(/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
Jimmy Wales and Larry
Sanger . Sanger coined its name, a portmanteau of wiki and
encyclopedia. There was only the English-language version initially,
but it quickly developed similar versions in other languages, which
differ in content and in editing practices. With 5,457,154 articles ,
the English is the largest of the more than 290
encyclopedias. Overall, consists of more than 40 million
articles in more than 250 different languages and, as of February
2014 , it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique
visitors each month.
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
Encyclopædia Britannica and, and found that
Wikipedia's level of accuracy approached that of Encyclopædia
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
* 1.2 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
* 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
* 7.3.3 Identifying the filter-bubble problem
* 7.4 Explicit content
* 8 Operation
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
* 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
Jimmy Wales and Larry
originally developed from another encyclopedia project
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
Bomis , a web portal
company. Its main figures were
Jimmy Wales , the CEO of Bomis, and
Larry Sanger , editor-in-chief for
Nupedia and later.
Nupedia was licensed initially under its own
Nupedia Open Content
License, switching to the
GNU Free Documentation License before
Wikipedia's founding at the urging of
Richard Stallman . Sanger and
Wales founded. While Wales is credited with defining the
goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia, Sanger is credited
with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal. On January 10,
2001, Sanger proposed on the
Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as
a "feeder" project for Nupedia. Play media according
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,
Bomis intended to make
a business for profit.
gained early contributors from Nupedia,
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
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.com to
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
Spain ) found that the English 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.
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" in MIT's
Technology Review questioned this
claim. The article revealed that since 2007, had lost a
third of the volunteer editors who update and correct the online
encyclopedia and those still there have focused increasingly on
minutiae. In July 2012, the Atlantic reported that the number of
administrators is also in decline. In the November 25, 2013, issue of
New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the
sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis".
blackout protest against SOPA on January 18, 2012 Play
media A promotional video of the
Wikimedia Foundation that
encourages viewers to edit, mostly reviewing 2014 via
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
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
On January 18, 2012, the English participated in a series
of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the United States
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
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
Internet and Security 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
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
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
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
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.
John Seigenthaler (1927–2014), subject of the
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
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 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 .
POLICIES AND LAWS
60 Minutes ,
CBS , 20 minutes, April 5, 2015,
Jimmy Wales at Fosdem
Content in is subject to the laws (in particular, copyright
laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of
Virginia , where
the majority of's servers are located. Beyond legal matters,
the editorial principles of are embodied in the "five
pillars" and in numerous policies and guidelines intended to
appropriately shape content. Even these rules are stored in wiki form,
and editors write and revise the website's policies and
guidelines. Editors can enforce these rules by deleting or modifying
non-compliant material. Originally, rules on the non-English editions
of were based on a translation of the rules for the English
Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent.
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
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 .
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,
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
Main article: community Play media Video of
Wikimania 2005 – an annual conference for users of and
other projects operated by the
Wikimedia Foundation , was held in
Frankfurt am Main
Frankfurt am Main ,
Germany from August 4 to 8.
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
British Museum curators collaborate on the article
Hoxne Hoard in June
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.
Jimmy Wales once
argued that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred
volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to 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, 1 percent of 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
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
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".
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
Business Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodget
showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most content in
(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 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
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
New York Times article, Noam
Cohen observed that just 13% of's contributors are female
according to a 2008
Wikimedia Foundation survey.
Sue Gardner , a
former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, hoped to see
female contributions increase to 25% by 2015. Linda Basch, president
of the National Council for Research on Women, noted the contrast in
these editor statistics with the percentage of women
currently completing bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and PhD
programs in the United States (all at rates of 50 percent or greater).
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
Jimmy Wales said in a BBC
interview that the
Wikimedia Foundation was "... really doubling down
our efforts ..." to reach 25% of female editors (originally targeted
by 2015), since the Foundation had "totally failed" so far. Wales said
"a lot of things need to happen ... a lot of outreach, a lot of
software changes". Andrew Lih, writing in The New York Times, was
Bloomberg News in December 2016 as supporting Wales comments
concerning shortfalls in's outreach to female editors. Lih
states his concern with the question indicating that: "How can you get
people to participate in an (editing) environment that feels unsafe,
where identifying yourself as a woman, as a feminist, could open you
up to ugly, intimidating behavior".
Main article: List ofs
There are currently 295 language editions of (also called
language versions, or simplys). 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%)
LOGARITHMIC GRAPH OF THE 20 LARGEST LANGUAGE EDITIONS OF
(as of 10 August 2017)
(millions of articles)
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 .
Jimmy Wales has described 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
of its projects (and others). For instance, Meta-Wiki
provides important statistics on all language editions of,
and it maintains a list of articles every should have. The
list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography,
society, culture, science, technology, and mathematics. As for the
rest, 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 only be
available in English, even when they meet notability criteria of other
language projects. Estimation of contributions shares
from different regions in the world to different editions
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
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
North America was 51% for the English , and 25%
for the simple English . The
Wikimedia Foundation hopes to
increase the number of editors in the Global South to 37% by 2015.
On March 1, 2014,
The Economist in an article titled "The Future of
Wikipedia" 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
Wikipedia) 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
Wikipedia) would provide a possible alternative to English
for effectively ameliorating substantial editor attrition rates on the
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
Edwin Black criticizes for being a mixture of
"truth, half truth, and some falsehoods". Articles in The Chronicle
of Higher Education and
The Journal of Academic Librarianship have
criticized's Undue Weight policy, concluding that the fact
that explicitly is not designed to provide correct
information about a subject, but rather focus on all the major
viewpoints on the subject and give less attention to minor ones,
creates omissions that can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete
Oliver Kamm and
Edwin Black noted how articles are
dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a
group with an "ax to grind" on the topic. An article in Education
Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics,
is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin .
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
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,
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
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
Internet sites, and that academics and experts must be vigilant in
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,
Deutsche Welle ,
Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for
Internet trolls , spammers , and various forms of paid advocacy seen
as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable
online encyclopedia. In response to paid advocacy editing and
undisclosed editing issues, was reported in an article by
Jeff Elder in
The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal on June 16, 2014, to have
strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing. The
article stated that: "Beginning Monday , changes in's terms
of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that
Katherine Maher , the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's
chief communications officer, said the changes address a sentiment
among volunteer editors that, 'we're not an advertising service; we're
an encyclopedia.'" These issues, among others, had been parodied
since the first decade of, notably by
Stephen Colbert on The
Colbert Report .
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
In February 2007, an article in
The Harvard Crimson newspaper
reported that a few of the professors at
Harvard University were
including articles in their syllabi , although without
realizing the articles might change. In June 2007, former president
American Library Association Michael Gorman condemned
Wikipedia, along with
Google , stating that academics who endorse the
use of are "the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who
recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything".
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
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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
Muhammad in the English
edition of its
Muhammad article, citing this policy. The presence of
politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in
has led to the censorship of by national
Pakistan , and the
United Kingdom , among
other countries. Pie chart of content by subject as of
A 2008 study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University
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
The Guardian in 2014 noted that women porn stars are
better covered than women writers as a further example.
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
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
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
George W. Bush ,
Muhammad . By comparison, for the German, the
three largest conflict rates at the time of the Oxford study were for
the articles covering (i)
Croatia , (ii)
Scientology and (iii) 9/11
conspiracy theories .
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
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.'"
Internet Watch Foundation and and Reporting of
child pornography images on
Problem? What problem? So, you didn't know that has a
has been criticized for allowing information of graphic
content. Articles depicting arguably objectionable content (such as
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 , 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
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. That the IWF, a non-government-affiliated organization,
had so much control was described as "alarming".
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 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 PROTECT
Act of 2003 . That law bans photographic child pornography and
cartoon images and drawings of children that are obscene under
American law . Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the
images on in schools.
Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay
Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation, saying that
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 since 2010 have
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
Germany because it stated the full name of Boris Floricic
, aka "Tron", a deceased hacker. On February 9, 2006, the injunction
against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned, with the court rejecting
the notion that Tron's right to privacy or that of his parents was
has a "Volunteer Response Team" that uses the
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
Katherine Maher is the third
executive director at Wikimedia, following the departure of Lila
Tretikov in 2016.
is hosted and funded by the
Wikimedia Foundation , a
non-profit organization which also operates-related projects
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
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
Following the departure of Tretikov from due to issues
concerning the use of the "superprotection" feature which some
language versions of have adopted,
Katherine Maher became
the third executive director the
Wikimedia Foundation in June 2016.
Maher has stated that one of her priorities would be the issue of
editor harassment endemic to as identified by the
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
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
SOFTWARE OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
See also: Media
The operation of depends on Media
Wiki , a custom-made, free
and open source wiki software platform written in
PHP and built upon
MySQL database system. The software incorporates programming
features such as a macro language , variables , a transclusion system
for templates , and
URL redirection . Media
Wiki is licensed under the
GNU General Public License and it is used by all Wikimedia projects,
as well as many other wiki projects. Originally, ran on
Wiki written in
Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which
CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present
double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002
(Phase II), began running on a
PHP wiki engine with a MySQL
database; this software was custom-made for by Magnus Manske
. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the
exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III),
shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally
Lee Daniel Crocker .
Wiki extensions are installed to extend the
functionality of the Media
In April 2005, a
Lucene extension was added to MediaWiki's built-in
search and switched from
Lucene for searching. The
site currently uses
Lucene Search 2.1, which is written in Java and
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
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.
Andrew Lih , the current expansion of to
millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the use of
WIKIPROJECTS, AND ASSESSMENTS OF ARTICLES\' IMPORTANCE AND QUALITY
This section is transcluded from English . (edit history
) Main article:
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
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
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
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
* 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)
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
Server software, which in turn pass them to one of the Apache web
servers for page rendering from the database. The web servers deliver
pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the language
editions of. To increase speed further, rendered pages are
cached in a distributed memory cache until invalidated, allowing page
rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses.
Overview of system architecture as of December 2010
currently runs on dedicated clusters of
(mainly Ubuntu ). As of December 2009 , there were 300 in Florida
and 44 in
Amsterdam . By January 22, 2013, had migrated its
primary data center to an
Equinix facility in Ashburn,
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
Blog and This
Month in Education.
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
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
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
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.
Creative Commons ' CC BY-SA)
are shared across language editions via
Wikimedia Commons repository,
a project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.'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.
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
* COMPACT DISCS, DVDS – Collections of articles have
been published on optical discs . An English version, 2006
CD Selection , contained about 2,000 articles. The Polish-language
version contains nearly 240,000 articles. There are German- and
Spanish-language versions as well. Also, "for Schools",
the series of CDs / DVDs produced byns and SOS
Children , is a free, hand-checked, non-commercial selection from
targeted around the UK National Curriculum and intended to
be useful for much of the English-speaking world. The project is
available online; an equivalent print encyclopedia would require
roughly 20 volumes.
* PRINTED BOOKS – There are efforts to put a select subset of
Wikipedia's articles into printed book form. Since 2009, tens of
thousands of print-on-demand books that reproduced English, German,
Russian and French articles have been produced by the
Books LLC and by three Mauritian subsidiaries of the
German publisher VDM .
* SEMANTIC WEB – The website
DBpedia , begun in 2007, extracts
data from the infoboxes and category declarations of the
English-language. Wikimedia has created the
with a similar objective of storing the basic facts from each page of
and the other WMF wikis and make it available in a queriable
semantic format, RDF . This is still under development. As of Feb 2014
it has 15,000,000 items and 1,000 properties for describing them.
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
Internet connection .
Although content has been accessible through the mobile web
since July 2013,
The New York Times
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
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
The New York Times
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
The New York Times for the "worry" is for
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. 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
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 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:
Metadata ), such as
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
Technology Review claims the
bureaucratic structure and rules are a factor in this. Simonite
alleges somens 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 serious disagreement among
existing contributors how to resolve this. Lih fears for's
long term future while Brown fears problems with will remain
and rival encyclopedias will not replace it.
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
Internet and American
Life project found that one third of US
Internet users consulted
Wikipedia. In 2011
Business Insider gave a valuation of $4
billion if it ran advertisements.
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
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
has also been used as a source in journalism, often
without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for
In 2006, Time magazine recognized's participation (along
MySpace , and
Facebook ) in the rapid growth
of online collaboration and interaction by millions of people
In July 2007 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 in popular culture is such that
the word is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so
Google , Facebook, YouTube) that they no longer need
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
Jimmy Wales receiving the Quadriga A Mission of Enlightenment award
On September 16, 2007,
The Washington Post
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
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
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
that year. The second was a Judges'
Webby Award for the "community"
category. was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby
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
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,
Jimmy Wales praised the work of the
Asturian language users. The night of the ceremony, members
Wikimedia Foundation held a meeting withns from all
parts of Spain, including the local Asturian community .
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.
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
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
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.
Dilbert comic strip from May 8, 2009, features a character
supporting an improbable claim by saying "Give me ten minutes and then
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
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
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,
Wikimedia Commons , a site devoted to
Wikinews , for citizen journalism, and
Wikiversity , a project for the creation of free learning materials
and the provision of online learning activities. Another sister
Wikispecies , is a catalogue of species. In 2012
Wikivoyage , an editable travel guide, and
Wikidata , an editable
knowledge base, launched.
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.
Encyclopædia Britannica , which were unable to compete with a product
that is essentially free. Nicholas Carr wrote a 2005 essay, "The
Web 2.0 ", that criticized websites with user-generated
content , like, 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, or similar efforts, will entirely displace
traditional publications. For instance, Chris Anderson , the
editor-in-chief of Wired
Magazine , wrote in Nature that the "wisdom
of crowds " approach of will not displace top scientific
journals , with their rigorous peer review process.
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
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
Toulouse published a global university ranking based on
scholarly citations. They used
PageRank "followed by the
number of appearances in the 24 different language editions of
(descending order) and the century in which they were
founded (ascending order)."
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
Baidu Baike likewise employ no formal review process, although
Conservapedia are not as open. Others use more traditional
peer review , such as
Encyclopedia of Life and the online wiki
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, see Portal:Contents/Outlines
* Conflict-of-interest editing on
Democratization of knowledge
Interpedia , an early proposal for a collaborative Internet
* List of
* Print art project to visualize how big is. In
cooperation with Wikimedia foundation.
QRpedia – multilingual, mobile interface to
* ^ 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
Languages". roadchap.com. Archived from the original on September 22,
2013. Retrieved September 6, 2011.
* ^ Russell Brandom (September 4, 2015). "founder defends
decision to encrypt the site in China". The Verge. Retrieved September
* ^ Bill Tancer (May 1, 2007). "Look Who\'s Using". Time
. Retrieved December 1, 2007. The sheer volume of content is partly
responsible for the site's dominance as an online reference. When
compared to the top 3,200 educational reference sites in the US,
is No. 1, capturing 24.3% of all visits to the category .
Cf. Bill Tancer (Global Manager, Hitwise), "Wikipedia, Search and
School Homework" Archived March 25, 2012, at the
Wayback Machine .,
Hitwise , March 1, 2007.
* ^ Alex Woodson (July 8, 2007). "remains go-to site for
online news". Reuters. Retrieved December 16, 2007. Online
encyclopedia has added about 20 million unique monthly
visitors in the past year, making it the top online news and
information destination, according to Nielsen//NetRatings.
* ^ "comScore MMX Ranks Top 50 US Web Properties for August 2012".
comScore. September 12, 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013.
* ^ A B C "How popular is.org?".
Alexa Internet . May 22,
2016. Retrieved September 4, 2016.
* ^ "Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights –
BBC News". BBC. May 10, 2010. Retrieved June 28, 2016.
