3 Coverage of topics and systemic bias
* 7.3.1 Coverage of topics and selection bias * 7.3.2 Systemic bias * 7.3.3 Identifying the filter-bubble problem
* 8 Operation
* 8.1 Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia movement affiliates * 8.2 Software operations and support * 8.3 Automated editing * 8.4 Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles\' importance and quality * 8.5 Hardware operations and support * 8.6 Internal research and operational development * 8.7 Internal news publications
* 9 Access to content
* 9.1 Content licensing
* 9.2 Methods of access
* 9.2.1 Mobile access
* 10 Cultural impact
* 10.1 Readership
* 10.2 Cultural significance
* 10.2.1 Awards * 10.2.2 Satire
* 10.3 Sister projects – Wikimedia * 10.4 Publishing * 10.5 Scientific use
* 11 Related projects * 12 Controversy * 13 See also
* 14 References
* 14.1 Notes
* 15 Further reading
* 15.1 Academic studies * 15.2 Books
* 15.3 Book reviews and other articles
* 15.3.1 Learning resources * 15.3.2 Other media coverage
* 16 External links
Main article: History of
originally developed from another encyclopedia project called Nupedia
Other collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before Wikipedia, but none were successful.
began as a complementary project for
Nupedia , a free
online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were
written by experts and reviewed under a formal process.
founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of
External audio The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1, Ideas with Paul Kennedy , CBC , January 15, 2014
LAUNCH AND EARLY GROWTH
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. 's policy of "neutral
point-of-view" was codified in its first months. Otherwise, there
were relatively few rules initially and operated
independently of Nupedia. Originally,
gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. By August 8, 2001, had over 8,000 articles. On September 25, 2001, had over 13,000 articles. By the end of 2001, it had grown to approximately 20,000 articles and 18 language editions. It had reached 26 language editions by late 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the final days of 2004. Nupedia and coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. The English passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing even the 1408 _ Yongle Encyclopedia _, which had held the record for almost 600 years.
Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in Wikipedia, users of the Spanish forked from to create the _Enciclopedia Libre _ in February 2002. These moves encouraged Wales to announce that would not display advertisements, and to change's domain from _wikipedia.com_ to _wikipedia.org_.
Though the English reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of 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 Palo Alto Research Center 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 "low-hanging fruit"—topics that clearly merit an article—have already been created and built up extensively.
In November 2009, a researcher at the
Rey Juan Carlos University in
In January 2007, entered for the first time the top-ten list of the most popular websites in the U.S., according to comScore Networks. With 42.9 million unique visitors, was ranked number 9, surpassing _ The New York Times _ (#10) and Apple (#11). This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when the rank was number 33, with receiving around 18.3 million unique visitors. As of March 2015 , has rank 5 among websites in terms of popularity according to Alexa Internet . In 2014, it received 8 billion pageviews every month. On February 9, 2014, _The New York Times_ reported that has 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month, "according to the ratings firm comScore."
On January 18, 2012, the English participated in a series of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the United States Congress—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)—by blacking out its pages for 24 hours . More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced content.
Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that accumulated improvements piecemeal through "stigmergic accumulation".
On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for _The Economic Times_
indicated that not only had's growth flattened but that it
has "lost nearly 10 per cent of its page-views last year. That's a
decline of about 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013.
Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the
English declined by 12 per cent, those of German version
slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per cent." Varma
added that, "While's managers think that this could be due
to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's Knowledge
Graphs project launched last year may be gobbling up users."
When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate professor at
New York University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for
By the end of December 2016, was ranked fifth in the most popular websites globally. Number of English articles editors with >100 edits per month
Differences between versions of an article are highlighted as shown
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, follows the procrastination principle regarding the security of its content. It started almost entirely open—anyone could create articles, and any article could be edited by any reader, even those who did not have a 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.
Due to the increasing popularity of, popular editions, including the English version, have introduced editing restrictions in some cases. For instance, on the English and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article. On the English, among others, some particularly controversial, sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to some degree. 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 administrators are able to make changes.
In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors, depending on certain conditions. For example, the German maintains "stable versions" of articles, which have passed certain reviews. Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English 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. The editing interface of
REVIEW OF CHANGES
Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers provides certain tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. The "History" page of each article links to each revision. 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 PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in a wiki 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".
Main article: Vandalism on
Any change or edit that manipulates content in a way that purposefully compromises the integrity of 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. American journalist John Seigenthaler (1927–2014), subject of the Seigenthaler incident
Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from articles; the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes. However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair.
Seigenthaler biography incident , an anonymous editor
introduced false information into the biography of American political
John Seigenthaler in May 2005. Seigenthaler was falsely
presented as a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The
article remained uncorrected for four months. Seigenthaler, the
founding editorial director of _
USA Today _ and founder of the Freedom
First Amendment Center at
Vanderbilt University , called
POLICIES AND LAWS
External video _
Content in is subject to the laws (in particular, copyright
laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of
CONTENT POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
According to the rules on the English, each entry in must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-like. A topic should also meet Wikipedia\'s standards of "notability" , 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, 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 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. This can at times lead to the removal of information that is valid. Finally, 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 neutral point of view (NPOV).
Wikipedia's initial anarchy integrated democratic and hierarchical elements over time. An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor and is not vetted by any recognized authority. 's contributors avoid a tragedy of the commons by internalizing benefits. They do this by experiencing flow and identifying with and gaining status in the community.
Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with "administrator ", privileged users who can delete pages, prevent articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and try to prevent certain persons 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 administrators has become more rigorous.
_Bureaucrats_ name new administrators, solely upon the recommendations from the community.
Wikipedians often have disputes regarding content, which may result in repeatedly making opposite changes to an article, known as edit warring Over time, has developed a semi-formal dispute resolution process to assist in such circumstances. In order to determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at appropriate community forums, or seek outside input through third opinion requests or by initiating a more general community discussion known as a request for comment .
Main article: Arbitration Committee
The 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 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 (16%). Complete bans from 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.
Main article: community Play media Video of
Each article and each user of has an associated "Talk"
page. These form the primary communication channel for editors to
discuss, coordinate and debate. Play media ns and
Wikipedia's community has been described as cult -like, 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.
does not require that its editors and contributors provide
identification. As grew, "Who writes?" became one
of the questions frequently asked on the project.
The English has 5,457,154 articles, 31,525,453 registered editors, and 119,086 active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made one or more edits in the past thirty days.
Editors who fail to comply with cultural rituals, such as signing talk page comments , may implicitly signal that they are outsiders, increasing the odds that insiders may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a 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, 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.
A 2007 study by researchers from
Dartmouth College found that
"anonymous and infrequent contributors to are as reliable a
source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site".
A 2008 study found thatns were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others, although a later commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness, that the differences with the control group were small as were the samples. According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the community to new content".
editor demographics (2008)
One study found that the contributor base to "was barely
13% women; the average age of a contributor was in the mid-20s". A
2011 study by researchers from the
University of Minnesota found that
females comprised 16.1% of the 38,497 editors who started editing
during 2009. In a January 2011 _
New York Times
In response, various universities have hosted edit-a-thons to encourage more women to participate in the community. In fall 2013, 15 colleges and universities — including Yale, Brown, and Pennsylvania State — offered college credit for students to "write feminist thinking" about technology into. Estimates of the diversity of contributors by educational level have indicated that sixty-two percent of's editors are at the high school and undergraduate college level of education.
In August 2014, co-founder
Main article: List ofs
There are currently 295 language editions of (also called _language versions_, or simply _Wikipedias_). Thirteen of these have over one million articles each (English , Cebuano , Swedish , German , Dutch , French , Russian , Italian , Spanish , Waray-Waray , Polish , Vietnamese and Japanese ), six more have over 500,000 articles (Portuguese , Chinese , Ukrainian , Persian , Catalan and Arabic ), 40 more have over 100,000 articles, and 77 more have over 10,000 articles. The largest, the English, has over 5.4 million articles. As of January 2017 , according to Alexa, the English subdomain (en.wikipedia.org; English) receives approximately 55% of's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages (Russian: 9%; Japanese: 7%; Spanish: 6%; French: 4%). As of August 2017, the six largest language editions are (in order of article count) the English , Cebuano , Swedish , German , Dutch , and Frenchs.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE 45,723,537 ARTICLES IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGE EDITIONS (AS OF 10 AUGUST 2017) English (11.9%) Cebuano (10.8%) Swedish (8.3%) German (4.6%) Dutch (4.2%) French (4.1%) Russian (3.1%) Italian (3%) Spanish (2.9%) Waray (2.8%) Polish (2.7%) Vietnamese (2.5%) Japanese (2.3%) Portuguese (2.1%) Other (34.7%)
LOGARITHMIC GRAPH OF THE 20 LARGEST LANGUAGE EDITIONS OF (as of 10 August 2017) (millions of articles) 0.1 0.3 1 3
THE UNIT FOR THE NUMBERS IN BARS IS ARTICLES. A graph for pageviews of Turkish shows a great drop of roughly 80 % immediately after the 2017 block of in Turkey was imposed.
Since is based on the 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 edition ). These differences may lead to some conflicts over 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 licensed freely may be used under a claim of fair use .
Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions, in part because fully automated translation of articles is disallowed. 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 from different
regions of the world. It reported that the proportion of the edits
On March 1, 2014, _ The Economist _ in an article titled "The Future of" cited a trend analysis concerning data published by Wikimedia stating that: "The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years." The attrition rate for active editors in English was cited by _The Economist_ as substantially in contrast to statistics for in other languages (non-English). _The Economist_ reported that the number of contributors with an average of five of more edits per month was relatively constant since 2008 for in other languages at approximately 42,000 editors within narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. The attrition rates for editors in English, by sharp comparison, were cited as peaking in 2007 at approximately 50,000 editors, which has dropped to 30,000 editors as of the start of 2014. At the quoted trend rate, the number of active editors in English has lost approximately 20,000 editors to attrition since 2007, and the documented trend rate indicates the loss of another 20,000 editors by 2021, down to 10,000 active editors on English by 2021 if left unabated. Given that the trend analysis published in _The Economist_ presents the number of active editors for in other languages (non-English) as remaining relatively constant and successful in sustaining its numbers at approximately 42,000 active editors, the contrast has pointed to the effectiveness of in other languages to retain its active editors on a renewable and sustained basis. No comment was made concerning which of the differentiated edit policy standards from in other languages (non-English) would provide a possible alternative to English for effectively ameliorating substantial editor attrition rates on the English-language.
