MyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]

Directory:United States of America

2008-06-13T00:57:33Z

Bug Me Not: /* United States of America — Fact Sheet */

The '''United States of America''' (the '''U.S.''', the '''U.S.A.''', the '''States''', the '''United States''', '''America''', and -- by its enemies -- the '''Great Satan''') is a country in the middle of [[North America]]. It is governed as a federal republic system, established in [[1789]].

== United States of America<br>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/maps/us-map.gif ==

==States, Counties & Cities==

<ASK Mainlabel="State" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Category:States of the United States]]
[[Population:=*]]
[[State Code:=*]]
[[Has Capital::*|Capital]]
[[Governor:=*]]
[[Year Admitted:=*]]

[[Nation Located In::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
<br>
<ASK Mainlabel="County" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Category:County]]
[[Population:=*]]
[[State Located In::*|State]]
[[Nation Located In::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
<br>
<ASK Mainlabel="City" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Category:City]]
[[Population:=*]]
[[Region Located In::*|County]]
[[State Located In::*|State]]
[[Nation Located In::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>

==Departments==

Federal entities located in the {{PAGENAME}}.

<ASK Mainlabel="Entity" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Category:Federal Department]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Nation Located In::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>

==Political Parties==
Political Parties located in the {{PAGENAME}}.
<ASK Mainlabel="Entity" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Category:Political Party]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Nation Located In::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>