* ^ Peter S. Vogel (October 10, 2012). "The Mysterious Workings of
Wikis: Who Owns What?". Ecommercetimes.com. Retrieved June 28, 2016.
* ^ Joe Mullin (January 10, 2014). "
Wikimedia Foundation employee
ousted over paid editing". Ars Technica. Retrieved June 28, 2016.
* ^ A B Kock, N., Jung, Y., & Syn, T. (2016). and
e-Collaboration Research: Opportunities and Challenges. Archived
September 27, 2016, at the
Wayback Machine . International Journal of
e-Collaboration (IJeC), 12(2), 1–8.
* ^ Mike Miliard (March 1, 2008). "Wikipediots: Who Are These
Devoted, Even Obsessive Contributors to?". Salt Lake City
Weekly . Retrieved December 18, 2008.
* ^ Sidener, Jonathan (October 9, 2006). "family feud
rooted in San Diego".
The San Diego Union-Tribune . Archived from the
original on November 11, 2016. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
* ^ "Wiki" in the Hawaiian Dictionary, revised and enlarged
edition, University of Hawaii Press, 1986
* ^ "cofounder
Jimmy Wales on 60 Minutes".
CBS News .
Retrieved April 6, 2015.
* ^ A B C D E F Cohen, Noam (February 9, 2014). "vs. the
Small Screen". The New York Times.
* ^ Giacomo Poderi (2009). "Comparing featured article groups and
revision patterns correlations in". First Monday . Retrieved
July 13, 2010.
* ^ Fernanda B. Viégas; Martin Wattenberg; Matthew M. McKeon (July
22, 2007). "The Hidden Order of" (PDF). Visual Communication
Lab, IBM Research. Retrieved October 30, 2007.
* ^ A B Jim Giles (December 2005). "
Internet encyclopedias go head
to head". Nature . 438 (7070): 900–901. Bibcode
:2005Natur.438..900G. PMID 16355180 . doi :10.1038/438900a .
(subscription required) Note: The study was cited in several news
* "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
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 Machine .,
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
Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded
with Mr. Wales.
* ^ A B C Sanger, Larry (April 18, 2005). "The Early History of
Nupedia and: A Memoir". Slashdot. Retrieved December 26,
* ^ Sanger, Larry (January 17, 2001). "Is Up!". Archived
from the original on May 6, 2001. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ "Wikipedia-l: LinkBacks?". Retrieved February 20, 2007.
* ^ Sanger, Larry (January 10, 2001). "Let\'s Make a Wiki".
Internet Archive. Archived from the original on April 14, 2003.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ "Wikipedia: HomePage". Archived from the original on March 31,
2001. Retrieved March 31, 2001.
* ^ "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view , (January 21,
* ^ Finkelstein, Seth (September 25, 2008). "Read me first:
isn\'t about human potential, whatever Wales says". The
Guardian . London.
* ^ "Wikipedia, August 8, 2001". Web.archive.bibalex.org. August 8,
2001. Archived from the original on July 27, 2001. Retrieved March 3,
* ^ "Wikipedia, September 25, 2001". Web.archive.bibalex.org.
Archived from the original on March 31, 2001. Retrieved March 3, 2014.
* ^ "Multilingual statistics".. 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 26,
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,
* ^ A B C D E Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of
Technology Review . Retrieved November 30, 2013.
* ^ "3 Charts That Show How Is Running Out of Admins".
The Atlantic. July 16, 2012.
* ^ Ward, Katherine. New York Magazine, issue of November 25, 2013,
* ^ "Breaks Into US Top 10 Sites". PCWorld. February 17,
* ^ "Wikipedia.org Site Overview". alexa.com. Retrieved December 4,
* ^ "Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report – Page Views Per
Country". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March 8, 2015.
* ^ Netburn, Deborah (January 19, 2012). "Wikipedia: SOPA protest
led 8 million to look up reps in Congress". Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved March 6, 2012.
* ^ "joins blackout protest at US anti-piracy moves". BBC
News. January 18, 2012. Retrieved January 19, 2012.
* ^ "SOPA/Blackoutpage". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved January
* ^ Jeff Loveland and Joseph Reagle (January 15, 2013). "Wikipedia
and encyclopedic production. New Media & Society. Sage Journals". New
Media & Society. 15 (8): 1294. doi :10.1177/1461444812470428 .
* ^ Rebecca J. Rosen (January 30, 2013). "What If the Great
\'Revolution\' Was Actually a Reversion? • The Atlantic".
Retrieved February 9, 2013.
* ^ A B C Varma, Subodh (January 20, 2014). "
Google eating into
page views?". The Economic Times. Times
Internet Limited .
Retrieved February 10, 2014.
* ^ "Alexa Top 500 Global Sites".
Alexa Internet . Retrieved
December 28, 2016.
* ^ A B "Statistics (English)". stats.wikimedia.org.
* ^ A B Zittrain, Jonathan (2008). The Future of the
How to Stop It – Chapter 6: The Lessons of. Yale
University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12487-3 . Archived from the original
on February 16, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ Registration notes
* ^ Protection Policy
* ^ Hafner, Katie (June 17, 2006). "Growing Refines Its
\'Anyone Can Edit\' Policy". The New York Times. Retrieved December 5,
* ^ English\'s protection policy
* ^ English\'s full protection policy
* ^ A B Birken, P. (December 14, 2008). "Bericht Gesichtete
Versionen". Wikide-l (Mailing list) (in German). Wikimedia Foundation.
Retrieved February 15, 2009.
* ^ William Henderson (December 10, 2012). "Has Figured
Out A New Way To Stop Vandals In Their Tracks". Business Insider.
* ^ Frewin, Jonathan (June 15, 2010). "unlocks divisive
pages for editing". BBC News. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
* ^ A B Kleinz, Torsten (February 2005). "World of Knowledge"
Linux Magazine. Retrieved July 13, 2007. The's open
structure makes it a target for trolls and vandals who malevolently
add incorrect information to articles, get other people tied up in
endless discussions, and generally do everything to draw attention to
* ^ :New pages patrol
* ^ Andrea Ciffolilli, "Phantom authority, self-selective
recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case
of" Archived December 6, 2016, at the
Wayback Machine .,
First Monday December 2003.
* ^ West, Andrew G.; Chang, Jian; Venkatasubramanian, Krishna;
Sokolsky, Oleg; Lee, Insup (2011). Link Spamming for Profit.
8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse, and Spam
Conference. pp. 152–161. doi :10.1145/2030376.2030394 .
* ^ Vandalism .. Retrieved November 6, 2012.
* ^ Fernanda B. Viégas; Martin Wattenberg; Kushal Dave (2004).
"Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with History Flow
Visualizations" (PDF). Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) . Vienna, Austria: ACM
575–582. ISBN 1-58113-702-8 . doi :10.1145/985921.985953 . Archived
from the original (PDF) on January 25, 2006. Retrieved January 24,
* ^ Reid Priedhorsky; Jilin Chen; Shyong (Tony) K. Lam; Katherine
Panciera; Loren Terveen;
John Riedl (November 4, 2007). "Creating,
Destroying, and Restoring Value in" (PDF). Association for
Computing Machinery GROUP '07 conference proceedings; GroupLens
Research, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University
of Minnesota .
Sanibel Island ,
Florida . Retrieved October 13, 2007.
* ^ A B C D Seigenthaler, John (November 29, 2005). "A False
\'biography\'". USA Today. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ 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
BusinessWeek . Archived from the original on July 8, 2012.
Retrieved July 26, 2012.
* ^ "Who\'s behind?". PC World. February 6, 2008.
Archived from the original on February 9, 2008. Retrieved February 7,
* ^ What is not . Retrieved April 1, 2010. "is
not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide."
* ^ 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."
* ^ No original research . February 13, 2008. "does not
publish original thought."
* ^ Verifiability . February 13, 2008. "Material challenged or
likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a
reliable, published source."
