|
|
| Line 12: |
Line 12: |
| | }} | | }} |
| | '''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]]. | | '''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]]. |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia was launched as an [[English language]] project on [[January 15]] [[2001]] as a complement to the expert-written and now defunct [[Nupedia]], and is now operated by the [[non-profit organization|non-profit]] [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. It was created by [[Larry Sanger]] and [[Jimmy Wales]]; Sanger resigned from both Nupedia and Wikipedia on [[March 1]] [[2002]]. Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".<ref>[[Jimmy Wales]], "[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-March/038102.html Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]", [[March 8]] [[2005]], <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org></ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Currently Wikipedia has more than 5 million articles in many languages, including more than 1.4 million <!--Please do not use {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} because it doesn't work right with respect to this article's history.--> in the [[English Wikipedia|English-language version]]. There are 250 language editions of Wikipedia, and 17 of them have more than 50,000 articles each. The [[German Wikipedia|German-language edition]] has been distributed on [[DVD|DVD-ROM]], and there have been proposals for an English DVD or print edition. Since inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity,<ref>See plots at "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/PlotsPngUsageVisits.htm Visits per day]", Wikipedia Statistics, [[January 1]] [[2005]]</ref> and has spawned several sister projects. According to [[Alexa Internet|Alexa]], Wikipedia ranks among the top 20 most visited sites, and many of its pages have been [[mirror (computing)|mirrored]] or [[fork (software development)|forked]] by other sites, such as [[Answers.com]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, [[systemic bias]], and preference for [[consensus]] or popularity over [[credential]]s. Information is sometimes unconfirmed and questionable, lacking proper sources that, in the eyes of most Wikipedians, is necessary for an article to be considered "high quality". However, [http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html a 2005 comparison] performed by the science journal [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] of sections of Wikipedia and the [[Encyclopædia Britannica]] found that the two were close in terms of the accuracy of their articles on the [[natural sciences]]. This study was challenged by Encyclopædia Britannica, who described it as "fatally flawed".<ref>{{cite paper
| |
| − | | author = Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
| |
| − | | title = Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature
| |
| − | | version =
| |
| − | | publisher =
| |
| − | | date = March 22, 2006
| |
| − | | url = http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
| |
| − | | format = [[PDF]]}}
| |
| − | </ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Characteristics ==
| |
| − | Wikipedia uses a type of [[computer software|software]] called a "[[wiki]]", allowing visitors to add, remove, or otherwise edit and change its content. It is therefore possible for large numbers of people to create articles and update them quickly as new information becomes available; it also means [[vandalism]] and disagreement about content are common.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Many other [[internet encyclopedia project]]s use traditional multilingual editorial policies and article ownership such as the expert-written ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', [[Nupedia]], [[H2G2|h2g2]] and [[Everything2]]. Projects such as [[Susning.nu]], ''[[Enciclopedia Libre]]'' and [[WikiZnanie]] are other wikis in which articles are developed by numerous authors, and there is no formal process of review. Unlike many encyclopedias, Wikipedia has licensed its content under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] (GFDL).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia has a set of policies identifying types of information appropriate for inclusion. These policies are often cited in disputes over whether particular content should be added, revised, transferred to a sister project, or removed. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that articles must be written from a "[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]", presenting all noteworthy perspectives on an issue along with the evidence supporting them. The project also forbids the use of [[original research]]. Wikipedia articles do not attempt to determine an [[objectivity (journalism)|objective]] truth on their subjects, but rather to describe them impartially from all significant viewpoints. Following the introduction of a more [[Usability|user friendly]] [[citation]] functionality (''cite.php'', early 2006), articles increasingly include an extensive reference section to support the information presented in the article and to allow verification of the article.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Free content ===
| |
| − | The [[GFDL]], the license through which Wikipedia's articles are made available, is one of many "[[copyleft]]" licenses that permit the redistribution, creation of [[derivative work]]s, and commercial use of content, provided that its authors are attributed and this content remains available under the GFDL. When an author contributes original material to the project, the [[copyright]] over it is retained by them, but they agree to make the work available under the GFDL. However, a significant proportion of images and sounds on Wikipedia are not free. Items such as [[corporate logo]]s, song samples, or copyrighted news photos are used with a claim of [[fair use]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia's content has been reflected and forked by hundreds of resources from database dumps. Wikipedia content has also been used in academic studies, books and conferences, albeit more rarely, and very recently, in movies. Wikipedia was once used in a United States court case,<ref>[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf Bourgeois ''et al'' v. Peters ''et al.'']</ref> and the [[Parliament of Canada]] website refers to Wikipedia's article on [[same-sex marriage]] in the "further reading" list of [[Civil Marriage Act]].<ref>"[http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Lang=E&Chamber=C&StartList=2&EndList=200&Session=13&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4381&List=toc C-38]", LEGISINFO ([[March 28]] [[2005]])</ref> Some Wikipedia users, or ''Wikipedians'', maintain (noncomprehensive) lists of such uses.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_source Wikipedia as a source]</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Language editions ===