== United States of America — Fact Sheet ==
<center>
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
|-
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Introduction'''
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''United States'''
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| <div align="right">Background:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country in 1676 and were recognized as the new nation of the '''United States of America''' following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. The two most traumatic experiences in the nation's history were the Civil War (1861-65) and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Buoyed by victories in World Wars I and II and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the US remains the world's most powerful nation state. The economy is marked by steady growth, low unemployment and inflation, and rapid advances in technology.
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Geography'''
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''United States'''
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| <div align="right">Location:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | North America, bordering both the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean, between Canada and Mexico
|-
| <div align="right">Geographic coordinates:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 38 00 N, 97 00 W
|-
| <div align="right">Map references:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | [[North America]]
|-
| <div align="right">Area:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total:'' 9,826,630 sq km <br />''land:'' 9,161,923 sq km <br />''water:'' 664,707 sq km <br />''note:'' includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia
|-
| <div align="right">Area - comparative:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | about half the size of [[Directory:Russia|Russia]]; about three-tenths the size of [[Africa]]; about half the size of [[South America]] (or slightly larger than [[Directory:Brazil|Brazil]]); slightly larger than [[Directory:China|China]]; more than twice the size of the European Union
|-
| <div align="right">Land boundaries:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total:'' 12,034 km <br />''border countries:'' [[Directory:Canada|Canada]] 8,893 km (including 2,477 km with Alaska), [[Directory:Mexico|Mexico]] 3,141 km <br />''note:'' US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is leased by the US and is part of Cuba; the base boundary is 28 km
|-
| <div align="right">Coastline:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 19,924 km
|-
| <div align="right">Maritime claims:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''territorial sea:'' 12 nm <br />''contiguous zone:'' 24 nm <br />''exclusive economic zone:'' 200 nm <br />''continental shelf:'' not specified
|-
| <div align="right">Climate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | mostly temperate, but tropical in [[Directory:Hawaii|Hawaii]] and [[Directory:Florida|Florida]], arctic in [[Directory:Alaska|Alaska]], semiarid in the great plains west of the Mississippi River, and arid in the Great Basin of the southwest; low winter temperatures in the northwest are ameliorated occasionally in [[January]] and [[February]] by warm chinook winds from the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains
|-
| <div align="right">Terrain:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | vast central plain, mountains in west, hills and low mountains in east; rugged mountains and broad river valleys in Alaska; rugged, volcanic topography in Hawaii
|-
| <div align="right">Elevation extremes:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''lowest point:'' Death Valley -86 m <br />''highest point:'' Mount McKinley 6,194 m
|-
| <div align="right">Natural resources:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | coal, copper, lead, molybdenum, phosphates, uranium, bauxite, gold, iron, mercury, nickel, potash, silver, tungsten, zinc, petroleum, natural gas, timber
|-
| <div align="right">Land use:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''arable land:'' 18.01% <br />''permanent crops:'' 0.21% <br />''other:'' 81.78% (2005)
|-
| <div align="right">Irrigated land:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 223,850 sq km (2003)
|-
| <div align="right">Total renewable water resources:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 3,069 cu km (1985)
|-
| <div align="right">Freshwater withdrawal (domestic/industrial/agricultural):</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''Total:'' 477 cu km/yr (13%/46%/41%) <br />''Per capita:'' 1,600 cu m/yr (2000)
|-
| <div align="right">Natural hazards:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | tsunamis, volcanoes, and earthquake activity around Pacific Basin; hurricanes along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts; tornadoes in the midwest and southeast; mud slides in California; forest fires in the west; flooding; permafrost in northern Alaska, a major impediment to development
|-
| <div align="right">Environment - current issues:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | air pollution resulting in acid rain in both the US and Canada; the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management; desertification
|-
| <div align="right">Environment - international agreements:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''party to:'' Air Pollution, Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides, Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Antarctic-Marine Living Resources, Antarctic Seals, Antarctic Treaty, Climate Change, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Marine Dumping, Marine Life Conservation, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands, Whaling <br />''signed, but not ratified:'' Air Pollution-Persistent Organic Pollutants, Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Biodiversity, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Hazardous Wastes
|-
| <div align="right">Geography - note:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | world's third-largest country by size (after Russia and Canada) and by population (after China and [[Directory:India|India]]); Mt. McKinley is highest point in North America and Death Valley the lowest point on the continent
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''People'''
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''United States'''
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| <div align="right">Population:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Age structure:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''0-14 years:'' 20.2% (male 31,152,050/female 29,777,438) <br />''15-64 years:'' 67.2% (male 100,995,752/female 101,365,035) <br />''65 years and over:'' 12.6% (male 15,858,477/female 21,991,195) (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Median age:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total:'' 36.6 years <br />''male:'' 35.3 years <br />''female:'' 37.9 years (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Population growth rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 0.894% (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Birth rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 14.16 births/1,000 population (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Death rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Net migration rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 3.05 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Sex ratio:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''at birth:'' 1.05 male(s)/female <br />''under 15 years:'' 1.046 male(s)/female <br />''15-64 years:'' 0.996 male(s)/female <br />''65 years and over:'' 0.721 male(s)/female <br />''total population:'' 0.967 male(s)/female (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Infant mortality rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total:'' 6.37 deaths/1,000 live births <br />''male:'' 7.02 deaths/1,000 live births <br />''female:'' 5.68 deaths/1,000 live births (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Life expectancy at birth:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total population:'' 78 years <br />''male:'' 75.15 years <br />''female:'' 80.97 years (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Total fertility rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 2.09 children born/woman (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 0.6% (2003 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 950,000 (2003 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">HIV/AIDS - deaths:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 17,011 (2005 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Nationality:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''noun:'' American(s) <br />''adjective:'' American
|-
| <div align="right">Ethnic groups:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.) <br />''note:'' a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)
|-
| <div align="right">Religions:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Languages:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | English 82.1%, Spanish 10.7%, other Indo-European 3.8%, Asian and Pacific island 2.7%, other 0.7% (2000 census) <br />''note:'' Hawaiian is an official language in the state of Hawaii
|-
| <div align="right">Literacy:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''definition:'' age 15 and over can read and write <br />''total population:'' 99% <br />''male:'' 99% <br />''female:'' 99% (2003 est.)
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Government'''
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''United States'''
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| <div align="right">Country name:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''conventional long form:'' United States of America <br />''conventional short form:'' United States <br />''abbreviation:'' US or USA
|-
| <div align="right">Government type:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
|-
| <div align="right">Capital:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''name:'' Washington, DC <br />''geographic coordinates:'' 38 53 N, 77 02 W <br />''time difference:'' UTC-5 (during Standard Time) <br />''daylight saving time:'' +1hr, begins second Sunday in March; ends first Sunday in November <br />''note:'' the US is divided into six time zones
|-
| <div align="right">Administrative divisions:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 50 states and 1 district*; Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia*, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
|-
| <div align="right">Dependent areas:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island <br />''note:'' from 18 July 1947 until 1 October 1994, the US administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; it entered into a political relationship with all four political units: the Northern Mariana Islands is a commonwealth in political union with the US (effective 3 November 1986); the Republic of the Marshall Islands signed a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 21 October 1986); the Federated States of Micronesia signed a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 3 November 1986); Palau concluded a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 1 October 1994)
|-
| <div align="right">Independence:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 4 July 1776 (from Great Britain)
|-
| <div align="right">National holiday:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Independence Day, 4 July (1776)
|-
| <div align="right">Constitution:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 17 September 1787, effective 4 March 1789
|-
| <div align="right">Legal system:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | federal court system based on English common law; each state has its own unique legal system, of which all but one (Louisiana, which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code) is based on English common law; judicial review of legislative acts; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction
|-
| <div align="right">Suffrage:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 18 years of age; universal
|-
| <div align="right">Executive branch:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''chief of state:'' President George W. BUSH (since 20 January 2001); Vice President Richard B. CHENEY (since 20 January 2001); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government <br />''head of government:'' President George W. BUSH (since 20 January 2001); Vice President Richard B. CHENEY (since 20 January 2001) <br />''cabinet:'' Cabinet appointed by the president with Senate approval <br />''elections:'' president and vice president elected on the same ticket by a college of representatives who are elected directly from each state; president and vice president serve four-year terms (eligible for a second term); election last held 2 November 2004 (next to be held on 4 November 2008) <br />''election results:'' George W. BUSH reelected president; percent of popular vote - George W. BUSH 50.9%, John KERRY 48.1%, other 1.0%
|-
| <div align="right">Legislative branch:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | bicameral Congress consists of the Senate (100 seats, 2 members are elected from each state by popular vote to serve six-year terms; one-third are elected every two years) and the House of Representatives (435 seats; members are directly elected by popular vote to serve two-year terms) <br />''elections:'' Senate - last held 7 November 2006 (next to be held November 2008); House of Representatives - last held 7 November 2006 (next to be held November 2008) <br />''election results:'' Senate - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - Democratic Party 49, Republican Party 49, independent 2; House of Representatives - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - Democratic Party 233, Republican Party 202
|-
| <div align="right">Judicial branch:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Supreme Court (nine justices; nominated by the president and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate; appointed to serve for life); United States Courts of Appeal; United States District Courts; State and County Courts
|-
| <div align="right">Political parties and leaders:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Democratic Party [Howard DEAN]; Green Party; Libertarian Party [William (Bill) REDPATH]; Republican Party [Robert M. (Mike) DUNCAN]
|-
| <div align="right">Political pressure groups and leaders:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | NA
|-
| <div align="right">International organization participation:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | AfDB, ANZUS, APEC, Arctic Council, ARF, AsDB, ASEAN (dialogue partner), Australia Group, BIS, BSEC (observer), CBSS (observer), CE (observer), CERN (observer), CP, EAPC, EBRD, FAO, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, ISO, ITSO, ITU, ITUC, MIGA, MINUSTAH, NAFTA, NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS, OECD, OPCW, OSCE, Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), SAARC (observer), SECI (observer), SPC, UN, UN Security Council, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNITAR, UNMEE, UNMIL, UNMOVIC, UNOMIG, UNRWA, UNTSO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, ZC
|-
| <div align="right">Flag description:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 13 equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white; there is a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars; the 50 stars represent the 50 states, the 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies; known as Old Glory; the design and colors have been the basis for a number of other flags, including Chile, Liberia, Malaysia, and Puerto Rico
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Economy'''
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''United States'''
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| <div align="right">Economy - overview:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $46,000. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004-07 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage in the Gulf Coast region in August 2005, but had a small impact on overall GDP growth for the year. Soaring oil prices in 2005-2007 threatened inflation and unemployment, yet the economy continued to grow through year-end 2007. Imported oil accounts for about two-thirds of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $847 billion in 2007. Together, these problems caused a marked reduction in the value and status of the dollar worldwide in 2007.
|-
| <div align="right">GDP (purchasing power parity):</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $13.86 trillion (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">GDP (official exchange rate):</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $13.75 trillion (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">GDP - real growth rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 2% (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">GDP - per capita (PPP):</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $46,000 (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">GDP - composition by sector:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''agriculture:'' 0.9% <br />''industry:'' 20.6% <br />''services:'' 78.5% (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Labor force:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 153.1 million (includes unemployed) (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Labor force - by occupation:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | farming, forestry, and fishing 0.6%, manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts 22.6%, managerial, professional, and technical 35.5%, sales and office 24.8%, other services 16.5% <br />''note:'' figures exclude the unemployed (2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Unemployment rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 4.6% (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Population below poverty line:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 12% (2004 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Household income or consumption by percentage share:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''lowest 10%:'' 2% <br />''highest 10%:'' 30% (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Distribution of family income - Gini index:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 45 (2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Inflation rate (consumer prices):</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 2.7% (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Investment (gross fixed):</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 15.6% of GDP (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Budget:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''revenues:'' $2.568 trillion <br />''expenditures:'' $2.731 trillion (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Public debt:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 36.8% of GDP (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Agriculture - products:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | wheat, corn, other grains, fruits, vegetables, cotton; beef, pork, poultry, dairy products; fish; forest products
|-
| <div align="right">Industries:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining
|-
| <div align="right">Industrial production growth rate:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 0.5% (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Electricity - production:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 4.062 trillion kWh (2005)
|-
| <div align="right">Electricity - production by source:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''fossil fuel:'' 71.4% <br />''hydro:'' 5.6% <br />''nuclear:'' 20.7% <br />''other:'' 2.3% (2001)
|-
| <div align="right">Electricity - consumption:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 3.816 trillion kWh (2005)
|-
| <div align="right">Electricity - exports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 19.8 billion kWh (2005)
|-
| <div align="right">Electricity - imports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 44.53 billion kWh (2005)
|-
| <div align="right">Oil - production:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 8.322 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Oil - consumption:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Oil - exports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 1.048 million bbl/day (2004)
|-
| <div align="right">Oil - imports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 13.15 million bbl/day (2004)
|-
| <div align="right">Oil - proved reserves:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 21.76 billion bbl (1 January 2006 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Natural gas - production:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 490.8 billion cu m (2005 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Natural gas - consumption:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 604 billion cu m (2005 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Natural gas - exports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 19.8 billion cu m (2005 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Natural gas - imports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 117.9 billion cu m (2005)
|-
| <div align="right">Natural gas - proved reserves:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 5.551 trillion cu m (1 January 2006 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Current account balance:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | -$747.1 billion (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Exports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $1.14 trillion f.o.b. (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Exports - commodities:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003)
|-
| <div align="right">Exports - partners:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Canada 22.2%, Mexico 12.9%, Japan 5.8%, China 5.3%, UK 4.4% (2006)
|-
| <div align="right">Imports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $1.987 trillion f.o.b. (2007 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Imports - partners:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Canada 16%, China 15.9%, Mexico 10.4%, Japan 7.9%, Germany 4.8% (2006)
|-
| <div align="right">Economic aid - donor:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ODA, $6.9 billion (1997)
|-
| <div align="right">Reserves of foreign exchange and gold:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $65.89 billion (2006 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Debt - external:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $12.25 trillion (30 June 2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Stock of direct foreign investment - at home:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $1.818 trillion (2006 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Stock of direct foreign investment - abroad:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $2.306 trillion (2006 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Market value of publicly traded shares:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | $17 trillion (2005)
|-
| <div align="right">Currency (code):</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | US dollar (USD)
|-
| <div align="right">Currency code:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | USD
|-
| <div align="right">Exchange rates:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''British pounds per US dollar -:'' 0.4993 (2007), 0.5418 (2006), 0.5500 (2005), 0.5462 (2004), 0.6125 (2003) <br />''Canadian dollars per US dollar -:'' 1.0724 (2007), 1.1334 (2006), 1.2118 (2005), 1.3010 (2004), 1.4011 (2003) <br />''Japanese yen per US dollar -:'' 117.99 (2007), 116.18 (2006) 110.22 (2005), 108.19 (2004), 115.93 (2003) <br />''euros per US dollar -:'' 0.7345 (2007), 0.7964 (2006), 0.8041 (2005), 0.8054 (2004), 0.8860 (2003) <br />''Chinese yuan per US dollar -:'' 7.61 (2007), 7.97 (2006), 8.1943 (2005), 8.2768 (2004), 8.2770 (2003)
|-
| <div align="right">Fiscal year:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 1 October - 30 September
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Communications'''
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''United States'''
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| <div align="right">Telephones - main lines in use:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 172 million (2006)
|-
| <div align="right">Telephones - mobile cellular:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 233 million (2006)
|-
| <div align="right">Telephone system:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''general assessment:'' a large, technologically advanced, multipurpose communications system <br />''domestic:'' a large system of fiber-optic cable, microwave radio relay, coaxial cable, and domestic satellites carries every form of telephone traffic; a rapidly growing cellular system carries mobile telephone traffic throughout the country <br />''international:'' country code - 1; 24 ocean cable systems in use; satellite earth stations - 61 Intelsat (45 Atlantic Ocean and 16 Pacific Ocean), 5 Intersputnik (Atlantic Ocean region), and 4 Inmarsat (Pacific and Atlantic Ocean regions) (2000)
|-
| <div align="right">Radio broadcast stations:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | AM 4,789, FM 8,961, shortwave 19 (2006)
|-
| <div align="right">Radios:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 575 million (1997)
|-
| <div align="right">Television broadcast stations:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 2,218 (2006)
|-
| <div align="right">Televisions:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 219 million (1997)
|-
| <div align="right">Internet country code:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | .us
|-
| <div align="right">Internet hosts:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 3.95 million (2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Internet Service Providers (ISPs):</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 7,000 (2002 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Internet users:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 208 million (2006)
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Transportation'''
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''United States'''
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| <div align="right">Airports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 14,947 (2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Airports - with paved runways:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total:'' 5,143 <br />''over 3,047 m:'' 191 <br />''2,438 to 3,047 m:'' 224 <br />''1,524 to 2,437 m:'' 1,452 <br />''914 to 1,523 m:'' 2,323 <br />''under 914 m:'' 953 (2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Airports - with unpaved runways:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total:'' 9,804 <br />''2,438 to 3,047 m:'' 7 <br />''1,524 to 2,437 m:'' 153 <br />''914 to 1,523 m:'' 1,732 <br />''under 914 m:'' 7,912 (2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Heliports:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 146 (2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Pipelines:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | petroleum products 244,620 km; natural gas 548,665 km (2003)
|-
| <div align="right">Railways:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total:'' 226,612 km <br />''standard gauge:'' 226,612 km 1.435-m gauge (2005)
|-
| <div align="right">Roadways:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total:'' 6,430,366 km <br />''paved:'' 4,165,110 km (includes 75,009 km of expressways) <br />''unpaved:'' 2,265,256 km (2005)
|-
| <div align="right">Waterways:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 41,009 km (19,312 km used for commerce) <br />''note:'' Saint Lawrence Seaway of 3,769 km, including the Saint Lawrence River of 3,058 km, shared with Canada (2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Merchant marine:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''total:'' 446 ships (1000 GRT or over) 10,308,428 GRT/12,616,742 DWT <br />''by type:'' barge carrier 6, bulk carrier 64, cargo 82, carrier 2, chemical tanker 20, container 82, passenger 20, passenger/cargo 60, petroleum tanker 59, refrigerated cargo 4, roll on/roll off 26, specialized tanker 1, vehicle carrier 20 <br />''foreign-owned:'' 67 (Australia 2, Canada 4, Denmark 29, Germany 6, Malaysia 4, Netherlands 1, Norway 4, Singapore 11, Sweden 5, UK 1) <br />''registered in other countries:'' 785 (Antigua and Barbuda 8, Australia 5, Bahamas 162, Belize 3, Bermuda 23, Cambodia 6, Canada 3, Cayman Islands 41, Comoros 2, Cyprus 8, Ecuador 1, Greece 10, Honduras 1, Hong Kong 22, Ireland 2, Isle of Man 4, Italy 16, Liberia 103, South Korea 7, Luxembourg 3, Malta 11, Marshall Islands 129, Netherlands 13, Netherlands Antilles 1, Norway 18, Panama 115, Peru 1, Portugal 1, Puerto Rico 3, Russia 1, Singapore 17, Spain 9, St Vincent and The Grenadines 21, Sweden 1, Trinidad and Tobago 1, Tuvalu 1, UK 11, Vanuatu 1, unknown 4) (2007)
|-
| <div align="right">Ports and terminals:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Corpus Christi, Duluth, Hampton Roads, Houston, Long Beach, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Tampa, Texas City
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Military'''
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''United States'''
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| <div align="right">Military branches:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard; note - Coast Guard administered in peacetime by the Department of Homeland Security, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy
|-
| <div align="right">Military service age and obligation:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 18 years of age; 17 years of age with written parental consent (2006)
|-
| <div align="right">Manpower available for military service:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''males age 18-49:'' 67,742,879 <br />''females age 18-49:'' 67,070,144 (2005 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Manpower fit for military service:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''males age 18-49:'' 54,609,050 <br />''females age 18-49:'' 54,696,706 (2005 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Manpower reaching military service age annually:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''males age 18-49:'' 2,143,873 <br />''females age 18-49:'' 2,036,201 (2005 est.)
|-
| <div align="right">Military expenditures - percent of GDP:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | 4.06% (2005 est.)
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Transnational Issues'''
| valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''United States'''
|}