* ^ Cohen, Noam (August 9, 2011). "For inclusive mission,
is told that written word goes only so far". International Herald
Tribune . p. 18. Archived from the original on March 11, 2014 – via
vLex. (subscription required)
* ^ Neutral point of view . February 13, 2008. "All
articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral
point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately
and without bias."
* ^ Eric Haas (October 26, 2007). "Will Unethical
Wikipedia\'s Credibility?". AlterNet. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ Sanger, Larry (April 18, 2005). "The Early History of Nupedia
and: A Memoir". Slashdot. Dice.
* ^ Kostakis, Vasilis (March 2010). "Identifying and understanding
the problems of\'s peer governance: The case of
inclusionists versus deletionists". First Monday.
* ^ Ownership of articles
* ^ Avoiding Tragedy in the Wiki-Commons, by Andrew George, 12 Va.
J.L. & Tech. 8 (2007)
* ^ :Administrators
* ^ Mehegan, David (February 13, 2006). "Many contributors, common
cause". Boston Globe. Retrieved March 25, 2007.
* ^ "Wikipedia:Administrators". Retrieved July 12, 2009.
* ^ "Wikipedia:RfA_Review/Reflect". Retrieved September 24, 2009.
* ^ Meyer, Robinson (July 16, 2012). "3 Charts That Show How
Is Running Out of Admins".
The Atlantic . Retrieved
September 2, 2012.
* ^ Dispute Resolution
* ^ Coldewey, Devin (June 21, 2012). "is editorial
warzone, says study". Technology.
NBC News . Retrieved October 29,
* ^ David A. Hoffman; Salil K. Mehra (2009). "Wikitruth through
Emory Law Journal (PDF)format= requires url= (help ).
Emory University School of Law . 59 (1): 181. SSRN 1354424 .
* ^ David A. Hoffman; Salil K. Mehra (2009). "Wikitruth through
Emory Law Journal (PDF)format= requires url= (help ).
Emory University School of Law . 59 (1): 151–210. SSRN 1354424 .
Fernanda B. Viégas ;
Martin M. Wattenberg ; Jesse Kriss; Frank
van Ham (January 3, 2007). "
Talk Before You Type: Coordination in
Wikipedia" (PDF). Visual Communication Lab,
IBM Research . Retrieved
June 27, 2008.
* ^ Arthur, Charles (December 15, 2005). "Log on and join in, but
beware the web cults".
The Guardian . London. Retrieved December 26,
* ^ Lu Stout, Kristie (August 4, 2003). "Wikipedia: The know-it-all
Web site". CNN. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Larry Sanger (December 31, 2004). "Why Must Jettison
Its Anti-Elitism". Kuro5hin , Op–Ed. There is a certain mindset
associated with unmoderated Usenet groups that infects the
collectively-managed project: if you react strongly to
trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll.
If you demand that something be done about constant disruption by
trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship", attack
you, and even come to the defense of the troll. The root problem:
anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper
problem which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely,
as a community, lacks the habit or tradition of respect for
expertise. As a community, far from being elitist, it is anti-elitist
(which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any
special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated).
This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in
Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate
support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to
experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried
* ^ T. Kriplean, I. Beschastnikh, et al. (2008). "Articulations of
wikiwork: uncovering valued work in through barnstars".
Proceedings of the ACM: 47. ISBN 978-1-60558-007-4 . doi
:10.1145/1460563.1460573 . (Subscription required.)
* ^ Jean Goodwin (2009). "The Authority of" (PDF).
Archived from the original (PDF) on November 22, 2009. Retrieved
January 31, 2011.'s commitment to anonymity/pseudonymity
thus imposes a sort of epistemic agnosticism on its readers
* ^ Kittur, Aniket. "Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd:
and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie" (PDF).
Viktoria Institute .
Retrieved August 13, 2014.
* ^ A B C Blodget, Henry (January 3, 2009). "Who The Hell Writes
Wikipedia, Anyway?". Business Insider.
* ^ Wilson, Chris (February 22, 2008). "The Wisdom of the
Chaperones". Slate . Retrieved August 13, 2014.
* ^ Swartz, Aaron (September 4, 2006). "Raw Thought: Who Writes
Wikipedia?". Retrieved February 23, 2008.
* ^ A B Goldman, Eric. "Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its
Consequences". 8. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology
* ^ Noveck, Beth Simone. "and the Future of Legal
Education". 57. Journal of Legal Education.
* ^ ""Good Samaritans" Are on the Money". Scientific
American. October 19, 2007. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ Yair Amichai–Hamburger, Naama Lamdan, Rinat Madiel, Tsahi
Hayat, Personality Characteristics of Members,
CyberPsychology doi :10.1089/cpb.2007.0225 .
* ^ "Wikipedians are \'closed\' and \'disagreeable\'". New
Scientist. Retrieved July 13, 2010. (Subscription required.)
* ^ "The Misunderstood Personality Profile of Members".
psychologytoday.com. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
* ^ Giles, Jim (August 4, 2009). "After the boom, is
heading for bust?". New Scientist.
* ^ "Where Are the Women in? – Room for Debate".
NYTimes.com. February 2, 2011. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
* ^ Lam, Shyong; Anuradha Uduwage; Zhenhua Dong; Shilad Sen; David
R. Musicant; Loren Terveen;
John Riedl (October 3–5, 2011).
"WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of\'s Gender Imbalance" (PDF).
WikiSym 2011. Retrieved October 28, 2013.
* ^ Cohen, Noam. "Define Gender Gap? Look Up\'s
Contributor List". The New York Times.
The New York Times
The New York Times Company.
Retrieved October 28, 2013.
* ^ Chom, Noam (January 31, 2011). "Define Gender Gap? Look Up
Wikipedia\'s Contributor List". The New York Times. p. B–1.
Retrieved May 9, 2012.
* ^ Basch, Linda (February 6, 2011). "Male-Dominated Web Site
Seeking Female Experts" (Letters to the Editor). The New York Times.
p. WK–7. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
* ^ "OCAD to \'Storm\' this fall". CBC News. August 27,
2013. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
* ^ Wikimedia Foundation. 2008. "Archived copy". Archived from the
original on November 18, 2016. Retrieved December 27, 2016.
* ^ "\'completely failed\' to fix gender imbalance". BBC
News. Retrieved September 9, 2014.
* ^ Dimitra Kessenides (December 26, 2017).
Bloomberg News Weekly,
"Is 'Woke'". p. 73.
* ^ "Statistics". English . Retrieved June 21, 2008.
* ^ List ofs
* ^ "Wikipedia:List ofs". English. Retrieved
August 10, 2017.
* ^ List ofs – Meta
* ^ "List ofs". Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Retrieved 10 August
* ^ "Spelling". Manual of Style.. Retrieved May 19, 2007.
* ^ "Countering systemic bias". Retrieved May 19, 2007.
* ^ "Fair use". Meta-Wiki. Retrieved July 14, 2007.
* ^ "Images on". Retrieved July 14, 2007.
Fernanda B. Viégas (January 3, 2007). "The Visual Side of
Wikipedia" (PDF). Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research. Retrieved
October 30, 2007.
Jimmy Wales , "is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005,
* ^ "Meta-Wiki". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March 24, 2009.
* ^ "Meta-
Wiki Statistics". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March
* ^ "List of articles every should have". Wikimedia
Foundation. Retrieved March 24, 2008.
* ^ "Wikipedia: Translation". English. Retrieved February
* ^ Yasseri, Taha; Sumi, Robert; Kertész, János (January 17,
2012). "Circadian Patterns of Editorial Activity: A
PLoS ONE . 7 (1): e30091. doi
:10.1371/journal.pone.0030091 . Retrieved January 17, 2012.
* ^ "
Wikimedia Foundation 2011–12 Annual Plan" (PDF). Wikimedia
Foundation. p. 8. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
* ^ A B C "The future of: WikiPeaks?". The Economist.
March 1, 2014. Retrieved March 11, 2014.
* ^ Andrew Lih.. Alternative edit policies at
in other languages.