| |
| − | [[Image:He-Wikipedia.png|right|thumb|300px|An example of Wikipedia's range in language editions: Wikipedia in [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]].<ref>http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/</ref>]]
| |
| − | <!--Editors, please note that the "Language editions" subsection of this page is currently (as of March 2006) linked from the Main Page "languages" section. The link used on the Main Page is [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia#Language editions]]. If the name of the subsection is changed, please ask an admin to update the link at Template:Wikipedialang. Thanks.-->
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Currently Wikipedia encompasses 171 "active" language editions (ones with 100+ articles).<ref name="CompleteList">"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias]", [[Meta-Wiki]], [[April 15]] [[2006]]</ref> In total, Wikipedia contains 250 language editions of varying states, with a combined 5 million articles.<ref name="CompleteLangList">"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_language_Wikipedias_available Complete list of language Wikipedias available]", [[Meta-Wiki]], [[April 15]] [[2006]]</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Language editions operate independently from one another. Editions are not bound to the content of other language editions, nor are articles on the same subject required to be translations of each other. Automated translation of articles is explicitly disallowed, though multilingual editors of sufficient fluency are encouraged to manually translate articles. The various language editions ''are'' held to global policies such as "neutral point of view", though they may diverge on subtler points of policy and practice. Articles and images are shared between Wikipedia editions, the former through "[[InterWiki]]" links and pages to request translations, and the latter through the [[Wikimedia Commons]] repository. Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions.<ref>For example, "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation_into_English Translation into English]", Wikipedia. ([[March 9]] [[2005]])</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Wikipedia growth.png|right|thumb|300px|Wikipedia's article count has shown rapid growth in some of the major language editions.]]
| |
| − | According to [[Alexa Internet]]'s audience measurement service, the English sub-domain (en.wikipedia.org) receives approximately 60% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining 40% being splintered between the numerous other languages in which Wikipedia is offered.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The following is a list of the largest editions — those containing over 100,000 articles — sorted by number of articles as of [[November 3]] [[2006]].<ref>Note that the article count, however, is a limited metric for comparing the editions, for a variety of reasons. In some Wikipedia versions, for example, nearly half of the articles are short articles created automatically by [[internet bot|robots]]. Further, many editions that have more articles also have fewer contributors. Although the French, Polish, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedish and Italian Wikipedias have more articles than the Spanish Wikipedia, they have fewer users.</ref><ref name="CompleteLangList" />
| |
| − |
| |
| − | # [[English Wikipedia|English]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 1,463,947])
| |
| − | # [[German Wikipedia|German]] ([http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 489,789])
| |
| − | # [[French Wikipedia|French]] ([http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 386,770])
| |
| − | # [[Polish Wikipedia|Polish]] ([http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Statistics?uselang=en 311,287])
| |
| − | # [[Japanese Wikipedia|Japanese]] ([http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 280,284])
| |
| − | # [[Dutch Wikipedia|Dutch]] ([http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 237 190])
| |
| − | # [[Italian Wikipedia|Italian]] ([http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 210,778])
| |
| − | # [[Portuguese Wikipedia|Portuguese]] ([http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 192,739])
| |
| − | # [[Swedish Wikipedia|Swedish]] ([http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 191,024])
| |
| − | # [[Spanish Wikipedia|Spanish]] ([http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 166,580])
| |
| − | # [[Russian Wikipedia|Russian]] ([http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en 114,218])
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Editing ===
| |
| − | [[Image:History comparison example.png|thumb|right|300px|Editors keep track of changes to articles by checking the difference between two revisions of a page, displayed here in red.]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Almost all visitors may edit Wikipedia's content: registered users can also create new articles. Changes made to pages are instantly displayed. Wikipedia is built on the expectation that collaboration among users will improve articles over time, in much the same way that [[open source|open-source software]] develops. Some of Wikipedia's editors have explained its editing process as a "[[social Darwinism|socially Darwinian]] [[evolution|evolutionary]] process".<ref>"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_sociology Wikipedia sociology]", [[Meta-Wiki]], 23:30 [[March 24]]</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Some take advantage of Wikipedia's openness to add nonsense to the encyclopedia. This real-time, collaborative model allows editors to rapidly update existing topics as they develop and to introduce new ones as they arise. However, this collaboration also sometimes leads to "edit wars" and prolonged disputes when editors do not agree.<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war Edit war]", Wikipedia ([[March 26]] [[2005]])</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Recentchanges.png|thumb|left|250px|The "recent changes" page shows the newest edits to the English Wikipedia. This page is often watched by users who revert vandalism.]]