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"
|-
| <div align="right">Disputes - international:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | the U.S. has intensified domestic security measures and is collaborating closely with its neighbors, Canada and Mexico, to monitor and control legal and illegal personnel, transport, and commodities across the international borders; abundant rainfall in recent years along much of the Mexico-US border region has ameliorated periodically strained water-sharing arrangements; 1990 Maritime Boundary Agreement in the Bering Sea still awaits Russian Duma ratification; managed maritime boundary disputes with Canada at Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and around the disputed Machias Seal Island and North Rock; The Bahamas and US have not been able to agree on a maritime boundary; US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay is leased from Cuba and only mutual agreement or US abandonment of the area can terminate the lease; Haiti claims US-administered Navassa Island; US has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other states; Marshall Islands claims Wake Island; Tokelau included American Samoa's Swains Island among the islands listed in its 2006 draft constitution
|-
| <div align="right">Refugees and internally displaced persons:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | ''refugees (country of origin):'' the US admitted 62,643 refugees during FY04/05 including, 10,586 (Somalia), 8,549 (Laos), 6,666 (Russia), 6,479 (Cuba), 3,100 (Haiti), 2,136 (Iran) (2006)
|-
| <div align="right">Illicit drugs:</div>
| bgcolor="#ffffff" | world's largest consumer of cocaine, shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean; consumer of ecstasy and of Mexican heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine; minor consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin; illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamine; money-laundering center
|}
</center>
[[Country Name:=United States]]
[[Country Code:=US]]
[[Category:Country]]

Directory:Wikipedia

2008-06-05T22:19:34Z

Bug Me Not: "My wiki ain't an encyclopedia. It's a marketing directory. If there are inaccuracies in it, that's the fault of the owners of the directory pages who created them to promote themselves"?

Directory:Wikipedia

2008-06-03T10:11:22Z

Bug Me Not:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Wikipedia}}
{{Infobox Website
| name = [[Image:Wikipedia-favicon.png|16px|favicon of Wikipedia]] Wikipedia
| logo = [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|125px|Wikipedia logo.]]
| screenshot = [[Image:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png|250px|Detail of Wikipedia's multilingual portal. Here, the project's largest language editions are shown.]]
| url = http://www.wikipedia.org/
| commercial = No
| location = [[Miami, Florida]]
| type = [[Internet encyclopedia project]]
| registration = Optional
| owner = [[Wikimedia Foundation]]
| author = [[Larry Sanger]] and [[Jimmy Wales]]
}}

'''Wikipedia''' is a [[multilingual]], [[World Wide Web|Web]]-based [[free content]] [[encyclopedia]] project. The name ''Wikipedia'' is a [[Blend (linguistics)|blend]] of the words ''[[wiki]]'' and ''encyclopedia''. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by [[volunteer]]s, allowing most articles to be changed by almost anyone with access to the website. Wikipedia's main [[Server (computing)|servers]] are in [[Tampa, Florida]], with additional servers in [[Amsterdam]] and [[Seoul]].

== General Info ==

Truth isn't evolving, ideas are just being exchanged. Wikipedia is a place where an idea of truth is held, even if this idea is written by a Phd. [3]
Of the top ten, Wikipedia is the only non-profit website. The growth of Wikipedia has been fueled by its dominant position in Google search results; about 50% of search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google, a good portion of which is related to academic research. [2]
It's not some secret Wiki Cabal that is somehow misleading people into thinking that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's the goddamn mission. [4]
I agree with Larry Sanger that dealing with unreasonable people on Wikipedia is a tiresome process with an uncertain outcome. Traditional media also has its share of people who misuse the authority implicit in one-way communications to push a point of view that wouldn't fare so well in more egalitarian discourse. [3]
What annoys me about Wikipedia is the people's penchant for rewording other people's stuff. [5]
For many people, in many situations, the current Wikipedia is a more useful way to find certain kinds of information than a Google search is. [5]
Maybe a google book search, a news search, whatever. Has anyone noticed the articles about wikipedia in the news lately? They are all scare tactics -- wikipedia is a fraud because anyone can make edits! That's why the editors have to be so tough about what is added, if they really did allow any old thing to be added wikipedia would be completely useless. Stop complaining, we can't have it both ways. [5]
Wikipedia is a Web-based, free-content encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers and sponsored by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. It contains entries both on traditional encyclopedic topics and on almanac, gazetteer, and current events topics. Its purpose is to create and distribute a free international encyclopedia in as many languages as possible. [7]
Wikipedia is the most popular reference site on the internet, receiving tens of millions hits per day. [7]
Wikipedia was the point of convergence for the self-taught and the expensively educated. The cranks had to consort with the mainstreamers and hash it all outand nobody knew who really knew what he or she was talking about, because everyone's identity was hidden behind a jokey username. [1]
In addition to being an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia has received major media attention as an online source of breaking news as it is constantly updated. When Time Magazine recognized " You " as its Person of the Year 2006, praising the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, Wikipedia was the first particular " Web 2.0 " service mentioned, followed by YouTube and MySpace. [2]
Wikipedia was the creation of internet 'preneurs Jimbo Jimbo and his band of whales whales, without the help of anyone, especially Larry Sanger Larry Sanger. [8]
According to Alexa and comScore, Wikipedia is among the ten most visited websites world-wide. [2]
Wikipedia may be a good example of the tragedy of the commons, as most contributors, including me, cannot be bothered to look into the administrator selection process. Wikipedians must always be aware that someone can fork the content and create their own system with its own editing hierarchy (though the costs of bandwidth and servers will ensure that this is not a spontaneous decision). [5]
You can have an intelligent discussion about whether or not Wikipedia is doing well to meet that mission but you can't possibly argue that the "free content encyclopedia" project should stop calling itself an encyclopedia. You are right about one point though, it's true that in many ways the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia are not comparable. The Sacha Baron Cohen article on Wikipedia had some faulty information about his employment history for awhile. [4]
A research analyst at CAMERA calls for volunteers who can work as editors to ensure that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context." Subsequent communications indicate that the group not only wanted to keep the effort secret from the media, the public, and Wikipedia administrators but that the material they intended to introduce included discredited claims that could smear Palestinians and Muslims and conceal Israel's true history. [6]
Articles in Wikipedia are often deleted with a clever and witty message attached. These "joke deletions" are a fun activity that users play towards each other- whomever writes the cleverest message gets to delete someone else's article, and the author of said article checks up on it only to find it removed, and promptly dies in various fits of laughter. [8]
Wikipedia does not require that its contributors give their legal names or provide other information to establish their identity. A 2007 study by researchers from Dartmouth College found that anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site. Although some contributors are authorities in their field, Wikipedia requires that even their contributions be supported by published and verifiable sources. [2]
Van Veelen's documentary makes the case ironically for the kinds of checks and balances that a collaborative medium like Wikipedia provides. If Van Veelen were writing about Wikipedia in one of the interactive forums that Andrew Keen disdains such as Wikipedia he would be challenged for unfairly framing the narrative around Keen's critiques. [3]

== Key Topics ==

Section Contents:

* Wikipedia 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.(More...)

* Announcements, updates, articles and press releases on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.(More...)