* ^ Jemielniak, Dariusz (June 22, 2014). "The Unbearable
Bureaucracy of". Slate . Retrieved August 18, 2014.
* ^ D. Jemielniak, Common Knowledge,
Stanford University Press,
* ^ Messer-Kruse, Timothy (February 12, 2012) The \'Undue Weight\'
of Truth on Archived December 18, 2016, at the Wayback
The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved March 27, 2014
* ^ Colón-Aguirre, Monica &Fleming-May, Rachel A. (October 11,
2012) "You Just Type in What You Are Looking For": Undergraduates\'
Use of Library Resources vs. Archived April 19, 2016, at the
Wayback Machine . (p. 392) The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Retrieved March 27, 2014
* ^ Bowling Green News (February 27, 2012) experience
sparks national debate Archived August 27, 2016, at the Wayback
Bowling Green State University Retrieved March 27, 2014
* ^ Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds
Oliver Kamm –
Times Online (archive version 2011-08-14) (Author\'s own copy Archived
September 5, 2016, at the
Wayback Machine .)
* ^ "
Plagiarism by editors". Watch. October 27,
2006. Archived from the original on November 25, 2009.
* ^ "Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up". Wired. Associated Press.
December 15, 2005. Retrieved August 8, 2015.
* ^ Reagle, pp. 165–166.
* ^ Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic
accuracy by the journal Nature Archived July 9, 2016, at the Wayback
Machine ., Encyclopædia Britannica, March 2006
* ^ "Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response" (PDF).
Retrieved July 13, 2010.
* ^ "Nature\'s responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica". Nature.
March 30, 2006. Retrieved March 19, 2012.
* ^ See author acknowledged comments in response to the citation of
the Nature study, at PLoS ONE, 2014, "Citation of fundamentally flawed
Nature quality 'study' ", In response to T. Yasseri et al. (2012)
Dynamics of Conflicts in, Published June 20, 2012, doi
:10.1371/journal.pone.0038869 , see "Archived copy". Archived from the
original on January 16, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2014. , accessed July
* ^ "Wikipedia:General disclaimer". English. Retrieved
April 22, 2008.
* ^ Public Information Research, Watch
* ^ Raphel, JR. "The 15 Biggest Blunders". PC World .
Retrieved September 2, 2009.
* ^ Cowen, Tyler (March 14, 2008). "Cooked Books". The New
Republic. Archived from the original on March 18, 2008. Retrieved
December 26, 2008.
Stacy Schiff (July 31, 2006). "Know It All".
The New Yorker
The New Yorker .
* ^ Danah Boyd (January 4, 2005). "
Academia and". Many 2
Many: A Group Weblog on Social Software. Corante. Retrieved December
18, 2008. an expert on social media a doctoral student in the School
of Information at the
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Berkeley and a fellow
Harvard University Berkman Center for
Internet & Society
Robert McHenry , "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia" Archived
January 16, 2006, at the
Wayback Machine ., Tech Central Station ,
November 15, 2004.
* ^ "Inside – Attack of the PR Industry". Deutsche
Welle . June 30, 2014. Retrieved July 2, 2014.
* ^ "Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version)".
Citizendium. Archived from the original on October 11, 2006. Retrieved
October 10, 2006.
* ^ A B Elder, Jeff (June 16, 2014). "Strengthens Rules
Against Undisclosed Editing".
The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal .
* ^ Ahrens, Frank (July 9, 2006). "Death by: The Kenneth
Lay Chronicles". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 1, 2006.
* ^ Kane, Margaret (January 30, 2006). "Politicians notice
Wikipedia". CNET. Retrieved January 28, 2007.
* ^ Bergstein, Brian (January 23, 2007). "Microsoft offers cash for
edit". MSNBC. Retrieved February 1, 2007.
* ^ Hafner, Katie (August 19, 2007). "Lifting Corporate
Fingerprints From the
Editing of". The New York Times. p. 1.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ A B
Stephen Colbert (July 30, 2006). "Wikiality". Retrieved
October 8, 2015.
* ^ "Wide World of". The Emory Wheel. April 21, 2006.
Archived from the original on November 7, 2007. Retrieved October 17,
* ^ Waters, N. L. (2007). "Why you can't cite in my
class". Communications of the ACM. 50 (9): 15. doi
* ^ Jaschik, Scott (January 26, 2007). "A Stand Against".
Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
* ^ Helm, Burt (December 14, 2005). "Wikipedia: \'A Work in
Progress\'". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Archived from the original on
April 21, 2012. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
* ^ "Jimmy Wales", Biography Resource Center Online. (Gale, 2006.)
* ^ Child, Maxwell L., "Professors Split on
Wiki Debate" Archived
December 20, 2008, at the
Wayback Machine ., The Harvard Crimson,
Monday, February 26, 2007.
* ^ Chloe Stothart. "Web threatens learning ethos" Archived
December 21, 2012, at the
Wayback Machine ..
The Times Higher
Education Supplement, 2007, 1799 (June 22), p. 2.
* ^ Cohen, Morris; Olson, Kent (2010). Legal Research in a Nutshell
(10th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: Thomson Reuters. pp. 32–34.
ISBN 978-0-314-26408-4 .
* ^ A B Julie Beck. "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information:
Wikipedia". The Atlantic, March 5, 2014.
* ^ A B Green, Emma (May 7, 2014). "Can Ever Be a
Definitive Medical Text? – Julie Beck". The Atlantic. Retrieved June
* ^ Kittur, Aniket; Kraut, Robert E. (2008). "Harnessing the wisdom
of crowds in: quality through coordination". Proceedings of
the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. New
York: ACM. pp. 37–46. ISBN 978-1-60558-007-4 . doi
* ^ A B
Roy Rosenzweig (June 2006). "Can History be Open Source?
and the Future of the Past". The Journal of American
History. 93 (1): 117–146.
JSTOR 4486062 . doi :10.2307/4486062 .
Archived from the original on April 25, 2010. Retrieved August 11,
2006. (Center for History and New Media.)
Andrew Orlowski (October 18, 2005). "founder admits
to serious quality problems". The Register. Retrieved September 30,
* ^ "
Cancer information on is accurate, but not very
readable, study finds". Science Daily. June 2, 2010. Retrieved
December 31, 2010.
* ^ "Fact or fiction?\'s variety of contributors is not
only a strength". The Economist. March 10, 2007. Retrieved December
* ^ :PAPER
* ^ "The battle for\'s soul". The Economist. March 6,
2008. Retrieved March 7, 2008.
* ^ Douglas, Ian (November 10, 2007). "Wikipedia: an online
encyclopedia torn apart". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved
November 23, 2010.
* ^ Sophie Taylor (April 5, 2008). "
China allows access to English
Wikipedia". Reuters. Retrieved July 29, 2008.
* ^ Bruilliard, Karin (May 21, 2010). "
day after shutdown of
Muhammad issue". The Washington
Post. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
* ^ "child image censored". BBC News. December 8, 2008.
Retrieved December 8, 2008.
* ^ A B Kittur, A., Chi, E. H., and Suh, B. 2009. What\'s in
Wikipedia? Mapping Topics and Conflict Using Socially Annotated
Category Structure Archived April 13, 2016, at the
Wayback Machine ..
In Proceedings of the 27th international Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (Boston, Massachusetts, USA, April 4–9, 2009).
CHI '09. ACM, New York, USA, 1509–1512.
* ^ Petrusich, Amanda (October 20, 2011). "Wikipedia\'s Deep Dive
Into a Library Collection". The New York Times. Retrieved October 28,
* ^ Lam, Shyong; Anuradha Uduwage; Zhenhua Dong; Shilad Sen; David
R. Musicant; Loren Terveen;
John Riedl (October 3–5, 2011). "WP:
Clubhouse? An Exploration of\'s Gender Imblance" (PDF).
WikiSym 2011: 4.
* ^ Mark Graham, Mapping the Geographies of Content,
Zerogeography.net (November 12, 2009).