| |
| − | Articles are always subject to editing, unless the article is protected for a short time due to the aforementioned vandalism or revert wars. Wikipedia does not declare any of its articles to be "complete" or "finished". The authors of articles need not have any expertise or qualifications in the subjects that they edit, and users are warned that their contributions may be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" by anyone who wishes to do so. Its articles are not controlled or [[copyrighted]] by any particular user or editorial group; decisions on the content and editorial policies of Wikipedia are instead made largely through [[consensus decision-making]] and, occasionally, by vote. [[Jimmy Wales]] retains final judgement on Wikipedia policies and user guidelines.<ref>"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Power_structure Power structure]", [[Meta-Wiki]], 10:55 [[April 4]] [[2005]]</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Regular users often maintain a "watchlist" of articles of interest to them, so that they can easily keep tabs on all recent changes to those articles, including new updates, discussions, and vandalism. Most past edits to Wikipedia articles also remain viewable after the fact, and are stored on "edit history" pages sorted chronologically, making it possible to see former versions of any page at any time. The only exceptions are the entire histories of articles that have been deleted, and many individual edits that contain [[slander and libel|libelous]] statements, [[copyright]] violations, and other content that could incur legal liability or be otherwise detrimental to Wikipedia. These edits may only be viewed by Wikipedia administrators.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Wikipedia in other formats ===
| |
| − | For some articles there is a spoken version available in [[ogg]] format. The encyclopedia is also available on a CD from [[SOS Children]], and an editorial team is working on creating [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Wikipedia 1.0]], a collection of Wikipedia articles that have been verified, ready for printing or burning to CD.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Published copies of selected Wikipedia articles are also available from [[PediaPress]], a [[Print on Demand]] service.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==History==
| |
| − | {{main|History of Wikipedia}}
| |
| − | [[Image:Nupedia.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Wikipedia originally developed out of another encyclopedia project, [[Nupedia]].]]
| |
| − | [[Image:WM2006 0060.jpg|thumb|right|[[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia co-founder and current head of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]]]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Wikipedia concept was not novel — [[Everything2]] (in 1998-1999) had used similar ideas before Wikipedia was founded — and Wikipedia began as a complementary project for [[Nupedia]], a free online encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts through a formal process. Nupedia was founded on [[March 9]] [[2000]] under the ownership of [[Bomis|Bomis, Inc]], a Web portal company. Its principal figures were [[Jimmy Wales]], Bomis [[Chief executive officer|CEO]], and [[Larry Sanger]], [[editor-in-chief]] for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was described by Sanger as differing from existing encyclopedias in being [[open content]], in not having size limitations, due to being on the [[Internet]], and in being free of bias, due to its public nature and potentially broad base of contributors.<ref name=QANupedia>[[Larry Sanger]], "[http://web.archive.org/web/20000510132952/www.nupedia.com/interview.html Q & A about Nupedia]", [[Nupedia]], March 2000</ref> Nupedia had a seven-step review process by appointed subject-area experts, but later came to be viewed as too slow for producing a limited number of articles. Funded by Bomis, there were initial plans to recoup its investment by the use of advertisements.<ref name=QANupedia /> It was initially licensed under its own Nupedia Open Content License, switching to the GFDL before Wikipedia's founding at the urging of [[Richard Stallman]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | On [[January 10]] [[2001]], Larry Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki alongside Nupedia. Under the subject "Let's make a wiki", he wrote:<ref>{{cite news|author=[[Larry Sanger]]|title=Let's make a wiki|date=[[January 10]] [[2001]]|publisher=Internet Archive|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{cquote|No, this is not an indecent proposal. It's an idea to add a little feature to Nupedia. Jimmy Wales thinks that many people might find the idea objectionable, but I think not. (…) As to Nupedia's use of a wiki, this is the ULTIMATE "open" and simple format for developing content. We have occasionally bandied about ideas for simpler, more open projects to either replace or supplement Nupedia. It seems to me wikis can be implemented practically instantly, need very little maintenance, and in general are very low-risk. They're also a potentially great source for content. So there's little downside, as far as I can determine.}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia was formally launched on [[January 15]] [[2001]], as a single English-language edition at http://www.wikipedia.com/, and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.