See also: Academic studies about and Criticism of
Severalns have criticized\'s large and growing regulation , which includes over 50 policies and nearly 150,000 words as of 2014 .
Critics have stated that exhibits systemic bias . Columnist
Oliver Kamm and
In 2006, the _Watch_ criticism website listed dozens of examples of plagiarism in the English.
ACCURACY OF CONTENT
Main article: Reliability of
Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as _Encyclopædia Britannica _ are carefully and deliberately written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy. Conversely, is often cited for factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both and _Encyclopædia Britannica_ by the science journal _Nature_ found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in contained around four inaccuracies; _Britannica_, about three." Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of contributors" in science articles, "may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects." The findings by _Nature_ were disputed by _Encyclopædia Britannica_, and in response, _Nature_ gave a rebuttal of the points raised by _Britannica_. In addition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others have examined the sample size and selection method used in the _Nature_ effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in _Nature_'s manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported confidence intervals ), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small sample size, 42 or 4 x 101 articles compared, vs >105 and >106 set sizes for _Britannica_ and the English, respectively).
As a consequence of the open structure, "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it. Concerns have been raised by _PC World_ in 2009 regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity, the insertion of false information, vandalism , and similar problems.
Tyler Cowen wrote: "If I had to guess whether or
the median refereed journal article on economics was more likely to be
true, after a not so long think I would opt for." He
comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from
systemic biases and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported
in journal articles and relevant information is omitted from news
reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found on
Critics argue that's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable. Some commentators suggest that may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear. Editors of traditional reference works such as the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.
Inside – Attack of the PR Industry,
Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for
Most university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work , preferring primary sources ; some specifically prohibit citations. Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citeable 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; he told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia", he said.
In February 2007, an article in _
The Harvard Crimson _ newspaper
reported that a few of the professors at
A Harvard law textbook, _Legal Research in a Nutshell_ (2011), cites as a "general source" that "can be a real boon" in "coming up to speed in the law governing a situation" and, "while not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more in-depth resources".
See also: Health information on
On 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." Beck continued to detail in this article new programs of Dr. Amin Azzam at the University of San Francisco to offer medical school courses to medical students for learning to edit and improve articles on health-related issues , as well as internal quality control programs within organized by Dr. James Heilman to improve a group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance up to'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 Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?", Julie Beck quotes Wikiproject Medicine's Dr. James Heilman as stating: "Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality reference." Beck added that: "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 1 percent' of's medical articles have passed.
QUALITY OF WRITING
In 2008, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that the quality of a 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 in terms of its "clear and engaging prose", which, he said, was an important aspect of good historical writing. Contrasting's treatment of Abraham Lincoln to that of Civil War historian 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— means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in history". By example, he quoted the conclusion of Wikipedia's article on William Clarke Quantrill . While generally praising the article, he pointed out its "waffling" conclusion: "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
articles are factually accurate, they are often written in a poor,
almost unreadable style. Frequent critic Andrew Orlowski
commented: "Even when a entry is 100 per cent 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 articles on cancer was conducted in 2010 by Yaacov
Lawrence of the Kimmel
COVERAGE OF TOPICS AND SYSTEMIC BIAS
See also: Notability in the English and Criticism of § Systemic bias in coverage
_ Parts of this article (those related to d:Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia) need to be UPDATED. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2017)_
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 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 is
under constant review by its editors, and disagreements are not
uncommon (see deletionism and inclusionism ). contains
materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or
pornographic because is not censored . The policy has
sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, rejected an online
petition against the inclusion of images of
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 quantity 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 "Loves Libraries " program, 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 Bias
Research conducted by Mark Graham of the Oxford Internet Institute in 2009 indicated that the geographic distribution of article topics is highly uneven. Africa is most underrepresented. Across 30 language editions of, historical articles and sections are generally eurocentric and focused on recent events.
An editorial in _
When 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 noted that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, which predominantly consists of young males with high education levels in the developed world (cf. previously). The October 22, 2013 essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's _Technology Review_ titled "The Decline of" discussed the effect of systemic bias and policy creep on the downward trend in the number of editors .
Systemic bias on 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 being young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases of its own may include over-emphasis 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 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 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. The English's three
largest conflict rates belonged to the articles _
George W. Bush _,
Anarchism _ and _
Researchers from the Washington University developed a statistical model to measure systematic bias in the behavior of'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.
Identifying The Filter-bubble Problem
Dimitra Kessenides, writing for Bloomberg News Weekly, identified the 'filter-bubble ' problem as a recurrent and long-standing issue at Wikipedia. As Kessenides states: "If the only way to get an article about the developing world published on was to know a former board member, it was hard to imagine how a random editor in Johannesburg or Bangalore would have any hope... This so-called filter-bubble problem, coined by Eli Pariser , co-founder of the viral video site Upworthy , is the idea that the internet can contribute to the insularity of certain communities. Filter bubbles have been blamed for the spread of misinformation during the 2016 presidential election and for the failure of pundits in the U.K. to anticipate Brexit... Wikipedia's filter-bubble problem is a particularly acute threat for an organization whose stated mission is 'to empower and engage people around the world.'"
“ Problem? What problem? So, you didn't know that has a porn problem? ”
has been criticized for allowing information of graphic
content. Articles depicting arguably objectionable content (such as
The site also includes sexual content such as images and videos of masturbation and ejaculation , photographs of nude children , illustrations of zoophilia , and photos from hardcore pornographic films in its articles.