* ^ Strohmaier, Markus (2017-03-06). "Multilingual historical
narratives on". doi :10.7802/1411 . narratives
about national histories (i) are skewed towards more recent events
(recency bias) and (ii) are distributed unevenly across the continents
with significant focus on the history of European countries
The Guardian 2014 (London)
The Guardian view on:
evolving truth Archived November 12, 2016, at the
Wayback Machine .
* ^ A B Quilter, Laura (October 24, 2012). "Systemic Bias in
Wikipedia: What It Looks Like, and How to Deal with It". University of
Massachusetts – Amherst. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
* ^ "Edit Wars Reveal the 10 Most Controversial Topics on
Wikipedia", MIT Technology Review, July 17, 2013.
* ^ A B C "The Most Controversial Topics in: A
Multilingual and Geographical Analysis by Taha Yasseri, Anselm
Spoerri, Mark Graham, Janos Kertesz :: SSRN". May 23, 2013. SSRN
2269392 . doi :10.2139/ssrn.2269392 . Missing or empty url= (help
); access-date= requires url= (help )
* ^ Das, Sanmay; Allen, Lavoie; Malik, Magdon-Ismail (November 1,
2013). "Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence:
How administrators mold public opinion". CIKM '13
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information &
Knowledge Management. San Francisco, California, USA: ACM. pp.
1097–1106. ISBN 978-1-4503-2263-8 . doi :10.1145/2505515.2505566 .
* ^ Das, Sanmay; Allen, Lavoie; Malik, Magdon-Ismail (December 24,
2016). "Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence:
How administrators mold public opinion.". ACM Transactions
on the Web. New York, NY, USA: ACM. 10 (4): 24. doi :10.1145/3001937 .
* ^ A B Dimitra Kessenides (December 22, 2016). "Is
Bloomberg News Weekly. p. 72. Retrieved December 26, 2016.
* ^ Sanger, Larry. "What should we do about\'s porn
problem?". Retrieved July 26, 2012.
* ^ Metz, Cade (December 7, 2008). "Brit ISPs censor over
\'child porn\' album cover".
The Register . Retrieved May 10, 2009.
* ^ Raphael, JR (December 10, 2008). "Censorship Sparks
Free Speech Debate". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 10, 2009.
* ^ "rejects child porn accusation". The Sydney Morning
Herald. 2010-04-29. Retrieved 2017-05-14.
* ^ Farrell, Nick (April 29, 2010). "denies child abuse
allegations: Co-founder grassed the outfit to the FBI". The Inquirer.
Retrieved October 9, 2010.
* ^ A B Metz, Cade (April 9, 2010). "Wikifounder reports Wikiparent
to FBI over \'child porn\'". The Register. Retrieved April 19, 2010.
* ^ "blasts co-founder\'s accusations of child porn on
website". The Economic Times. India. April 29, 2010. Retrieved April
* ^ A B Agence France-Presse (29 April 2010). "rejects
child porn accusation". The Sydney Morning Herald.
* ^ "Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights". BBC
News. May 10, 2010. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
* ^ Gray, Lila (September 17, 2013). "Gives Porn a
Break". XBIZ.com. Retrieved November 10, 2013.
* ^ Andrew McStay, 2014,
Privacy and Philosophy: New Media and
Affective Protocol Archived April 14, 2016, at the
Wayback Machine .,
New York Peter Lang.
* ^ Heise – Gericht weist einstweilige Verfügung gegen Wikimedia
Deutschland ab (update), by Torsten Kleinz, February 9, 2006.
* ^ "IT Service Management Software". OTRS.com. Retrieved June 9,
* ^ Paling, Emma. "Wikipedia\'s Hostility to Women". The Atlantic.
Retrieved October 24, 2015.
* ^ Auerbach, David. "Encyclopedia Frown". Slate. Retrieved October
* ^ "In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny".
* ^ Paling, Emma (October 21, 2015). "Wikipedia\'s Hostility to
Women". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
* ^ Ayers, Phoebe (2008). How Works. San Francisco: No
Starch Press. p. 213. ISBN 1-59327-176-X .
* ^ "
Wikimedia Foundation – Financial Statements – June 30,
2011 and 2010" (PDF). Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
* ^ "
Wikimedia Foundation IRS Form 990" (PDF). Retrieved October
* ^ "Press releases/WMF announces new ED Lila Tretikov". Wikimedia
Foundation. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
* ^ A B Jeff Elder, The Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2014,
"Wikipedia's New Chief: From Soviet Union to World's Sixth-Largest
* ^ A B Noam Cohen (May 1, 2014). "Media: Open-Source Software
Specialist Selected as Executive Director of". The New York
* ^ Dimitra Kessenides.
Bloomberg News Weekly. December 26, 2016.
* ^ Dimitra Kessenides.
Bloomberg News Weekly. December 26, 2016,
p. 74. "Is 'Woke'".
* ^ Mark Bergsma. "Wikimedia Architecture" (PDF). Wikimedia
Foundation. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 3, 2009.
Retrieved June 27, 2008.
* ^ "Version: Installed extensions". . Retrieved August 18, 2014.
* ^ Michael Snow. "
Lucene search: Internal search function returns
to service". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved February 26, 2009.
* ^ Brion Vibber. "
Lucene search". Retrieved February 26, 2009.
* ^ "Extension:Lucene-search". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved
August 31, 2009.
* ^ "mediawiki – Revision 55688:
/branches/lucene-search-2.1/lib". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved
August 31, 2009.
* ^ Emil Protalinski (July 2, 2013). "Wikimedia rolls out WYSIWYG
visual editor for logged-in users accessing articles in
English". The Next Web. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
* ^ Curtis, Sophie (July 23, 2013). "introduces new
features to entice editors". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved August 18,
* ^ L.M. (December 13, 2011). "Changes at: Seeing
The Economist . Retrieved July 28, 2013.
* ^ Lucian Parfeni (July 2, 2013). "Wikipedia\'s New VisualEditor
Is the Best Update in Years and You Can Make It Better".
Retrieved July 30, 2013.
* ^ A B Orlowski, Andrew (August 1, 2013). "Wikipedians say no to
Jimmy\'s \'buggy\' WYSIWYG editor". The Register. Retrieved August 18,
* ^ Bot Information
* ^ A B Daniel Nasaw (July 24, 2012). "Meet the \'bots\' that edit
Wikipedia". BBC News.
* ^ Halliday, Josh; Arthur, Charles (July 26, 2012). "Boot up: The
vandalism police, Apple analysts, and more".
The Guardian .
Retrieved September 5, 2012.
* ^ Jervell, Ellen Emmerentze (July 13, 2014). "For This Author,
10,000 Articles Is a Good Day\'s Work". The Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved August 18, 2014.
* ^ "signpost: Abuse Filter is enabled". English
Wikipedia. March 23, 2009. Retrieved July 13, 2010.
* ^ Aljazeera, July 21, 2014, "MH17 entry edited from
Russian Government IP Address". "Archived copy". Archived from the
original on November 16, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2014.
* ^ \'s policy on bots
Andrew Lih (2009). The Revolution , chapter Then came
the Bots, pp. 99–106.
* ^ "Wikipedia: Wikiprojects". Retrieved 16 March 2015.
* ^ "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment". Retrieved 28
* ^ "Comparing featured article groups and revision patterns
correlations in". First Monday . Retrieved 13 July 2010.
* ^ Fernanda B. Viégas; Martin Wattenberg; Matthew M. McKeon (22
July 2007). "The Hidden Order of" (PDF). Visual
Communication Lab, IBM Research. Retrieved 30 October 2007.
* ^ Poderi, Giacomo, and the Featured Articles: How a
Technological System Can Produce Best Quality Articles, Master thesis,
University of Maastricht , October 2008.
* ^ Lindsey, David (5 April 2010). "Evaluating quality control of
Wikipedia\'s featured articles". First Monday. 15 (4). Retrieved 29
* ^ A B :Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics –
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
* ^ "Monthly request statistics" , Wikimedia. Retrieved October 31,
* ^ Domas Mituzas. "Wikipedia: Site internals, configuration, code
examples and management issues" (PDF).