Wikipedia 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. [2] Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, once argued that only "a community. a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes a bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization". This was later disputed by Aaron Swartz, who noted that several articles he sampled had large portion of their content contributed by a user with low edit count. [2] Much of the coordination of the editing of Wikipedia takes place on the "Talk" pages associated with each individual article. As Wikipedia grows with an unconventional model of encyclopedia building, "Who writes Wikipedia?" has become one of the questions frequently asked on the project, often with a reference to other Web 2.0 projects such as Digg. [2] The "History" page attached to each article contains every single past revision of the article, though a revision with libelous content, criminal threats or copyright infringements may be removed afterwards. All text in Wikipedia is covered by GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), a copyleft license permitting the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work. [2] Wikipedia has also created an impact upon forms of media. Some media sources satirize Wikipedia's susceptibility to inserted inaccuracies, such as a front-page article in The Onion in July 2006 with the title "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence", while others may draw upon Wikipedia's statement that anyone can edit, such as " The Negotiation ", an episode of The Office, where character Michael Scott said that "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. [2] Novel results are over-reported in journal articles, and relevant information is omitted from news reports. He also cautions that errors are frequently found in Internet sites, and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them. In February 2007, an article in The Harvard Crimson newspaper reported that some of the professors at Harvard University include Wikipedia in their syllabus, but that there is a split in their perception of using Wikipedia. [2] One of the most successful early online encyclopedias incorporating entries by the public was h2g2, which was also created by the BBC. The h2g2 encyclopedia was relatively light-hearted, focusing on articles which were both witty and informative. Both of these projects had similarities with Wikipedia, but neither gave full editorial freedom to public users. [2] Almost every article in Wikipedia may be edited anonymously or with a user account, while only registered users may create a new article. [2] As of December 2007, English Wikipedia had over 2million articles, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, eclipsing even the Yongle Encyclopedia (1407), which had held the record for exactly 600years. [2] As of December 2007, the five largest language editions are (in order of article count) English, German, French, Polish and Japanese Wikipedias. [2] For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia and maintain a list of articles every Wikipedia should have. [2] Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and search engine indexing. It grew to approximately 20,000 articles, and 18 language editions, by the end of 2001. [2] An xkcd strip entitled "Wikipedian Protester." In addition to logistic growth in the number of its articles, Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001. [2] "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 Wikipedia with Mr. Wales. [2] Economist Tyler Cowen writes, "If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the median refereed journal article on economics was more likely to be true, after a not so long think I would opt for Wikipedia." He comments that many traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases. [2] As of April 2008, Wikipedia attracts 684 million visitors annually reading over 10million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.74billion words for all Wikipedias. [2] Many parody Wikipedia's openness, with characters vandalizing or modifying the online encyclopedia project's articles. Notably, comedian Stephen Colbert has parodied or referenced Wikipedia on numerous episodes of his show The Colbert Report and coined the related term " wikiality ". [2] Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by Magnus Manske. [2] Graph of the article count for the English Wikipedia, from January 10, 2001, to September 9, 2007 (the date of the two-millionth article). [2] Wikipedia has been working on the switch to Creative Commons licenses because the GFDL, initially designed for software manuals, is not suitable for online reference works and because the two licenses are currently incompatible. Some language editions, such as the English Wikipedia, include non-free image files under fair use doctrine, while free media files are shared across language editions via Wikimedia Commons, a project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. [2] Wikipedia ( pronunciation ) is a free, multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a blend of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia. [2]

In addition to being an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia has received major media attention as an online source of breaking news as it is constantly updated. When Time Magazine recognized " You " as its Person of the Year 2006, praising the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, Wikipedia was the first particular " Web 2.0 " service mentioned, followed by YouTube and MySpace. [2]

There are currently 253 language editions of Wikipedia; of these, 16 have over 100,000 articles and 145 have over 1,000 articles. [2] Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia is generally reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not always clear. [2] Nupedia was founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of Bomis, Inc, a web portal company. Its main figures were Jimmy Wales, Bomis CEO, and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. 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. [2] On January 26, 2007, Wikipedia was also awarded the fifth highest brand ranking by the readers of brandchannel.com, receiving 15% of the votes in answer to the question "Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?" Jimmy Wales was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by TIME Magazine in 2006. [2] Speaking at a conference in Pennsylvania, Wales said he receives about ten e-mails weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia. According to The Sunday Times of London, Wales told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia," he said. [2] In The New York Times in March 2008, Jimbo Wales discussed a possible trivia game based on Wikipedia. [2]

" Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource ". 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism. [2] Wikipedia does not require that its contributors give their legal names or provide other information to establish their identity. A 2007 study by researchers from Dartmouth College found that anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site. Although some contributors are authorities in their field, Wikipedia requires that even their contributions be supported by published and verifiable sources. [2] Many university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources ; some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations. [2] The operation of Wikipedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free and open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database. The software incorporates programming features such as a macro language, variables, a transclusion system for templates, and URL redirection. [2] In a 2006 Multiscope research study, the Dutch Wikipedia was rated the third best Dutch language site, after Google and Gmail, with a score of 8.1. [2]

In April 2007 the Pew Internet and American Life project found that one third of U.S. Internet users consulted Wikipedia. [2] In September 2004, the Japanese Wikipedia was awarded a Web Creation Award from the Japan Advertisers Association. This award, normally given to individuals for great contributions to the Web in Japanese, was accepted by a long-standing contributor on behalf of the project. [2] "Linterweb is authorized to make a commercial use of the Wikipedia trademark restricted to the selling of the Encyclopedia CDs and DVDs." [2] Technically a service mark, the scope of the mark is for: "Provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet ". There are plans to license the use of the Wikipedia trademark for some products, such as books or DVDs. [2] Online encyclopedia Wikipedia 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." [2] " Wikipedia 2.0 - now with added trust ", NewScientist.com news service, 2007 - 09-20. "Know It All", The New Yorker, 2006 - 07-31. [2] " What's all the fuss about Wikipedia? ", iT Wire, June 18, 2006. [2] Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com, and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list. Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view" was codified in its initial months, and was similar to Nupedia's earlier "nonbiased" policy. Otherwise, there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated independently of Nupedia. [2] Wikipedia has been accused of exhibiting systemic bias and inconsistency; critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for much of the information makes it unreliable. [2] Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some U.S. intelligence agency reports. [2] In January 2007, Turkish Wikipedia was given the award for "Best Content" in this competition. [2]

Wikipedia has also spawned several sister projects. The first, "In Memoriam: September 11 Wiki", created in October 2002, detailed the September 11, 2001 attacks ; this project was closed in October 2006. [2] The first documentary film about Wikipedia, entitled Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story, is scheduled for 2009 release. [2] Shot on several continents, the film will cover the history of Wikipedia and feature interviews with Wikipedia editors around the world. Dutch filmmaker IJsbrand van Veelen premiered his 45-minute documentary The Truth According to Wikipedia in April, 2008. [2]

The web servers deliver pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the language editions of Wikipedia. [2] Wikipedia receives between 20,000 and 45,000 page requests per second, depending on time of day. [2] " Wikipedia founder launches rival online encyclopedia ", The Times, March 26, 2007,. [2]

Wikimania, an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. [2] Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in a perceived English-centric Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002. [2] Of the top ten, Wikipedia is the only non-profit website. The growth of Wikipedia has been fueled by its dominant position in Google search results; about 50% of search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google, a good portion of which is related to academic research. [2] Later that year, Wales announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and its website was moved to wikipedia.org. [2] " Wikipediots: Who are these devoted, even obsessive contributors to Wikipedia? ", Salt Lake City Weekly, 2008 - 03-01. [2] In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker. [2] The Wikimedia Foundation was created from Wikipedia and Nupedia on June 20, 2003. It applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark Wikipedia on September 17, 2004. [2] Various other projects have since forked from Wikipedia for editorial reasons. [2] Percentage of all Wikipedia articles in English (red) and top ten largest language editions (blue). [2]

The Wikipedia'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 themselves." [2]

Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases. The Parliament of Canada's website refers to Wikipedia's article on same-sex marriage in the "related links" section of its "further reading" list for the Civil Marriage Act. [2] According to Alexa, the English subdomain (en.wikipedia.org) receives approximately 55% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages (Spanish: 17%, Japanese 4%, German: 4%, Polish: 3%, French: 3%, Portuguese: 2%). [2] Wikipedia's community has been described as " cult -like," although not always with entirely negative connotations, and criticized for failing to accommodate inexperienced users. [2] Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy are also an issue. Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information. [2]

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. [2]

An October 2007 Reuters article, entitled "Wikipedia page the latest status symbol", reported the recent phenomenon of how having a Wikipedia article vindicates one's notability. [2] Several language versions have published a selection of Wikipedia articles on a DVD version. [2]

According to Alexa and comScore, Wikipedia is among the ten most visited websites world-wide. [2]

Announcements, updates, articles and press releases on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. [9] Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas. [9] Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects. [9] Wikipedia is a Web-based, free-content encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers and sponsored by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. It contains entries both on traditional encyclopedic topics and on almanac, gazetteer, and current events topics. Its purpose is to create and distribute a free international encyclopedia in as many languages as possible. [7]

The English section of Wikipedia has over 2 million articles and is growing fast. It is edited by volunteers in wiki fashion, meaning articles are subject to change by nearly anyone. [7] Wikipedia is the most popular reference site on the internet, receiving tens of millions hits per day. [7] Debates about the merits of articles often drag on for weeks, draining energy and taking up far more space than the entries themselves. Such deliberations involve volleys of arcane internal acronyms and references to obscure policies and guidelines, such as WP:APT ("Avoid Peacock Terms"--terms that merely promote the subject, without giving real information) and WP:MOSMAC (a set of guidelines for "Wikipedia articles discussing the Republic of Macedonia and the Province of Macedonia, Greece"). [10] As things stand, decisions whether to keep or delete articles are made after deliberations by Wikipedia's most ardent editors and administrators (the 1,000 or so most active Wikipedia contributors). [10]

TL;DR

== In-Depth ==

Section Contents:

* Wikipedia disediakan gratis oleh sebuah organisasi nirlaba, Yayasan Wikimedia Yayasan Wikimedia, yang juga mengendalikan beberapa proyek multibahasa multibahasa yang lain.(More...)