The article about _
Virgin Killer —_a 1976 album from
German heavy metal band Scorpions —features a picture of the album's
original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl. The original
release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries.
In December 2008, access to the article _Virgin Killer_ was
blocked for four days by most
In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on
One privacy concern in the case of is the right of a private citizen to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure " in the eyes of the law. It is a battle between the right to be anonymous in cyberspace and the right to be anonymous in real life ("meatspace "). A particular problem occurs in the case of an individual who is relatively unimportant and for whom there exists a page against her or his wishes.
In January 2006, a German court ordered the German shut
has a "Volunteer Response Team" that uses the OTRS system to handle queries without having to reveal the identities of the involved parties. This is used, for example, in confirming the permission for using individual images and other media in the project.
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 editors. In 2014, a female editor who requested a separate space on 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."
A group of editors may form a WikiProject to focus their work on a specific topic area, using its associated discussion page to coordinate changes across multiple articles.
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND WIKIMEDIA MOVEMENT AFFILIATES
is hosted and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation , a non-profit organization which also operates-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 an opportunity to develop in more concentrated directions guided by her often repeated position statement that, "Information, like air, wants to be free." 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 (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, 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 due to issues
concerning the use of the "superprotection" feature which some
language versions of have adopted,
is also supported by many organizations and groups that are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation but independently-run, called Wikimedia movement affiliates . These include 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.
SOFTWARE OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
See also: Media
The operation of depends on Media
In April 2005, a Lucene extension was added to MediaWiki's built-in search and switched from MySQL to Lucene for searching. The site currently uses Lucene Search 2.1, which is written in Java and based on Lucene library 2.3.
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.
Computer programs called bots have been used widely 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 massively creating articles with his bot was reported to create up to ten thousand articles on the Swedish on certain days. There are also some bots designed to automatically notify editors when they make common editing errors (such as unmatched quotes or unmatched parenthesis). Edits misidentified by a bot as the work of a banned editor can be restored by other editors. An anti-vandal bot tries to detect and revert vandalism quickly and automatically. Bots can also report edits from particular accounts or IP address ranges, as was done at the time of the MH17 jet downing incident in July 2014. Bots on must be approved prior to activation.
According to Andrew Lih , the current expansion of to millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the use of such bots.
WIKIPROJECTS, AND ASSESSMENTS OF ARTICLES\' IMPORTANCE AND QUALITY
This section is transcluded from English . (edit history ) Main article: WikiProject
A " WikiProject " is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve. These groups often focus on a specific topic area (for example, women\'s history ), a specific location or a specific kind of task (for example, checking newly created pages). The English currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects and activity varies.
In 2007, in preparation for producing a print version, the English introduced an assessment scale of the quality of articles. Articles are rated by WikiProjects. The range of quality classes begins with "Stub" (very short pages), followed by "Start", "C" and "B" (in increasing order of quality). Community peer review is needed for the article to enter one of the highest quality classes: either "good article ", "A" or the highest, "featured article ". Of the about 4.4 million articles and lists assessed as of March 2015, a little more than 5,000 (0.12%) are featured articles, and fewer than 2,000 (0.04%) are featured lists. One featured article per day, as selected by editors, appears on the main page of.
The articles can also be rated as per "importance" as judged by a WikiProject. Currently, there are 5 importance categories: "low", "mid", "high", "top", and "???" for unclassified/uncertain level. For a particular article, different WikiProjects may assign different importance levels.
The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has developed a table (shown below) that displays data of all rated articles by quality and importance, on the English. _If an article or list receives different ratings by two or more WikiProjects, then the highest rating is used in the table, pie-charts, and bar-chart_. The software regularly auto-updates the data.
Researcher Giacomo Poderi found that articles tend to reach featured status via the intensive work of a few editors. A 2010 study found unevenness in quality among featured articles and concluded that the community process is ineffective in assessing the quality of articles.
QUALITY-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF OVER 5.5 MILLION ARTICLES AND LISTS ON THE ENGLISH, AS OF 29 JANUARY 2017 Featured articles (0.11%) Featured lists (0.04%) A class (0.03%) Good articles (0.50%) B class (2.00%) C class (4.32%) Start class (26.41%) Stub class (53.01%) Lists (3.65%) Unassessed (9.94%)
IMPORTANCE-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF OVER 5.5 MILLION ARTICLES AND LISTS ON THE ENGLISH, AS OF 29 JANUARY 2017 Top (0.91%) High (3.20%) Medium (12.21%) Low (51.68%) ??? (32.00%)
ALL RATED ARTICLES BY QUALITY AND IMPORTANCE
TOP HIGH MID LOW ??? TOTAL
FA 1,212 1,860 1,758 1,122 190 6,142
FL 143 579 681 594 121 2,118
A 226 436 586 376 80 1,704
GA 2,152 4,924 9,580 10,532 1,738 28,926
B 12,276 23,282 35,692 29,128 13,991 114,369
C 10,596 30,946 69,289 97,108 44,301 252,240
START 17,422 77,586 312,447 822,821 298,998 1,529,274
STUB 4,251 31,030 230,343 1,918,503 844,053 3,028,180
LIST 3,102 11,581 35,427 97,170 61,678 208,958
ASSESSED 51,380 182,224 695,803 2,977,354 1,265,150 5,171,911
UNASSESSED 116 435 1,839 16,579 550,919 569,888
TOTAL 51,496 182,659 697,642 2,993,933 1,816,069 5,741,799
500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 Top High Medium Low ???