MySQL Users Conference 2007.
Retrieved June 27, 2008.
* ^ Guido Urdaneta, Guillaume Pierre and Maarten van Steen.
"Workload Analysis for Decentralized Hosting". Elsevier
Computer Networks 53 (11), pp. 1830–1845, June 2009. Retrieved June
* ^ Weiss, Todd R. (October 9, 2008). "simplifies IT
infrastructure by moving to one
Retrieved November 1, 2008.
* ^ Paul, Ryan (October 9, 2008). "adopts Ubuntu for its
server infrastructure". Ars Technica. Retrieved November 1, 2008.
* ^ "Server roles at wikitech.wikimedia.org". Archived from the
original on January 16, 2013. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
* ^ Palmier, Guillaume. "Wikimedia sites to move to primary data
center in Ashburn, Virginia". WMF. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
* ^ Verge, Jason. "It\'s Official: Ashburn is\'s New
Home". Data Center Knowledge. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
* ^ Frederic M. Scherer and David Ross, 1990. Industrial Market
Structure and Economic Performance, 3rd ed. Houghton-Mifflin. SSRN
1496716 and 1st ed. review extract.
Google Scholar search of Frederic M. Scherer * ^ A B C Patents,
Citations, and Innovations, by Adam B. Jaffe, Manuel Trajtenberg, pp.
* ^ Cohen, Noam (March 5, 2007). "A Contributor to Has
His Fictional Side". The New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2008.
* ^ :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
* ^ "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-
* ^ "Reference Desk". Retrieved September 9, 2014.
* ^ Brad Stone, "How Google's Android chief, Sundar Pichai, became
the most powerful man in mobile", June 30 – July 6, 2014, Bloomberg
BusinessWeek, pp. 47–51.
* ^ "– Android Apps on
Google Play". Play.Google.com.
Retrieved August 21, 2014.
* ^ "Mobile on the App Store on iTunes".
iTunes.Apple.com. August 4, 2014. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
* ^ "Wikimedia Mobile is Officially Launched". Wikimedia Technical
Blog. June 30, 2009. Retrieved July 22, 2009.
* ^ "Local Points Of Interest In". May 15, 2011.
Retrieved May 15, 2011.
* ^ "iPhone Gems: Apps". November 30, 2008. Retrieved
July 22, 2008.
* ^ Ellis, Justin (January 17, 2013). "plans to expand
mobile access around the globe with new funding". NiemanLab. Nieman
Journalism Lab. Retrieved April 22, 2013.
Andrew Lih (June 20, 2015). "Can Survive?".
* ^ Andrew Brown (June 25, 2015). "editors are a dying
breed. The reason? Mobile". The Guardian.
* ^ "Wikipedia:Modelling\'s growth". Retrieved December
* ^ "694 Million People Currently Use the
According To comScore Networks". comScore. May 4, 2006. Archived from
the original on July 30, 2008. Retrieved December 16, 2007.
has emerged as a site that continues to increase in popularity, both
globally and in the US
* ^ "
Google Traffic To up 166% Year over Year". Hitwise.
February 16, 2007. Retrieved December 22, 2007.
* ^ "and Academic Research". Hitwise. October 17, 2006.
Retrieved February 6, 2008.
* ^ West, Stuart. "Wikipedia\'s Evolving Impact: slideshow
presentation at TED2010" (PDF). Retrieved October 23, 2015.
* ^ Rainie, Lee; Bill Tancer (December 15, 2007). "users"
Internet ">(PDF) on March 6, 2008. Retrieved December 15,
2007. 36% of online American adults consult. It is
particularly popular with the well-educated and current college-age
* ^ SAI (October 7, 2011). "The World\'s Most Valuable Startups".
Business Insider. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
* ^ "Research:Readership Survey 2011/Results – Meta".
Wikimedia. February 6, 2012. Retrieved April 16, 2014.
* ^ "Wikipedia:in the media".. Retrieved
December 26, 2008.
* ^ "Bourgeois et al. v. Peters et al." (PDF). Archived from the
original (PDF) on February 3, 2007. Retrieved February 6, 2007.
* ^ "
Wikipedian Justice" (PDF)format= requires url= (help ). SSRN
1346311 . Missing or empty url= (help ); access-date= requires
url= (help )
* ^ "LEGISinfo – House Government Bill C-38 (38–1)". Retrieved
September 9, 2014.
* ^ Arias, Martha L. (January 29, 2007). "Wikipedia: The Free
Online Encyclopedia and its Use as Court Source".
Law Services. Retrieved December 26, 2008. (The name "World
Intellectual Property Office" should however read "World Intellectual
Property Organization" in this source.)
* ^ Cohen, Noam (January 29, 2007). "Courts Turn to, but
Selectively". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ Aftergood, Steven (March 21, 2007). "The Factor in US
Intelligence". Federation of American Scientists Project on Government
Secrecy. Retrieved April 14, 2007.
* ^ Butler, Declan (December 16, 2008). "Publish in or
perish". Nature News. doi :10.1038/news.2008.1312 .
* ^ Shaw, Donna (February–March 2008). "in the
Newsroom". American Journalism Review. Retrieved February 11, 2008.
* ^ Lexington (September 24, 2011). "Classlessness in America: The
uses and abuses of an enduring myth". The Economist. Retrieved
September 27, 2011. Socialist Labour Party of America though it can
trace its history as far back as 1876, when it was known as the
Workingmen's Party, no less an authority than pronounces it
* ^ "Shizuoka newspaper plagiarized article". Japan News
Review. July 5, 2007.
* ^ ""Express-News staffer resigns after plagiarism in column is
discovered"". Archived from the original on October 15, 2007.
Retrieved 2007-01-31. ,
San Antonio Express-News , January 9, 2007.
* ^ Frank Bridgewater. "Inquiry prompts reporter\'s dismissal".
Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Retrieved September 9, 2014.
* ^ Grossman, Lev (December 13, 2006). "Time\'s Person of the Year:
You". Time. Time. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ "Radio 4 documentary, BBC". 2007. Retrieved April 24, 2016.
* ^ "Comunicato stampa. On. Franco Grillini..
Interrogazione a Rutelli. Con "diritto di panorama" promuovere arte e
architettura contemporanea italiana. Rivedere con urgenza legge
copyright" (in Italian). October 12, 2007. Archived from the original
on March 30, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17, 2007). "On,
Debating 2008 Hopefuls\' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Retrieved
December 26, 2008.
* ^ Jennifer Ablan (October 22, 2007). "page the latest
status symbol". Reuters. Retrieved October 24, 2007.
* ^ Witzleb, Normann (2009). "Engaging with the World: Students of
Comparative Law Write for". 19 (1 and 2). Legal Education
* ^ "AI Research Trends". One Hundred Year Study on Artificial
Stanford University. Retrieved September 3,
* ^ "Trophy box", Meta-
Wiki (March 28, 2005).
* ^ "Webby Awards 2004". The International Academy of Digital Arts
and Sciences. 2004. Archived from the original on July 22, 2011.
* ^ Zumpano, Anthony (January 29, 2007). "Similar Search Results:
Google Wins". Interbrand. Archived from the original on February 20,
2007. Retrieved January 28, 2007.
* ^ "Die Quadriga – Award 2008". Retrieved December 26, 2008.
* ^ "
Erasmus Prize – Praemium Erasmianum". Praemium Erasmianum
Foundation. Retrieved January 15, 2015.
* ^ "Premio Princesa de Asturias de Cooperación Internacional
2015". Fundación Princesa de Asturias. Retrieved June 17, 2015.
* ^ "Los fundadores de destacan la versión en asturiano"
(in Spanish). La Nueva España. Retrieved October 20, 2015.
* ^ "Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence". The
Onion . July 26, 2006. Retrieved October 15, 2006.