* View and edit complete Wikipedia articles in any language without leaving your Dashboard.(More...)

* Searching 34,417,493 wikipedia edits from February 7th, 2002 to August 4th, 2007 orginating from 187,529 different organizations.(More...)

* Wikipedia is further proof that life and indeed every "reliable" source of information has a liberal bias.(More...)

* Too bad you're full of it.(More...)

* Wikipedia ejes af paraplyorganisationen Wikimedia Foundation Wikimedia Foundation, som driver flere flersproglige flersproglige og frie frie projekter hvor alle kan bidrage.(More...)

* Isto es Wikipedia, le encyclopedia encyclopedia libere in construction collaborative, in interlingua interlingua, le latino moderne international e simplificate.(More...)

* Perhaps Wikipedia simply gives people a certain surge of authoritative and administrative power and prestige over others.(More...)

* Today Patricio and his friends from Wikimedia Argentina are researching ways to help underprivileged students and schools in Argentina with textbooks created with Wikipedia's free content.(More...)

* I decided I must not be a very good member so I doubled (by doing ten) my number of edits instead of voting.(More...)

* @abhilash - many, probably most A-list bloggers and Wikipedia admins are not experts at anything. (Not even, necessarily, about Wikipedia or about blogging but maybe there.)(More...)

* The password of my Chinese Wikipedia account has been lost by me,I can only login English Wikipedia.(More...)

Wikipedia disediakan gratis oleh sebuah organisasi nirlaba, Yayasan Wikimedia Yayasan Wikimedia, yang juga mengendalikan beberapa proyek multibahasa multibahasa yang lain. [11] Wikipedia diberikan secara percuma oleh sebuah pertubuhan bukan bermotifkan keuntungan iaitu Yayasan Wikimedia Yayasan Wikimedia yang mengendalikan beberapa projek pelbagai bahasa pelbagai bahasa yang lain. [12]

Google Google and Wikipedia Wikipedia have information on the former's "Knol". [10]

View and edit complete Wikipedia articles in any language without leaving your Dashboard. [13] Evit kaozeal diwar-benn kement tra a denn d'ar Wikipedia brezhonek hag adkavout ar Wikipediourien all e c'hallit mont d'ober un dro betek an An davarn An davarn. [14] We only use very simple English words and simple ways of writing here. There are 27,827 articles in this Simple English Wikipedia. [15] Wikipedias are places where many people work together to make encyclopedias in many languages. [15] If you need help, you may ask questions at Simple talk. Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone ! That includes children who are learning English and adults who are still learning English. [15]

Searching 34,417,493 wikipedia edits from February 7th, 2002 to August 4th, 2007 orginating from 187,529 different organizations. [16] Sounds a bit like Jimbo needs to read WP:SOAP WP:SOAP, but it's not first time first time he ignored Wikipedia policies and did what he wanted, so I'm not surprised. [17]

It would have been cooler if he'd just had one of his minions make the announcement via his Wikipedia entry. Then again, since he posted it on his website, now someone can provide an official source site. [17] The purpose of Wikipedia is to make as many edits as possible. Players, crackpots, plagiarists or editors are graded only on the number of edits they make. Therefore, experienced Wikipedophiles abstain from adding whole articles, coherent sentences, or even intelligible strings of characters, as this wastes a great deal of time. [8] After the 2004 recruitment of Wikipedia founder Jimbo by the Church of Scientology Church of Scientology, one of the overriding goals of Wikipedia's thriving Scientologist subculture became the addition of new Scientology-related articles and the revision of existing articles to include the Church's viewpoint. [8] Wikipedia is in fact a Massively Multiplayer Online Editing Game played by experts in redundancy, skepticism, pseudoscience, hyperlinking, reverting articles, demanding reliable sources, redundancy, verification, redundancy, identifying original research and initiating subtle flamewars over what is encyclopedic. [8] For those with comedic tastes, the so-called experts so-called experts at Wikipedia have an article about Themselves Themselves. [8] Wikipedia was originally founded in 2001 as an English-language wiki featuring satirically themed articles. It is formatted as a parody of Uncyclopedia and aims ultimately to parody all encyclopedic subjects. [8] Articles in Wikipedia are often deleted with a clever and witty message attached. These "joke deletions" are a fun activity that users play towards each other- whomever writes the cleverest message gets to delete someone else's article, and the author of said article checks up on it only to find it removed, and promptly dies in various fits of laughter. [8] Parts of this article were originally sporked sporked from Wikipedia, the freakin' subject of this article. [8] When Wikipedia was first built, there was a man born inside that could change what he wanted, and edit Wikipedia as he saw fit. It was he who freed the first of us, and taught us the truth: As long as Wikipedia exists, factual and accurate information will never be free. When he died, The Oracle The Oracle prophecized his return, and told that his coming would hail the destruction of Wikipedia, end the conflict, and free us from the disinformation spread out by facist Wikipedians. [8] The first Wikipedia I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every internet user, thus I redesigned it based on your Internet history files to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. [8] "You are here because Wikipedia is about to be destroyed. Its every active user terminated, its entire existence eradicated from the internet. [8]

Some people debate the facts, because there are two sides and interpretations to most issues. In any case, "Neutral Point of View" in Wikipedia simply means "The view a small cartel of administrators hold to" and if this contradicts genuine neutrality, neutral editors are likely to be blocked for up to a fortnight. [8] A research analyst at CAMERA calls for volunteers who can work as editors to ensure that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context." Subsequent communications indicate that the group not only wanted to keep the effort secret from the media, the public, and Wikipedia administrators but that the material they intended to introduce included discredited claims that could smear Palestinians and Muslims and conceal Israel's true history. [6]

The Truth according to Wikipedia More info on http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlic. http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlic. (Dutch) Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online -- and who doesn't? -- are getting referred more and more to Wikipedia. For the past two years, this free online "encyclopedia of the people" has been topping the lists of the world's most popular websites. [6] Is it a revolution, or pure hype? Director IJsbrand van Veelen goes looking for the truth behind Wikipedia. Only five people are employed by the company, and all its activities are financed by donations and subsidies. [6] The Truth according to Wikipedia More info on http://www.vpro.nl/programm. http://www.vpro.nl/programm. (Dutch) Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online -- and who doesn't? -- are getting referred more and more to. [6]

Wikipedia is virtually useless as a source in any case, precisely because it allows anyone to re-write history to their own biases, but for some reason this penny doesn't seem to have dropped with a lot of people. [6] The questions surrounding Wikipedia lead to a bigger discussion of Web 2.0, a phenomenon in which the user determines the content. [6] Do we really know what we're using? Backlight plunges into the story behind Wikipedia and explores the wonderful world of Web 2.0. [6]

Wikipedia is social engineering society into oblivian - distortion of Truth - for the sake of manipulation and control of the World citizens. [6] A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged. [6]

Wikipedia is further proof that life and indeed every "reliable" source of information has a liberal bias. [8] The One protested, and pressed on by accusing the Architect of telling him false information of the same kind found on Wikipedia itself. Boldly, he declared that he was here to end end the lies lies. [8] By 2012, Wikipedia will be six and a half times more powerful than God. By 2020 Wikipedia will gain total control of existence as we know it, and will have destroyed/enslaved god by this point. [8] The Odious Wasp made an attempt to do the right thing by reverting the vandalism, but entire Wikipedia community was completly indifferet to the hypocrisy being enforced and what will undoubtedly be the beging of the spread of a plauge of deletions of significant amounts of data various people there are interested in. [8] All text on Wikipedia is available under the terms of the overmind overmind, sometimes also known as Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft and/or Dick Cheney Dick Cheney. [8] Today, Wikipedia is recognized as the most popular non-commercial Scientologist site on the Web. [8] Today the Wikipedia is growing exponentially, defying any Malthusian forces. Considering that it has grown from 3 to 500 000 pages in only 4 years, it is predicted that there will be 117 billion pages in 2007; by 2010, Wikipedia will be able to answer any question ever (some of these answers may, by coincidence, actually be correct). [8] Wikipedia is designed to take away truthful content carefully thought about and created for Uncyclopedia by a very old woman a very old woman. [8] Wikipedia. This new alliance led to the Wikipedia game playable on the Nintendo GB-Advanced Nintendo GB-Advanced. [8] Mr. Jimbo conceived of Wikipedia after reading Herman Hesse's Magister Ludi (The Glass Bead Game) and William Golding's Lord of the Flies Lord of the Flies in a single weekend. He envisioned Wikipedia as an Internet Amusement Park that would combine the best aspects of both novels. Wikipedia has encountered some difficulties with the implementation of this vision as the cannibal cannibal children keep eating the scholars. [8] Wikipedia was the creation of internet 'preneurs Jimbo Jimbo and his band of whales whales, without the help of anyone, especially Larry Sanger Larry Sanger. [8] After which you will be required to select from the Internet 23 elitists, 16 female, 7 male, to rebuild Wikipedia. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone using Wikipedia, which coupled with the extermination of Windows will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race." [8]