<ref>{{cite news|author=[[Larry Sanger]]|title=Wikipedia is up!|date=[[January 17]] [[2001]]|publisher=Internet Archive|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20010506042824/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000684.html}}</ref> It had been, from [[January 10]], a feature of Nupedia.com in which the public could write articles that could be incorporated into Nupedia after review. It was relaunched off-site after Nupedia's Advisory Board of subject experts disapproved of its production model.<ref name=SangerMemoir>{{cite news|author=[[Larry Sanger]]|title=The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir|date=[[April 18]] [[2005]]|publisher=[[Slashdot]]|url=http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml}}</ref> Wikipedia thereafter operated as a standalone project without control from Nupedia. Its policy of "neutral point-of-view" was codified in its initial months, though it is similar to Nupedia's earlier "nonbias" policy. There were otherwise few rules initially. 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 its first year. It had 26 language editions by the end of 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the end of 2004.<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics Multilingual statistics]", Wikipedia, [[March 30]] [[2005]]</ref> Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers went down, permanently, in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia.
| |
| − | [[Image:WikipediaHomePage30March200.png|thumb|300px|right|Wikipedia's English edition on [[March 30]] [[2001]], two and a half months after its founding.]]
| |
| − | Wales and Sanger attribute the concept of using a wiki to [[Ward Cunningham]]'s WikiWikiWeb or [[Portland Pattern Repository]]. Wales mentioned that he heard the concept first from Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee of Bomis who showed him the same wiki, in December 2000,<ref>[[Jimmy Wales]], "[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-April/039093.html Re: Sanger's memoirs]", [[April 20]] [[2005]],<wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org></ref> but it was after Sanger heard of its existence in January 2001 from Ben Kovitz, a regular at the wiki,<ref name=SangerMemoir /> that he proposed the creation of a wiki for Nupedia to Wales and Wikipedia's history started. Under a similar concept of free content, though not wiki-based production, the [[GNUpedia]] project existed alongside Nupedia early in its history. It subsequently became inactive, and its creator, [[free software|free-software]] figure [[Richard Stallman]], lent his support to Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite news|author=[[Richard Stallman]]|title=The Free Encyclopedia Project|date=1999|publisher=[[Free Software Foundation]]|url=http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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. Later that year, Wales announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and its website was moved to wikipedia.org. Various other projects have since forked from Wikipedia for editorial reasons, such as [[Wikinfo]], which abandoned "neutral point-of-view" in favor of multiple complementary articles written from a "sympathetic point-of-view".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.php?title=Sympathetic_point_of_view | title=Wikinfo - Sympathetic point of view | accessdate=2006-10-27}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia's first sister project, "In Memoriam: September 11<!--DO NOT REFORMAT THIS DATE, IT IS IN QUOTATIONS--> Wiki", was created in October 2002 to detail the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]];<ref>The "In Memoriam: September 11" site is not widely considered a "sister project" as of 2006; there has been calls to close the site, or move it to [[Wikia]]. "[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects&oldid=362802 Proposals for closing projects]", a page of the [[Wikimedia Meta-Wiki]], discusses this process.</ref> The Wikimedia Foundation was created from Wikipedia and Nupedia on [[June 20]] [[2003]].<ref>Jimmy Wales: "[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-June/010690.html Announcing Wikimedia Foundation]", [[June 20]] [[2003]], <wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org></ref> Wikipedia and its sister projects thereafter operated under this [[non-profit organization]]. [[Wiktionary]], a dictionary project, was launched in December 2002; [[Wikiquote]], a collection of quotations, a week after Wikimedia launched; and [[Wikibooks]], a collection of collaboratively-written free books, the next month. Wikimedia has since started a number of other projects, detailed below.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia has traditionally measured its status by article count. In its first two years, it grew at a few hundred or fewer new articles per day; by 2004, this had accelerated to a total of 1,000 to 3,000 per day (counting all editions). The English Wikipedia reached its 100,000-article milestone on [[January 22]] [[2003]].<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2003 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, reaches its 100,000th article]", [[Wikimedia Foundation]], [[January 21]] [[2003]]</ref> Wikipedia reached its one millionth article, among the 105 language editions that existed at the time, on [[September 20]] [[2004]],<ref>"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/One_million_Wikipedia_articles_(int'l) Wikipedia Reaches One Million Articles]", [[Wikimedia Foundation]], [[September 20]] [[2004]]</ref> while the English edition alone reached its 500,000th on [[March 18]] [[2005]].