* Featured articles * Featured lists * A-class articles * Good articles * B-class articles * C-class articles * Start-class articles * Stub articles * Lists * Unassessed articles and lists
HARDWARE OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
_ This section needs to be UPDATED. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (June 2017)_
See also: Wikimedia Foundation § Hardware
receives between 25,000 and 60,000 page requests per
second, depending on time of day. As of 2008 page requests are first
passed to a front-end layer of Squid caching servers. Further
statistics, based on a publicly available 3-month access
trace, are available. Requests that cannot be served from the Squid
cache are sent to load-balancing servers running the
currently runs on dedicated clusters of
INTERNAL RESEARCH AND OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with 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. Two of the recent projects of such internal research and development have been the creation of a Visual Editor and a largely under-utilized "Thank" tab which were developed for the purpose of ameliorating issues of editor attrition, which have met with limited success. The estimates for reinvestment by industrial organizations into internal research and development was studied by Adam Jaffe, who recorded that the range of 4% to 25% annually was to be recommended, with high end technology requiring the higher level of support for internal reinvestment. At the 2013 level of contributions for Wikimedia presently documented as 45 million dollars, the computed budget level recommended by Jaffe and Caballero for reinvestment into internal research and development is between 1.8 million and 11.3 million dollars annually. In 2016, the level of contributions were reported by Blomberg News as being at $77 million annually, updating the Jaffe estimates for the higher level of support to between 3.08 million and 19.2 million dollars annually.
INTERNAL NEWS PUBLICATIONS
Community-produced news publications include the English\'s
_The Signpost_ , founded in 2005 by Michael Snow, an attorney,
administrator and former chair of the Wikimedia Foundation
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 include the
"Wikiworld" web comic, the _Weekly_ podcast, and newsletters
of specific WikiProjects like _The Bugle_ from
History and the monthly newsletter from The Guild of Copy Editors .
There are also a number of publications from the Wikimedia Foundation
and multilingual publications such as the Wikimedia
ACCESS TO CONTENT
When the project was started in 2001, all text in was covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (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 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 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 to relicense its content to CC BY-SA by August 1, 2009. (A new version of the GFDL automatically covers contents.) In April 2009, 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,
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 Japanese copyright law ). Media files
covered by free content licenses (e.g.
The Wikimedia Foundation is not a licensor of content, but merely a hosting service for the contributors (and licensors) of the. This position has been successfully defended in court.
METHODS OF ACCESS
Because content is distributed under an open license, anyone can reuse or re-distribute it at no charge. The content of has been published in many forms, both online and offline, outside of the website.
* WEBSITES – Thousands of "mirror sites " exist that republish
content from: two prominent ones, that also include content
from other reference sources, are
Another example is
Wapedia , which began to display content
in a mobile-device-friendly format before itself did.
* MOBILE APPS – A variety of mobile apps provide access to
on hand-held devices , including both Android and iOS
devices (see apps ). (See also Mobile access .)
* SEARCH ENGINES – Some web search engines make special use of
content when displaying search results: examples include
Bing (via technology gained from Powerset ) and
Obtaining the full contents of for reuse presents challenges, since direct cloning via a web crawler is discouraged. publishes "dumps" of its contents, but these are text-only; as of 2007 there was no dump available of's images.
Several languages of also maintain a reference desk , where volunteers answer questions from the general public. According to a study by Pnina Shachaf in the Journal of Documentation , the quality of the reference desk is comparable to a standard library reference desk , with an accuracy of 55%.
See also: Help:Mobile access The mobile version of the English Wikipedia's main page
Wikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit content
using any standard web browser through a fixed
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
Access to from mobile phones was possible as early as 2004,
Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), via the Wapedia
service. In June 2007 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 -based
WebOS -based devices. Several other methods of mobile
access to have emerged. Many devices and applications
optimize or enhance the display of content for mobile
devices, while some also incorporate additional features such as use
of metadata (See:
Zero is an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to expand the reach of the encyclopedia to the developing countries.
Andrew Lih and Andrew Brown both maintain editing with
smart phones is difficult and this discourages new potential
contributors. Several years running the number of editors
has been falling and Tom Simonite of _MIT
is extremely popular. In February 2014, _The New York Times_ reported that is ranked fifth globally among all websites, stating "With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors."
In addition to logistic growth in the number of its articles,
has steadily gained status as a general reference website
since its inception in 2001. About 50% of search engine traffic to
comes from Google, a good portion of which is related to
academic research. The number of readers of worldwide
reached 365 million at the end of 2009. The Pew
According to "Readership Survey 2011", the average age of readers is 36, with a rough parity between genders. Almost half of readers visit the site more than five times a month, and a similar number of readers specifically look for in search engine results. About 47% of readers do not realize that is a non-profit organization.
Main article: in culture _ Monument _ in Słubice , Poland
Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases. The Parliament of Canada 's website refers to'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 has also been cited as a source and referenced in some 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 RNA family for publication in.
has also been used as a source in journalism, often without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for plagiarizing from.