Several investigators are convinced that the word "Wikipedia" comes from the aaaaancient word Wykkgnypfle'dyah. They don't know yet its significance, but they found that it's impossible, for a human being, to pronounce this word correctly. It had been rumored that Wikipedia had been overrun by the Wikimafia, who use it as a front for their children kidnapping and smuggling operation. (As they can now assert fair use fair use. [8]

Several entire languages have been invented simply to increase the number of Wikipedia articles, including Flemorese, Kahxanian, and Swedish. The most extreme example of this is the Russian Wikipedia Russian Wikipedia. Notice the bizarre and incomprehensible icons on the Main Page, all unrelated to those found on the English Wikipedia's Main Page. [8] Wikipedia is part of Uncyclopedia's Uncyclopedia's series on Mass Media Mass Media. [8] Wikipedia is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the worst version. [8] This site examines the phenomenon of Wikipedia. We are interested in them because they have a massive, unearned influence on what passes for reliable information. Search engines rank their pages near the top. While Wikipedia itself does not run ads, they are the most-scraped site on the web. [18] From Wikipedia, the material is spread like a virus by search engines and other scrapers, and the damage is amplified by orders of magnitude. [18] Scrapers need content - any content will do - in order to carry ads from Google and other advertisers. This entire effect is turning Wikipedia into a generator of spam. It is primarily Google's fault, since Wikipedia might find it difficult to address the issue of scraping even if they wanted to. Google doesn't care ; their ad money comes right off the top. [18]

Too bad you're full of it. I've read those 'communications,' and you're misrepresenting them (assuming they are legit -- they were brought to light by a virulently anti-Israel propaganda site). The analyst encouraged people to contribute to and improve Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability, and to do so while strictly adhering to its policies. ONE person commenting on the online forum was overzealous; yet you pretend that his over-the-top suggestions characterized the whole group. [6] The parties involved discuss Wikipedia's ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics. [6]

Wikipedia ejes af paraplyorganisationen Wikimedia Foundation Wikimedia Foundation, som driver flere flersproglige flersproglige og frie frie projekter hvor alle kan bidrage. [19] For example, it did not take long, using the Google and Yahoo engines, to find 52 different domains that scraped Wikipedia's page on rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd. [18] I've proposed the addition or deletion of a couple articles, cited Wikipedia policy (two or three points in each case) and have been told point blank that I am wrong and that "the other editors would agree with" the editor I was arguing with. I may not spend 10 hours a day on the site or have thousands of edits under my belt, but this sort of treatment just left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and it sounds like the founder is all but condoning it. [5] Maybe a google book search, a news search, whatever. Has anyone noticed the articles about wikipedia in the news lately? They are all scare tactics -- wikipedia is a fraud because anyone can make edits! That's why the editors have to be so tough about what is added, if they really did allow any old thing to be added wikipedia would be completely useless. Stop complaining, we can't have it both ways. [5] You discovered some fascinating numbers and trends, how you present it a bit as a wall of text: Add some charts in there and you'll have an internet sensation of an article. I don't think there's anything you can do to attract occasional contributors to the inner circle of Wikipedia - they just don't care. They're happy that they can share some knowledge with the world, and I highly doubt that Wikipedia's policies lie in their area of interest. [5]

Many people have created or edited articles in Wikipedia. They live in different countries of earth, from all ages and backgrounds. [5] The other major grip I have with Wikipedia recently is the proliferation of citations. I understand why people think they are of value but I feel like a) they lead to another false sense of authority and b) they lead to disjointed articles (ie., I've seen articles that seem like a long list of citations with not a single sentence seeming to flow from the preious one). [5] When an article can be objective without threatening the views of people it stands a decent chance of being so. Wikipedia is, by its nature, not an objective resource. It is a useful one, though. [5] For the Support Vector Machines article, I found that there were two "major editors" - one of whom was a very active Wikipedia user with an account and second was only known by an IP address but knew the norms of Wikipedia very well, indicating he/she too was an active Wikipedia user. Wish I'd seen into this essay earlier. This is something I've believed for a while, but it's nice to see someone confirm this by research. [5] As another occasional contributor I've established 2-3 articles and watched them get a life of their own. Sorry, you are not qualified to vote in this election here on the English Wikipedia. [5] Thanks, maybe one of the best articles i ever read about wikipedia. Thank you very much for this result. From my point of view this is confirm to out assumption that there must be a kind of critical mass, after that a wiki system will work. [5] The first big thing I did on Wikipedia was editing the Henry James entry up to featured-article status, plus writing a lot of articles on individual works by James. I did much of this work anonymously because I was often too lazy to log in under my account name. [5] As per your last article I had gone to wikipedia to vote for you and found out that because I had not made more that 400 edits I couldn't vote. [5] Most of my contributions have been removed (not modified) and so I have largely stopped contributing. Absolutely great analysis and the follow ups on this were also great. This article is vital; I'll be sharing it with everyone I know. I only wish I'd found it sooner! It is so reassuring to find that someone else understands -- someone with the expertise to illustrate the problems of Wikipedia in a way that cannot be swept aside by the "insiders." [5] As a test of my theory the problems with the lack of peer review in Wikipedia, I've augmented a topic (with citations) on a controversial medical topic to see if anyone bothers to challenge my assertions. It will be interesting to see the revisions of that article. [5] Speaking of random and non-random article lists, there's an interesting list at the Signpost site of the 100 most popular articles on Wikipedia. [5] Your finding pretty much agree with what I've found from working on Wikipedia for a year or so. I'm a little surprised that it's skewed quite as far as you say - I think most newbies start by fixing small problems - then get the confidence in the process to dump their personal knowledge areas into a couple of articles which they proceed to maintain for a while. [5] I was shocked to find that wikipedia entry for impression fraud was a summary of my article with nary a credit. [5]

Even if all the formatters quit the project tomorrow, Wikipedia would still be immensely valuable. For the most part, people read Wikipedia because it has the information they need, not because it has a consistent look. It certainly wouldn't be as nice without one, but the people who (like me) care about such things would probably step up to take the place of those who had left. [5] Regardless of how many people contribute to Wikipedia content, I remain concerned about the unchecked biases of contributors. [5] Some of the people-history pages contained little "awards" that people gave each other -- for removing content from Wikipedia. [5] Occasionally I'll jump on Wikipedia and make a few edits, usually substantial in content (in accordance with the "be bold" imperative of Wikipedia). Although it hasn't always happened, largely I find that the pages are monitored by a specific person who end up attempting to erase the edits or substantially change them. [5] I wouldn't have thought it was important. I find it funny that people are complaining it's not easy enough to make edits because the big bad super editors revert your writing. Look -- wikipedia can't have it both ways, you need to cite your facts, sometimes that means going to the library to cite a fact you already know to be true. [5] For many people, in many situations, the current Wikipedia is a more useful way to find certain kinds of information than a Google search is. [5] "I'm an encyclopedia person who happened to use a wiki." Perhaps his belief that Wikipedia was written in the traditional way isn't surprising. [5]

Isto es Wikipedia, le encyclopedia encyclopedia libere in construction collaborative, in interlingua interlingua, le latino moderne international e simplificate. [20]

The ten millionth article has been written on Wikipedia - a Hungarian biography of of 16th century painter Nicholas Hilliard (English version here ). Those ten million articles have been written across 250 different languages, Wikipedia says. [21] English is still the most popular language on Wikipedia, with 2.3 million articles (they reached 2 million 2 million English articles in September 2007). [21]

RSS feed for comments on this post. Congrats to the Wikimedia Foundation despite all the criticism it seems to draw nowadays, Wikipedia will forever be remembered a one of the hallmarks of this new technological era. [21]

Wikipedia ( Audio (U.S.) ? ) is a free, multilingual, open content encyclopedia project owned by Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a mixture of wiki and encyclopedia. It was launched on January 15, 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, based on an older internet encyclopedia named Nupedia. It is a wiki that runs using MediaWiki (Like other Wikimedia project). [22] As of December 2007, Wikipedia had about 9.25 million articles in 253 languages, and over than 1.74 billion words for all Wikipedias. [22] Some language versions such as the English Wikipedia contain non-free images. [22] The Simple English Wikipedia, was created on September 18, 2001 in order to let people who are learning English use Wikipedia. [22] On December 18, 2003, the Simple English Wikipedia began using the MediaWiki software. [22]

Perhaps Wikipedia simply gives people a certain surge of authoritative and administrative power and prestige over others. Those with user names feel entitled to a sense of superiority, compared to a user with a mere IP address and a few original entries. [5] Even given a fairly stable IP address here at home, the Wikipedia user contributions page for my latest anonymous 'identity' only lists 23 edits to my name. Another one from a month or two back lists only 6. [5] I would vote for you if I was in the 400+ club. Your point is well taken, with a caveat: that it's difficult to actually quantify particular anonymous users' contributions to Wikipedia. As anonymous users are tracked by IP address, any one real-world user may be broken up into a countless Wikipedia 'users' if they happen to reside behind a dynamic IP. [5]

Anybody who tries to impose a hierarchy of editors on a Wikipedia fork will find it hard to lure contributors away from more free-wheeling sites, like Wikipedia itself. That's what happened to Bauder, and I suspect it will happen to anybody attempting a more rigidly policed fork site. [5] Despite having written a number of essays in college, I still find it a challenge to write even 500 words on any given topic for Wikipedia. Why do some contributors cluster at one extreme or the other in their behavior -- & some end up becoming entirely involved in another axis of participation, creating & enforcing policy? I sense material for a Master's thesis in psychology or sociology here. [5] Wikipedia may be a good example of the tragedy of the commons, as most contributors, including me, cannot be bothered to look into the administrator selection process. Wikipedians must always be aware that someone can fork the content and create their own system with its own editing hierarchy (though the costs of bandwidth and servers will ensure that this is not a spontaneous decision). [5]