<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/March_2005 Wikipedia Publishes 500,000th English Article]", [[Wikimedia Foundation]], [[March 18]] [[2005]]</ref> This figure had doubled less than a year later, with the millionth article in the English edition being created on [[March 1]] [[2006]]<ref>"[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Publishes_Millionth_Article English Wikipedia Publishes Millionth Article]", [[Wikimedia Foundation]], [[March 1]] [[2006]]</ref>; meanwhile, the millionth user registration had been made just two days before.<ref>Note that this user count includes both sockpuppets, accounts solely used for vandalism, and unused accounts. The number of true accounts is significantly less.</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Wikimedia Foundation applied to the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] to [[trademark]] ''Wikipedia®'' on [[September 17]] [[2004]]. The mark was granted registration status on [[January 10]] [[2006]]. Trademark protection was accorded by [[Japan]] on [[December 16]] [[2004]] and in the [[European Union]] on [[January 20]] [[2005]]. 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 currently plans to license the usage of the Wikipedia trademark for some products, such as books or DVDs.<ref>{{cite news|first=Vipin|last=Nair|title=Growing on volunteer power|date=[[December 5]] [[2005]]|publisher=Business Line|url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ew/2005/12/05/stories/2005120500070100.htm}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Software and hardware==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Floridaserversfront1.jpg|250px|thumb|left|Wikipedia receives over 2000 page requests per second. More than 100 servers have been set up to handle the traffic.]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia itself runs on its own in-house created software, known as [[MediaWiki]]<!--for version see [[Special:Version]]-->, a powerful, [[open source]] [[wiki]] system written in [[PHP]] and built upon [[MySQL]].<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki Homepage]</ref> As well as allowing articles to be written, it includes a basic internal [[macro language]], [[variables]] and [[transclusion|transcluded]] [[template|templating]] system for page enhancement, and features such as [[redirect]]ion.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia runs on a cluster of dedicated [[Linux]] servers located in [[Florida]] and four other locations around the world.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers Wikimedia servers at wikimedia.org]</ref> MediaWiki is Phase III of the program's software. Originally, Wikipedia ran on [[UseModWiki]] by Clifford Adams (Phase I). At first it required [[camel case]] for links; later it was also possible to use double brackets. Wikipedia began running on a [[PHP]] [[wiki software|wiki engine]] with a [[MySQL]] database in January 2002. This software, Phase II, was written specifically for the Wikipedia project by [[Magnus Manske]]. Several rounds of modifications were made to improve performance in response to increased demand. Ultimately, the software was rewritten again, this time by Lee Daniel Crocker. Instituted in July 2002, this Phase III software was called MediaWiki. It was licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]] and used by all Wikimedia projects.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Wikimedia-servers-2006-05-09.svg|200px|thumb|right|Overview of system architecture, May 2006 (see also: [[meta:Server layout diagrams]]]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia was served from a single server until 2004, when the server setup was expanded into a distributed [[multitier architecture]]. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running [[MySQL]], multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the [[Apache HTTP Server|Apache]] software, and seven [[Squid cache]] servers. By September 2005, its server cluster had grown to around 100 servers in four locations around the world.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Page requests are processed by first passing to a front-end layer of [[Squid cache|Squid caching]] servers. Requests that cannot be served from the Squid cache are sent to two load-balancing servers running the [[Perlbal]] software, which then pass the request to one of the Apache web servers for page-rendering from the database. The web servers serve pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the Wikipedias. To increase speed further, rendered pages for anonymous users are cached in a filesystem until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses, which can lead to a [[lag]]. Wikimedia has begun building a global network of caching servers with the addition of three such servers in France. A new Dutch cluster is also online now. In spite of all this, Wikipedia page load times remain quite variable. The ongoing status of Wikipedia's website is posted by users at a [http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Wikipedia_Status status page] on OpenFacts.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Funding==
| |