In 2006, _Time_ magazine recognized's participation (along
On September 28, 2007, 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, "the seventh most consulted
website", to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art,
and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues. _Play
media , an introduction –
Erasmus Prize 2015
On September 16, 2007, _ The Washington Post _ reported that had become a focal point in the 2008 US election campaign , saying: "Type a candidate's name into Google, and among the first results is a 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 "page the latest status symbol", reported the recent phenomenon of how having a article vindicates one's notability.
Active participation also has an impact. Law students have been assigned to write articles as an exercise in clear and succinct writing for an uninitiated audience.
A working group led by Peter Stone (formed as a part of the Stanford -based project _ One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence _) in its report called "the best-known example of crowdsourcing... that far exceeds traditionally-compiled information sources, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, in scale and depth."
team visiting to Parliament of Asturias Wikipedians meeting after the Asturias awards ceremony
won two major awards in May 2004. 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
In 2007, readers of brandchannel.com voted as the fourth-highest brand ranking, receiving 15% of the votes in answer to the question "Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?"
In September 2008, received 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, was awarded both the annual
Erasmus Prize , which
recognizes exceptional contributions to culture, society or social
sciences, and the Spanish
Princess of Asturias Award on International
Cooperation. Speaking at the Asturian Parliament in Oviedo, the city
that hosts the awards ceremony,
See also: Category:Parodies of .
Many parodies target'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 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 "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' Page Viewed 874 Times Today".
In an episode of the television comedy _The Office_ U.S. , which aired in April 2007, an incompetent office manager (Michael Scott ) is shown relying on a hypothetical article for information on negotiation tactics in order to assist him in negotiating lesser pay for an employee. The tactics he used failed, as a joke about the unreliability of and what anyone can do to change its contents. Viewers of the show tried to add the episode's mention of the page as a section of the actual 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 _, played on the perception that is an unreliable reference tool with a scene in which Dr. Perry Cox reacts to a patient who says that a 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 _Battlestar Galactica_ episode guide .
In 2008, the comedic website _ CollegeHumor _ produced a video sketch named "Professor", in which the fictitious Professor 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."
In July 2009, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a comedy series called _Bigipedia _, which was set on a website which was a parody of. Some of the sketches were directly inspired by and its articles.
In 2010, comedian Daniel Tosh encouraged viewers of his show, _Tosh.0 _, to visit the show's 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.
On August 23, 2013, the _New Yorker _ website published a cartoon with this caption: "Dammit, Manning, have you considered the pronoun war that this is going to start on your page?"
In December 2015, John Julius Norwich stated, in a letter published in _ The Times _ newspaper, that as an historian he resorted to "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 PROJECTS – WIKIMEDIA
Main article: Wikimedia project
has also spawned several sister projects, which are also
wikis run by the
Wikimedia Foundation . These other Wikimedia projects
Wiktionary , a dictionary project launched in December 2002,
Wikiquote , a collection of quotations created a week after Wikimedia
Wikibooks , a collection of collaboratively written free
textbooks and annotated texts,
_ A group of Wikimedians of the Wikimedia DC chapter at the 2013 DC Wikimedia annual meeting standing in front of the Encyclopædia Britannica_ _(back left)_ at the US National Archives
The most obvious economic effect of has been the death of
commercial encyclopedias, especially the printed versions, e.g.
There is also an ongoing debate about the influence of on the biography publishing business. "The worry is that, if you can get all that information from, what's left for biography?" said Kathryn Hughes , professor of life writing at UEA and author of _The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton_ and _George Eliot: the Last Victorian_.
has seen been widely used as a 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", and to the related problem of word sense disambiguation . Methods similar to wikification can in turn be used to find "missing" links in.
In 2015, French researchers Dr José Lages of the University of
Besançon and Dima Shepelyansky of Paul Sabatier
A number of interactive multimedia encyclopedias incorporating entries written by the public existed long before was founded. The first of these was the 1986 BBC Domesday Project , which included text (entered on BBC Micro computers) and photographs from over 1 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 (e.g. Everything2 ), with many later being merged into the project (e.g. GNE ). One of the most successful early online encyclopedias incorporating entries by the public was h2g2 , which was created by Douglas Adams in 1999. The h2g2 encyclopedia is relatively light-hearted, focusing on articles which are both witty and informative.
Subsequent collaborative knowledge websites have drawn inspiration from. Some, such as Susning.nu , Enciclopedia Libre , Hudong , and Baidu Baike likewise employ no formal review process, although some like Conservapedia are not as open. Others use more traditional peer review , such as Encyclopedia of Life and the online wiki encyclopedias Scholarpedia and Citizendium . The latter was started by Sanger in an attempt to create a reliable alternative to.
Main article: List of controversies
* Outline of – guide to the subject of_
presented as a tree structured list of its subtopics; for an outline
of the contents of _Wikipedia_, see Portal:Contents/Outlines
* Conflict-of-interest editing on
Democratization of knowledge
Interpedia , an early proposal for a collaborative Internet
* List of
* ^ Sidener, Jonathan (December 6, 2004). "Everyone\'s
U-T San Diego _. Archived from the original on January
14, 2016. Retrieved October 15, 2006.
* ^ Roger Chapman (September 6, 2011). "Top 40
* ^ _A_ _B_ Jim Giles (December 2005). "
* "survives research test". BBC News. December 15, 2005.
* ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ Black, Edwin (April 19, 2010) – The
Dumbing Down of World Knowledge Archived September 9, 2016, at the
Wayback Machine .,
History News Network Retrieved October 21, 2014
* ^ _A_ _B_ J. Petrilli, Michael (SPRING 2008/Vol.8, No.2)
or Wickedpedia? Archived November 21, 2016, at the Wayback
Education Next Retrieved October 22, 2014
* ^ "The contribution conundrum: Why did succeed while
other encyclopedias failed?". _Nieman Lab_. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
* ^ Richard M. Stallman (June 20, 2007). "The Free Encyclopedia
Project". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved January 4, 2008.
* ^ Jonathan Sidener (December 6, 2004). "Everyone\'s
U-T San Diego _. Archived from the original on October
11, 2007. Retrieved October 15, 2006.
* ^ Meyers, Peter (September 20, 2001). "Fact-Driven? Collegial?
This Site Wants You". _The New York Times_. Retrieved November 22,
2007. 'I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and
then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean
up my one paragraph,' said
* ^ "Multilingual statistics". _Wikipedia_. March 30, 2005.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ "Encyclopedias and Dictionaries". _Encyclopædia Britannica_.
18 (15th ed.). 2007. pp. 257–286.
* ^ " Enciclopedia Libre: msg#00008". _Osdir_. Retrieved December
Clay Shirky (February 28, 2008). _Here Comes Everybody: The
Power of Organizing Without Organizations_. The Penguin Press via
Amazon Online Reader. p. 273. ISBN 1-59420-153-6 . Retrieved December
* ^ Bobbie Johnson (August 12, 2009). "approaches its
limits". _The Guardian_. London. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
* ^ :Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth
* ^ _The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of_
(PDF). The International Symposium on Wikis. Orlando, Florida. 2009.
Archived from the original (PDF) on May 11, 2011.
* ^ Evgeny Morozov (November–December 2009). "Edit This Page; Is
it the end of". _Boston Review_.
* ^ Cohen, Noam (March 28, 2009). "– Exploring Fact
City". _The New York Times_. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
* ^ Austin Gibbons, David Vetrano, Susan Biancani (2012).
Wikipedia: Nowhere to grow _
* ^ Jenny Kleeman (November 26, 2009). "falling victim to
a war of words". The Guardian_. London. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
* ^ "Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis". Archived from the
original (PDF) on April 3, 2012.
* ^ Volunteers Log Off as Ages, The Wall Street Journal,
November 27, 2009.
* ^ Barnett, Emma (November 26, 2009). "Wikipedia\'s Jimmy Wales
denies site is \'losing\' thousands of volunteer editors". _The Daily
Telegraph_. London. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
* ^ _A_ _B_ Kevin Rawlinson (August 8, 2011). "seeks
women to balance its \'geeky\' editors". _The Independent_. Retrieved
April 5, 2012.
* ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ _E_ Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The
Decline of". _MIT
* ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Seigenthaler, John (November 29, 2005). "A
False \'biography\'". _USA Today_. Retrieved December 26,
* ^ Friedman, Thomas L. (2007). _The World is Flat_. Farrar, Straus
& Giroux . p. 124. ISBN 978-0-374-29278-2 .
* ^ Buchanan, Brian (November 17, 2006). "Founder shares cautionary
tale of libel in cyberspace". archive.firstamendmentcenter.org.
Archived from the original on December 21, 2012. Retrieved November
* ^ Helm, Burt (December 13, 2005). "Wikipedia: "A Work in
Fernanda B. Viégas ;
Martin M. Wattenberg ; Jesse Kriss; Frank
van Ham (January 3, 2007). "
* ^ Danah Boyd (January 4, 2005). "
* ^ :Copyrights
* ^ Walter Vermeir (2007). "Resolution:License update". Wikizine.
Retrieved December 4, 2007.
* ^ Wikimedia
* ^ "Licensing update/Questions and Answers". _Wikimedia Meta_.
Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
* ^ "Licensing_update/Timeline". _Wikimedia Meta_. Wikimedia
Foundation. Retrieved April 5, 2009.
* ^ "Wikimedia community approves license migration". _Wikimedia
Foundation_. Retrieved May 21, 2009.
* ^ Cohen, Noam (July 19, 2009). "May Be a Font of Facts,
but It\'s a Desert for Photos". New York Times. Retrieved March 9,
* ^ "cleared in French defamation case". Reuters.
November 2, 2007. Retrieved November 2, 2007.
* ^ Anderson, Nate (May 2, 2008). "Dumb idea: suing for
calling you "dumb"". Ars Technica. Retrieved May 4, 2008.
* ^ "With Bing Reference". Archived from the original on March 8,
2013. Retrieved September 9, 2014.
* ^ "on DVD" Archived June 3, 2013, at the Wayback
Machine .. Linterweb. Retrieved June 1, 2007. "Linterweb is authorized
to make a commercial use of the trademark restricted to the
selling of the Encyclopedia CDs and DVDs".
* ^ "0.5 Available on a CD-ROM" Archived May 3, 2013, at
Wayback Machine .. _on DVD_. Linterweb. "The DVD or
CD-ROM version 0.5 was commercially available for purchase." Retrieved
June 1, 2007.
* ^ "Polish on DVD". Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ "Wikipedia:DVD". Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ "CDPedia (Python Argentina)". Retrieved July 7, 2011.