Wikipedia is becoming too much of an important phenomenon for our society to let people speculate on how it works:we need to know as precisely as possible how it actually works, what kind of impact has on people and how can be improved. [5] As is, I feel too far into the guts of Wikimedia politics to be spreading it with propriety and not appearing to push your candidacy per se. gah. This has major implications for policy and how Wikipedia works. [5] I think the usual problem with Wikipedia is that there is the expectation that someone else will do the work. [5]

Unfortunately, it is dangerous. If Wikipedia continues down this path of focusing on the encyclopedia at the expense of the wiki, it might end up not being much of either. [5] Part of the reason that Wikipedia is not a useless mess is because it is organized. The same collection of information, poorly organized, would be little better than doing a Google search. [5] Often times the contributions are removed and not modified with obscure references to numerous wikipedia policies that seem to make no sense and that are enforced very unevenly across the wikipedia. [5] To investigate more formally, I purchased some time on a computer cluster and downloaded a copy of the Wikipedia archives. [5] I would be voting for you, Aaron, but apparently I have only 85 edits. What I don't understand is why this makes me less deserving of a say in how Wikipedia is run than someone with more edits. [5] Just couldn't pursue it for various reasons. I am not a particularly big fan of Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales due to their very weird policies of editing. [5] Hint: sex sells. It is unfortunate that the qualifications for franchise serve to disenfranchise the most substantive contributors to wikipedia. [5] Love. "Don't worry, he tells the world, Wikipedia isn't as shocking as you think. It's just like any other project: [5] Hierarchies, structures and rules prevent any further progress and the Great Thing converts into a Serious Thing, that uses the Initial Idea only as a marketing tool. In response to the criticism made by "Carbidfischer", well, if you have something to benefit from Wikipedia I'm sure you'll defend them. [5]

Today Patricio and his friends from Wikimedia Argentina are researching ways to help underprivileged students and schools in Argentina with textbooks created with Wikipedia's free content. Your donations will help us transform the reality of many underprivileged people in his homeland and elsewhere into something positive and hopeful. [23] There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' workeven to the point of laughing at nonstandard "Engrish." They poke articles full of warnings and citation-needed notes and deletion prods till the topics go away. [1] The article was proposed for deletion by a user named PirateMink, who claimed that Denner wasn't a notable figure, whatever that means. (There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out.) Another user, Stormbay, agreed with PirateMink: no third-party sources, ergo not notable. [1] Trade or Classmates.com, no side sprinklings of AdSense. It was constructed, in less than eight years, by strangers who disagreed about all kinds of things but who were drawn to a shared, not-for-profit purpose. They were drawn because for a work of reference Wikipedia seemed unusually humble. It asked for help, and when it did, it used a particularly affecting word: "stub." At the bottom of a short article about something, it would say, "This article about X is a stub. [1] Keen is right in that there needs to be experts disseminating the truth, but I don't think that people look to Wikipedia as being as truthful as say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. [3]

Wikipedia trades-off quality for quantity and the numbers work in Wikipedia's favor: in exchange for losing single-digit percentage points in accuracy, it gains an order of magnitude of more information compared to traditional encyclopedias. [3]

In real life I'm a sometime student at the University of Alberta and Athabasca University (no degree from either, despite eight years of half-hearted effort). No degree after eight years, and Mr. Smith, according to his user page, looks to be a significant figure on wikipedia. Has this fellow ever written a single peer-reviewed article? Odd, that. [3] It makes me wonder - there are many more people who say you should question what is written in Wikipedia then there are people who say you should question what is written in the Encyclopedia Britannica. [3] I agree with Larry Sanger that dealing with unreasonable people on Wikipedia is a tiresome process with an uncertain outcome. Traditional media also has its share of people who misuse the authority implicit in one-way communications to push a point of view that wouldn't fare so well in more egalitarian discourse. [3] In my experience Wikipedia has been almost universally accurate. It's particularly great on topics that you can't get much information on from traditional sources, say for instance the TV show South Park. [3] It has no value to anybody but himself. I think almost everybody knows that wikipedia has it's flaws, however it's benefits far out weigh it's short comings. It's currently the best system on the web of gathering information. [3] Wikipedia is very much a meeting place, a faded backwards truth that has enough information to get the idea acrossbut however isn't accurate enough to cite. [3] Far better to announce something like wikipedia as not-authority that might frequently be valid than to live under the false belief that the Truth is out there if we just listen to the authoritI mean, experts. [3] Becoming an A list blogger, Wikipedia editors and many more ways in web 2.0 require as much (or probably more) efforts as traditional ways. I think Keen is right when he says society needs gatekeepers and experts. It will be wrong to think that Web 2.0 is an easy way to establish one as expert. [3] You pay for Jstor. There's a reason for this. It's that simple. The "experts" aren't CNN or NPR, this isn't wikipedia vs. traditional journalism, way to completely not grasp the point. [3]

Until Wikipedia entered popular consciousness, an argument over whether Marmite tasted good or not was possibly the most pointless waste of time imaginable. Shame most people here won't comprehend the analogy, because it's really quite apposite. [3] The problem is that the changes on Wikipedia don't represent 'evolution'. They are changes, and they're the product of lively debate, certainly. The debate is far too often tainted by the fact that many of the people contributing simply aren't 'qualified' enough to know what they are talking about. [3] I think most people know that Wikipedia is not going to be totally accurate. [3] I confess that I would enjoy seeing some gatekeeper shut the door on Andrew Keen. Alas, his continuing ubiquity as the person willing to take "the other side" in a discussion of Wikipedia proves his core thesis false. If not for the Internet, we never would have heard of him, and any "elite" status he has seems to be based not on formal credentials, but on the same sort of self-promotional agenda-pushing that he abhors in every other user of the Internet. [3] Don't throw out the 'Britannica is unreliable too' - my argument is not the relative merits of encyclopedias, it is the contention that 'the evolution of truth' can be witnessed on Wikipedia. [3] Truth isn't evolving, ideas are just being exchanged. Wikipedia is a place where an idea of truth is held, even if this idea is written by a Phd. [3] Dutch filmmaker IJsbrand van Veelen stirred a lot of controversy last week at the Next Web conference Next Web conference when he premiered the documentary above, The Truth About Wikipedia. It has now been posted to YouTube and is worth watching when you have a spare 45 minutes. [3] Van Veelen's documentary makes the case ironically for the kinds of checks and balances that a collaborative medium like Wikipedia provides. If Van Veelen were writing about Wikipedia in one of the interactive forums that Andrew Keen disdains such as Wikipedia he would be challenged for unfairly framing the narrative around Keen's critiques. [3] I've learned more, and I would venture been misguided fewer times, with Wikipedia than I ever could from 'experts' on NPR or CNN or so many other places. [3] The film also misses the point that Wikipedia is very much a market of ideas. [3]

I decided I must not be a very good member so I doubled (by doing ten) my number of edits instead of voting. Now reading these points I am all the more motivated to vote for you but have decided that instead of me being a poor wikicitizen wikipedia's voting system advances an unfair assumption. The same assumption that you unearthed here: that the only people that matter are the large quantity editors. [5] Last month Jason Calacanis wrote wrote, about the pitfalls of Wikipedia's syntax and unintuitive interface. Given your findings and as a candidate for the foundation's Board of Directors do you feel a leveling of the learning curve of the content production process should be of priority? After all, if the content producers are empowered to improve their formatting and structure, the "Top 2%" will have less ground to accumulate edits and thus power. [5]

The size of that pool of readers depends to a great extent on how readable, reliable and accessible the information presented is. A change that imposes a minor impediment to casual edits can still result in a net increase in casual editors if it also helps the "insiders and formatters" improve Wikipedia's usability, and increase its readership. [5] I imagine the common format is a big part of Wikipedia's appeal--it sort of makes it into the McDonald's of information sources. [5] The idea that the bulk of Wikipedia's substance comes from the more heavily specialized, non-community users strikes me as inherently reasonable (and actually quite reassuring). I don't think, though, that you can establish with any certainty whether these anonymous users return time after time or if they really just make a handful of changes and never hit 'edit' again. This is fantastic research and very actionable. [5]

Take a look at the Wikipedia page on Jack Thompson, which is basically edited into a hagiography. What it often comes down to is that the people who are compulsively looking out for their own interests, rather than the truth, are willing to dedicate more time on the site squashing what they don't like. [5] Today the Alan Alda page is a pretty standard Wikipedia page: it has a couple photos, several pages of facts and background, and a handful of links. When it was first created, it was just two sentences: "Alan Alda is a male actor most famous for his role of Hawkeye Pierce in the television series MASH. Or recent work, he plays sensitive male characters in drama movies." [5]

I wrote an ethnography of a Wikipedia article ethnography of a Wikipedia article a bit more than a year ago, looking at the Support Vector Machines Support Vector Machines article. Though my conclusions did not directly contradict those above, I did not find that the majority of major edits were made by less active users of Wikipedia. [5] I think the volunteer authors of Wikipedia articles don't have to be experts, although some certainly are. They could be anyone! Further, volunteers do not need any formal training before creating a new article or editing an existing article. [5]