| − | Wikipedia is funded through the [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. Its 4th Quarter 2005 costs were $321,000 [[United States dollar|USD]], with hardware making up almost 60% of the budget.<ref>{{cite web|title=Budget/2005|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget/2005|accessdate=2006-03-11}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Bomis]], an online advertising company that caters to a generally male audience and has hosted [[soft-core pornography]], played a significant part in the early development of Wikipedia and the network itself. <ref name="The Hive">{{cite web|title=The Hive|publisher=[[The Atlantic Monthly]]|last=Poe|first=Marshall|authorlink=Marshall Poe|url=http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia|accessdate=2006-08-08|year=2006|month=September}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Authorship and management process==
| |
| − | During December 2005, Wikipedia had about 27,000 users who made at least five edits that month; 17,000 of these active users worked on the English edition.<ref>Paragraph's statistics taken from "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm Active wikipedians]" (Wikipedia Statistics, [[April 13]] [[2006]]).</ref> A more active group of about 4,000 users made more than 100 edits per month, over half of these users having worked in the English edition. According to Wikimedia, one-quarter of Wikipedia's traffic comes from users without accounts, who are less likely to be editors.<ref>"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia]", [[Meta-Wiki]], 08:02 [[March 30]] [[2005]].</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Maintenance tasks are performed by a group of volunteer [[m:Developers|developers]], [[m:Stewards|stewards]], [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|bureaucrats]], and [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrators]], which number just over a thousand. Administrators are the largest such group, privileged with the ability to prevent articles from being edited, delete articles, or block users from editing in accordance with community policy. Any editor with a significant history of positive contributions and a firm understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|nominated]] to become an administrator.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Some users have been temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vandalism or the minor infraction of policies may result in a warning or temporary block, while long-term or permanent blocks for prolonged and serious infractions are given by Jimmy Wales or, on its English edition, an elected [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger has said that having the GFDL license as a "guarantee of freedom is a strong motivation to work on a free encyclopedia".<ref>[[Larry Sanger]], "[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias]", [[Kuro5hin]], [[July 25]] [[2001]].</ref> In a study of Wikipedia as a community, economics professor Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low [[transaction cost]]s of participating in [[wiki]] software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a "creative construction" approach encourages participation.<ref>Andrea Ciffolilli, "[http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/ciffolilli/index.html Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia]", ''[[First Monday (journal)|First Monday]]'' December 2003.</ref> Wikipedia has been viewed as an experiment in a variety of [[social]], [[politics|political]], and [[economic]] systems, including [[anarchy (word)|anarchy]], [[democracy]], and [[communism]]. Its founder has replied that it is not intended as one, though that is a consequence.<ref>[[Jimmy Wales]], "[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018735.html Re: Illegitimate block]", [[January 26]] [[2005]], <wikien-l@wikimedia.org>.</ref> [[Daniel Brandt]] of [[Wikipedia Watch]] has referred to [[Jimmy Wales|Jimbo Wales]] as the "[[dictator]]" of Wikipedia; however, most [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedia users]] either do not consider Wales to be a dictator, or consider him to be [[Benevolent Dictator for Life|one who rarely gives non-negotiable orders]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_oligarchy_or_a_dictatorship|title=Wikipedia is not an oligarchy or a dictatorship|date=[[2006-05-05]]|accessdate=2006-05-24|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|work=Wikipedia}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Future directions for authoring content===
| |
| − | An experimental feature planned for the German version of Wikipedia has been reported which could eventually improve the quality of editing for Wikipedia and protect it from vandalism. The concept being tested is to still allow anyone to make article edits, but to only allow editors judged as "trustworthy" to make edits live on the public site. The process by which trustworthiness would be established is yet to be determined. [[Jimbo Wales]] stated "We want to let anybody edit but we don't want to show vandalized versions. It would be fun for me to announce to the press that the front page of Wikipedia is open for public editing for the first time in five years".<ref>[[Daniel Terdiman]], "[http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-6108495.html Can German engineering fix Wikipedia?]", [[August 23]] [[2006]], <CNET News.com></ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Criticism and controversy==
| |