* ^ CD Selection . Retrieved September 8, 2009.
* ^ "turned into book". _The Daily Telegraph_. London:
Telegraph Media Group. June 16, 2009. Archived from the original on
September 9, 2009. Retrieved September 8, 2009.
* ^ "Selection for Schools". Retrieved July 14, 2012.
* ^ Thiel, Thomas (September 27, 2010). "und Amazon: Der
Marketplace soll es richten". _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ (in
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . Archived from the original
on November 26, 2010. Retrieved December 6, 2010.
* ^ policies on data download
* ^ Data dumps: Downloading Images, Wikimedia Meta-
* ^ Many (but not all) of the glyphs featured are equivalent to the
English letter W or sounds "wi", "wo" or "wa". See logo .
* ^ Registration is required for certain tasks such as editing
protected pages , creating pages in the English, and
* ^ For a user to be considered active in a given month, one or
more actions have had to be made in said month.
* ^ Wikis are a type of website. The word "wiki" itself is from the
Hawaiian word for "quick".
* ^ As of 07:32, Thursday, August 10, 2017 (
Main article: Academic studies about
* Leitch, Thomas. _U: Knowledge, authority, and a liberal education in the digital age_ (2014) * Jensen, Richard. "Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Fights the War of 1812", _The Journal of Military History_ 76#4 (October 2012): 523–556; online version. * Yasseri, Taha; Robert Sumi; János Kertész (2012). Szolnoki, Attila, ed. "Circadian Patterns of Editorial Activity: A Demographic Analysis". _PLoS ONE_. 7 (1): e30091. Bibcode :2012PLoSO...7E0091Y. PMC 3260192 _. PMID 22272279 . arXiv :1109.1746 . doi :10.1371/journal.pone.0030091 . * Goldman, Eric (2010). "Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its Consequences". Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law_. 8. SSRN 1458162 _. (A blog post by the author.) * Nielsen, Finn (August 2007). "Scientific Citations in". First Monday _. 12 (8). doi :10.5210/fm.v12i8.1997 . Retrieved February 22, 2008. * Pfeil, Ulrike; Panayiotis Zaphiris; Chee Siang Ang (2006). "Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of". _Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication_. 12 (1): 88. doi :10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00316.x . Retrieved December 26, 2008. * Priedhorsky, Reid, Jilin Chen, Shyong (Tony) K. Lam, Katherine Panciera, Loren Terveen , and John Riedl . "Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in". Proc. GROUP 2007; doi :10.1145/1316624.1316663 * Reagle, Joseph (2007). _Do as I Do: Authorial Leadership in Wikipedia_ (PDF). _WikiSym '07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis_. Montreal, Canada: ACM. Retrieved December 26, 2008. * Rosenzweig, Roy . Can History be Open Source? and the Future of the Past. (Originally published in _The Journal of American History _ 93.1 (June 2006): 117–46.) * Wilkinson, Dennis M.; Bernardo A. Huberman (April 2007). "Assessing the Value of Cooperation in". _First Monday_. 12 (4). doi :10.5210/fm.v12i4.1763 . Retrieved February 22, 2008. * Aaron Halfaker; R. Stuart Geiger; Jonathan T. Morgan; John Riedl (2012). "The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community". _American Behavioral Scientist_. 57 (5): 664. doi :10.1177/0002764212469365 . Retrieved August 30, 2012.
Main article: List of books about
* Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (September 2008).
_How Works : And How You Can Be a Part of It_. San
Francisco: No Starch Press. ISBN 978-1-59327-176-3 .
* Broughton, John (2008). _– The Missing Manual _.
O'Reilly Media. ISBN 0-596-51516-2 . (See book review by Baker, as
* Broughton, John (2008). _Reader's Guide_. Sebastopol:
Pogue Press. ISBN 0-596-52174-X .
* Dalby, Andrew (2009). _The World and : How We are
* Keen, Andrew (2007). _The
* Listen to:
* Keen, Andrew (June 16, 2007). "Does the
* Lih, Andrew (2009). _The Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World\'s Greatest Encyclopedia _. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 978-1-4013-0371-6 . * O'Sullivan, Dan (September 24, 2009). _Wikipedia: a new community of practice?_. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-7433-7 . * Sheizaf Rafaeli & Yaron Ariel (2008). "Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in." In Barak, A. _Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press . pp. 243–267. * Reagle, Joseph Michael Jr. (2010). _Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of_. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: the MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01447-2 . Retrieved October 25, 2015. * Wells, Herbert George. (2013). _World Brain_. New Delhi, India: Isha Books (reprint). ISBN 978-9-333-39061-3 .
BOOK REVIEWS AND OTHER ARTICLES
* Baker, Nicholson . "The Charms of". _The New York Review
of Books _, March 20, 2008. Retrieved December 17, 2008. (Book rev. of
_The Missing Manual_, by John Broughton, as listed previously.)
* Crovitz, L. Gordon . "Wikipedia\'s Old-Fashioned Revolution: The
online encyclopedia is fast becoming the best." (Originally published
in _Wall Street Journal_ online – April 6, 2009.)
Wikiversity list of learning resources. (Includes related courses,
Web-based seminars , slides, lecture notes, text books, quizzes,
* The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1: A
Other Media Coverage
See also: List of films about
* "See Who\'s