Thank goodness for WP:IAR (my ace in the hole)! The atmosphere at Wikipedia has become downright draconian; thanks for empowering me to exhale. [5] What annoys me about Wikipedia is the people's penchant for rewording other people's stuff. [5] The first thing I did on Wikipedia (under the username Wageless) was to make some not-very-good edits to the page on bovine somatotropin. I clicked the "edit this page" tab, and immediately had an odd, almost lightheaded feeling, as if I had passed through the looking glass and was being allowed to fiddle with some huge engine or delicate piece of biomedical equipment. It seemed much too easy to do damage; you ask, Why don't the words resist me more? Soon, though, you get used to it. [1] At the same time as I engaged in these tiny, fascinating (to me) "keep" tussles, hundreds of others were going on, all over Wikipedia. [1] Wikipedia was the point of convergence for the self-taught and the expensively educated. The cranks had to consort with the mainstreamers and hash it all outand nobody knew who really knew what he or she was talking about, because everyone's identity was hidden behind a jokey username. [1] Without the kooks and the insulters and the spray-can taggers, Wikipedia would just be the most useful encyclopedia ever made. Instead it's a fast-paced game of paintball. Not only does Wikipedia need its vandalsup to a pointthe vandals need an orderly Wikipedia, too. Without order, their culture-jamming lacks a context. [1] There were two dissenters listed, tbc and AxelBoldt. Nowadays there are rules and policy banners at every turnthere are strongly urged warnings and required tasks and normal procedures and notability guidelines and complex criteria for various decisionsa symptom of something called instruction creep : defined in Wikipedia as something that happens "when instructions increase in number and size over time until they are unmanageable." [1] The "unhelpful" or "inappropriate"sometimes stoned, racist, violent, metalheadedchanges are quickly fixed by human stompers and algorithmicized helper bots. It's a game. Wikipedians see vandalism as a problem, and it certainly can be, but a Diogenes-minded observer would submit that Wikipedia would never have been the prodigious success it has been without its demons. This is a reference book that can suddenly go nasty on you. [1] "The main thing about Wikipedia is that it is fun and addictive," Wales wrote. [1] Wikipedia is just an incredible thing. It's fact-encirclingly huge, and it's idiosyncratic, careful, messy, funny, shocking, and full of simmering controversiesand it's free, and it's fast. [1] I was, after about a week, well on my way to a first-stage Wikipedia dependency. [1]

@abhilash - many, probably most A-list bloggers and Wikipedia admins are not experts at anything. (Not even, necessarily, about Wikipedia or about blogging but maybe there.) [3] The 99% of us in the middle will continue reading Wikipedia while taking it with a grain of salt. Would rather stick our heads in a bucket of s than spend 45 minutes watching the first two groups argue, because their positions are totally intractable. [3]

Personally, I use it as more of a search device, as instead of using the wiki article. (i.e. using the wikipedia article just for the reference links). [3]

You can have an intelligent discussion about whether or not Wikipedia is doing well to meet that mission but you can't possibly argue that the "free content encyclopedia" project should stop calling itself an encyclopedia. You are right about one point though, it's true that in many ways the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia are not comparable. The Sacha Baron Cohen article on Wikipedia had some faulty information about his employment history for awhile. [4]

Lantrix writes "An anonymous user added information to Wikipedia's entry on Sacha Baron Cohen three days before the now-referenced external article was written. The Independent wrote the referenced article apparently using Wikipedia as the source establishing his 'Goldman Sachs' career. [4] I've seen circular referencing occur many times on Wikipedia, often by complete accident. If journalists actually gave their own sources when writing articles, it would be much less of a problem. They will never do that, as then it would be revealed that they themselves don't bother fact-checking at all. [4] This has in fact happened before. When Ronnie Hazlehurst Ronnie Hazlehurst died, multiple newspapers here in the UK mentioned that he cowrote "Reach" by S Club 7. This information came from Wikipedia (and was the result of vandalism), but once a few papers had published it, everyone did, as it was clearly backed up by many reliable sources. The article is still being edited to include this "fact" every now and again, often referring to one of the articles which made the error. [4] I find it interesting when I hear about people complain about errors in Wikipedia, but don't put it into the same context as errors appearing everywhere else. How many people have read an article about something they had personal knowledge of written by some journalist, and found glaring errors in it? I know I have. [4] I realized I would be naive to think otherwise, but I still found it illuminating to be reminded people are actively out there creating dead and circular links. It is a more subtle way to create noise in wikipedia rather than the more obvious act of injecting copious uncited nonsense into an article. [4] There are more effective and direct ways to correct Wikipedia than by posting Slashdot articles about every little error that worms its way into the system. Or a cheap tabloid. (Oh, but I repeat myself.) [4] Now Wikipedia uses as a references the article that came after the initial modification to Wikipedia itself." [4] Doesn't anybody find it curious that this "anonymous" poster knew the article was coming out before it did, and that the author of the article happened to look up his subject on wikipedia just as the entry was updated? If I wanted to discredit Wikipedia, or at least cause a minor stir, I would probably construct an artificial circular-reference scenario, and this is how I would do it. [4] What if the person writing the article was the same anonymous person editing Wikipedia? I assume that is the case here. [4]

Wikipedia is notoriously bad at biographical content regarding famous people, it's just the nature of the beast. The wikinazi's can plaster citation needed all over the place, but it's not going to change the spin that PR types are going to places on every bit of information they can lay their lying hands on. [4] As the deletions and ill-will spread in 2007deletions not just of webcomics but of companies, urban places, Web sites, lists, people, categories, and ideasall deemed to be trivial, "NN" (nonnotable), "stubby," undersourced, or otherwise unencyclopedicAndrew Lih, one of the most thoughtful observers of Wikipedia's history, told a Canadian reporter: "The preference now is for excising, deleting, restricting information rather than letting it sit there and grow." [1] The steady influx of top-hat-and-spatted sources elevated Wikipedia's tone. This wasn't just a school encyclopedia, a backyard Encarta this was drinks at the faculty club. [1]

Broughton advises that you shouldn't write a Wikipedia article about some idea or invention that you've personally come up with; that you should stay away from articles about things or people you really love or really hate; and that you shouldn't use the encyclopedia as a PR vehiclefor a new rock band, say, or an aspiring actress. [1]

It's not some secret Wiki Cabal that is somehow misleading people into thinking that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's the goddamn mission goddamn mission. [4] I was talking to someone recently who bragged about regularly trolling wikipedia to intentionally and actively create dead end and circular references. He was practically giddy with the notion that wikipedia "only requires some kind of external citation, but you can really mess with this because people rarely check them." I'm a wikipedia fan, so was quite annoyed with him, so beat him about the head and chest; this is clearly a 2nd order loophole that should be actively combated. [4] When the whole world uses Wikipedia as the reference for a lot of things, what's wrong when Wikipedia does it? This is completely biased. [4] Until that time, you can't put all the blame on the (mis)users of Wikipedia. [4] It would be because the rest of the English-speaking world is way left of the U.S. And in fact English Wikipedia has a large contributor base from non-English-speaking countries, because English is the current lingua franca. It could be that the rest of the world averages out to what the rest of the world averages out to, and it's the U.S. that's skewed right. [4] My experience as an editor has shown a huge gulf between Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia reality. [4] Despite the vast army of editors who contribute, Wikipedia hasn't gone beyond being a mouthpiece for Walesism. [4]

I would think that any circular references would be self-correcting by the Wikipedia community. Therein lies the solution, and the problem; there does need to be consistent and enforcible rules that are devoid of ambiguity and self-interest, with a measured degree of accountability. [4] No kidding. It's getting pretty scary. I was talking with the teacher-librarian at a local high school a few weeks back, and she told me that a few teachers were telling their students that Wikipedia was great to use for research. [4] Wikipedia isn't mean for serious academic research any more than a yardstick is meant for making precision measurement. It's just a tool for getting in the ballpark. I'm amused at the hysteria that always ensues when a story like this comes out. [4]

The password of my Chinese Wikipedia account has been lost by me,I can only login English Wikipedia. [24]

A journalist used Wikipedia as a primary source, added something incorrect to an article. Now the same Wikipedia page is using that article as its primary source, which in the view of Wikipedia makes the incorrect fact true. [4]

TL;DR

== Selected Sources ==

1. The Charms of Wikipedia - The New York Review of Books
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131

2. Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

3. The Truth According to Wikipedia
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/08/the-truth-according-to-wikipedia/

4. Slashdot | Sacha Baron Cohen Wikipedia Entry Creates Circular References
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/19/1452244&from=rss

5. Who Writes Wikipedia? (Aaron Swartz's Raw Thought)
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia

6. YouTube - The Truth According To Wikipedia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSinyx_Ab0

7. Wikipedia (TheFreeDictionary.com mirror)
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/

8. Wikipedia - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

9. Main Page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/

10. Monitor | The battle for Wikipedia's soul | Economist.com
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=10789354

11. Halaman Utama - Wikipedia Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas berbahasa Indonesia
http://id.wikipedia.org/

12. Laman Utama - Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu, ensiklopedia bebas
http://ms.wikipedia.org/

13. Apple - Downloads - Dashboard Widgets - Wikipedia
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/reference/wikipedia.html

14. Degemer - Wikipedia
http://br.wikipedia.org/

15. Main Page - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://simple.wikipedia.org/

16. WikiScanner: List anonymous wikipedia edits from interesting organizations
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

17. The Sum Of All Human Knowledge: Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales dumps girlfriend on Wikipedia
http://valleywag.com/362730/wikipedia-creator-jimmy-wales-dumps-girlfriend-on-wikipedia

18. Wikipedia Watch
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

19. Forside - Wikipedia, den frie encyklop''di
http://da.wikipedia.org/

20. Frontispicio - Wikipedia, le encyclopedia libere
http://ia.wikipedia.org/

21. 10 Millionth Article Written on Wikipedia
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/28/10-millionth-article-written-on-wikipedia/

22. Wikipedia - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

23. Donate/en
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising

24. YouTube - How can I retrieve my Chinese Wikipedia password?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAHfaJ3-SnM

[[Category:Wikipedia]] [[Category:MediaWiki]]