* ^ "\'L.A. Law\' Page Viewed 874 Times Today". The Onion
. November 24, 2010.
* ^ "The Office: The Negotiation, 3.19". April 5, 2007. Retrieved
December 27, 2014.
* ^ "\'Office\' fans, inspired by Michael Scott, flock to edit
Wikipedia". USA Today. April 12, 2007. Retrieved December 12, 2014.
* ^ Bakken, Janae. "
My Number One Doctor "; Scrubs ; ABC ; December
* ^ "Professor –
CollegeHumor Video". CollegeHumor.
November 17, 2009. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
* ^ "
Dilbert comic strip for 05/08/2009 from the official Dilbert
comic strips archive". Universal Uclick. May 8, 2009. Retrieved March
* ^ "Interview With Nick Doody and Matt Kirshen". British Comedy
Guide . Retrieved July 31, 2009.
* ^ "Your Entries". Tosh.0. February 3, 2010. Retrieved
September 9, 2014.
* ^ "Updates". Tosh.0. February 3, 2010. Retrieved
September 9, 2014.
Emily Flake (August 23, 2013). "Manning/cartoon".
Retrieved August 26, 2013.
* ^ "The obstacles to reforming our prisons – The Times".
thetimes.co.uk. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
* ^ "john julius norwich -Search – The Times". thetimes.co.uk.
Retrieved June 5, 2016.
* ^ "Announcement of Wiktionary\'s creation". meta.wikimedia.org.
Retrieved July 14, 2012.
* ^ "Our projects",
Wikimedia Foundation . Retrieved January 24,
* ^ Bosman, Julie. "After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops
the Presses". The New York Times. Retrieved January 26, 2015.
* ^ "Encyclopedia Britannica Dies At The Hands Of,
Gizmocrazed.com (with statista infographic from NYTimes.com)".
Gizmocrazed.com. March 20, 2012. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
Christopher Caldwell (June 14, 2013). "A chapter in the
Enlightenment closes". ft.com . Retrieved June 15, 2013. Bertelsmann
did not resort to euphemism this week when it announced the end of the
Brockhaus encyclopedia brand. Brockhaus had been publishing reference
books for two centuries when the media group bought it in 2008. The
internet has finished off Brockhaus altogether. What Germans like is
* ^ "The amorality of Web 2.0". Rough Type. October 3, 2005.
Retrieved July 15, 2006.
* ^ "Technical solutions: Wisdom of the crowds". Nature. Retrieved
October 10, 2006.
* ^ Alison Flood. "Alison Flood: Should traditional biography be
buried alongside Shakespeare\'s breakfast?". The Guardian. Retrieved
June 14, 2014.
* ^ Rada Mihalcea and Andras Csomai (2007). Wikify! Linking
Documents to Encyclopedic Knowledge Archived February 18, 2016, at the
Wayback Machine .. Proc. CIKM.
* ^ David Milne and Ian H. Witten (2008). Learning to link with
Wikipedia. Proc. CIKM.
* ^ Sisay Fissaha Adafre and (2005). Discovering missing links in
Archived July 17, 2012, at the
Wayback Machine .. Proc.
* ^ "Wikipedia-Mining Algorithm Reveals World\'s Most Influential
Universities: An algorithm\'s list of the most influential
universities contains some surprising entries.". MIT Technology Review
. December 7, 2015. Retrieved December 27, 2015.
* ^ Marmow Shaw, Jessica (December 10, 2015). "Harvard is only the
3rd most influential university in the world, according to this list".
MarketWatch . Retrieved December 27, 2015.
* ^ A B Bothwell, Ellie (December 15, 2015). "Ranking of
World Universities: the top 100. List ranks institutions by search
engine results and appearances".
Times Higher Education .
Retrieved December 27, 2015.
* ^ Heart Internet. "
Website discussing the emulator of the
User Interface". Retrieved September 9, 2014.
* ^ Frauenfelder, Mark (November 21, 2000). "The next generation of
online encyclopedias". CNN.com. Archived from the original on August
* ^ The Free Encyclopedia Project gnu.org (Archived January 3,
* ^ Orlowski, Andrew (September 18, 2006). "founder forks
Wikipedia, More experts, less fiddling?". The Register. Retrieved June
Larry Sanger describes the
Citizendium project as a
"progressive or gradual fork", with the major difference that experts
have the final say over edits.
* ^ Lyman, Jay (September 20, 2006). "Co-Founder Planning
New Expert-Authored Site". LinuxInsider. Retrieved June 27, 2007.
* ^ 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 (
* ^ The procrastination principle dictates that you should wait for
problems to arise before solving them.
* ^ Revisions with libelous content, criminal threats, or copyright
infringements may be removed completely .
* ^ See for example the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard
or Neutral Point of View Noticeboard , created to address content
falling under their respective areas.
* ^ See "Libel" by David McHam for the legal distinction
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
* 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
Loren Terveen , and
John Riedl . "Creating, Destroying, and
Restoring Value in". Proc. GROUP 2007; doi
* Reagle, Joseph (2007). Do as I Do: Authorial Leadership in
(PDF). WikiSym '07: Proceedings of the 2007 International
Symposium on Wikis. Montreal, Canada: ACM. Retrieved December 26,
* 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 Editing
Reality. Siduri. ISBN 978-0-9562052-0-9 .
* Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014). Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of
. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press . ISBN
* Keen, Andrew (2007). The
Cult of the Amateur . Doubleday/Currency.
ISBN 978-0-385-52080-5 . (Substantial criticisms of and
other web 2.0 projects.)
* Listen to:
* Keen, Andrew (June 16, 2007). "Does the
Culture?". National Public Radio, USA. The NPR interview with A.
Keen, Weekend Edition Saturday, June 16, 2007.
* 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).: 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
Cambridge University Press . pp.
* 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.)
Virginia , "Who Killed? : A hardened corps of
volunteer editors is the only force protecting. They might
also be killing it",
Pacific Standard magazine, November/December 2014
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
Wiki is a Kind of Bus,
Ideas, with Paul Kennedy ,
CBC Radio One , originally broadcast
January 15, 2014. Webpage includes a link to the archived audio
program (also found here). The radio documentary discusses's
history, development and its place within the broader scope of the
trend to democratized knowledge. It also includes interviews with
several key staff and contributors, including
Kat Walsh and
Sue Gardner (audio, 53:58, Flash required).
Other Media Coverage
See also: List of films about
* "See Who\'s
Editing – Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign",
WIRED, August 14, 2007.
* Balke, Jeff (March 2008). "For Music Fans:; MySpace".
Houston Chronicle . Broken Record (blog). Retrieved December 17, 2008.
* Dee, Jonathan (July 1, 2007). "All the News That\'s Fit to Print
The New York Times
The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
* Giles, Jim (September 20, 2007). "2.0 – Now with Added
New Scientist . Retrieved January 14, 2008.
* Miliard, Mike (December 2, 2007). "Rules". The Phoenix .
Retrieved February 22, 2008.
* Poe, Marshall (September 1, 2006). "The Hive". The Atlantic
Monthly. Retrieved March 22, 2008.
* Rosenwald, Michael S. (October 23, 2009). "Gatekeeper of D.C.\'s
entry: Road to city\'s page goes through a DuPont Circle
bedroom". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
* Runciman, David (May 28, 2009). "Like Boiling a Frog". London
Review of Books. Retrieved June 3, 2009.
* Taylor, Chris (May 29, 2005). "It\'s a Wiki,
Wiki World". Time .
Retrieved February 22, 2008.
* "Technological Quarterly: Brain Scan: The Free-knowledge
The Economist Web and Print . June 5, 2008. Retrieved
June 5, 2008.
Jimmy Wales changed the world with, the hugely
popular online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What will he do
* "Is Cracking Up?" The Independent, February 3, 2009.
* "probe into paid-for \'sockpuppet\' entries", BBC
News\', October 21, 2013.
* "The Decline of", MIT Technology Review, Oc