| − | {{Further|[[Criticism of Wikipedia]]}}
| |
| − | Wikipedia has become increasingly controversial as it has gained prominence and popularity, with critics alleging that Wikipedia's open nature makes it unauthoritative and unreliable, with unconfirmed information that is often without any proper sources, that it exhibits severe [[systemic bias]] and inconsistency. Wikipedia has also been criticized for its use of dubious sources, its biased but neutrally written perspective towards certain point of views, its disregard for credentials, its lack of understanding and international nature, and its vulnerability to vandalism and special interest groups.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800135.html | title=Death by Wikipedia: The Kenneth Lay Chronicles | accessdate=2006-11-01 | author=Frank Ahrens, The Washington Post | date=2006-07-09}}</ref> Critics of Wikipedia include Wikipedia's own editors (and ex-editors), representatives of other encyclopedias, and even subjects of articles, especially those that find information presenting them in a bad light.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | At the end of 2005, [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|controversy arose]] after journalist [[John Seigenthaler, Sr.]] found that his biography had been written largely as a hoax, which had gone undetected for almost four months; this discovery led to several policy decisions within Wikimedia regarding creation of articles and the overview process, intended to address some of the flaws which had allowed the hoax to go undetected for that time.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===The Wikipedia model===
| |
| − | Wikipedia has been both praised and criticized for being open to editing by anyone. Critics allege that non-expert editing undermines quality. Because contributors usually submit ''edits'', rewriting small portions of an entry rather than making full-length revisions, high- and low-quality content may be intermingled within an entry.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia has been criticized for a perceived lack of reliability, comprehensiveness and authority. It is criticised as having no or limited utility as a [[reference work]] among many [[librarian]]s, [[Academia|academic]]s, and the [[Editing|editor]]s of more formally written encyclopedias. Many university [[lecturers]] discourage their students from using any encyclopedia as a reference in academic work, preferring primary sources instead.<ref>[http://www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2006/04/21/News/Wide-World.Of.Wikipedia-1865022.shtml Wide World of WIKIPEDIA]</ref> A critical website, Wikipedia Watch, was created by [[Daniel Brandt]], accusing Wikipedia of having "…a massive, unearned influence on what passes for reliable information."<ref>www.wikipedia-watch.org/</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Supporters argue that Wikipedia does meet all the criteria for the basic definition of the word 'encyclopedia'. One difference from book encyclopedias is online web editing with Wikipedia's history function. A deleted text will remain in the history tab and other users can look up an individual's work history to gauge the author's merit.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Emigh and Herring (2005)<ref name="emigh">Emigh & Herring (2005) ''Collaborative Authoring on the Web:
| |
| − | A Genre Analysis of Online Encyclopedias'', Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences. ([http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/wiki.pdf PDF])</ref> in a study of Wikipedia, note that there are not yet many formal studies of Wikipedia or its model. Their main conclusions regarding style and encyclopedic quality were:
| |
| − | # Statistically speaking, "the language of Wikipedia entries is as formal as that in the traditional print encyclopedia".
| |
| − | # Wikipedia entries are "stylistically homogenous, typically describe only a single, core sense of an item, and are often presented in a standard format" (attributed partly to policies and partly to the norms of conventional print encyclopedias "which Wikipedia effectively emulates").
| |
| − | # Wikipedia achieves its results by social means, including [[social norm|self-norming]], a core of active and vigilant users watching for problems, and editors' expectations of encyclopedic text drawn from the wider culture.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Reliability===
| |
| − | {{main|Reliability of Wikipedia}}
| |
| − | Wikipedia can be assessed for reliability in several areas, including:
| |
| − | :* Accuracy of information provided within articles
| |
| − | :* Comprehensiveness, scope and coverage within articles and in the range of articles
| |
| − | :* Susceptibility to, and exclusion and removal of, false information (a criterion specific to the Wikipedia process)
| |
| − | :* Susceptibility to editorial and systemic [[bias]]
| |
| − | :* Identification of reputable third party source references (citations)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Accuracy and comprehensiveness====
| |
| − | A variety of studies to date have tended to suggest that some Wikipedia articles (scientific articles most notably) are of a similar degree of accuracy to ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', that Wikipedia provides a good starting point for research, and that articles are in general reasonably sound. However, these studies also suggest that due to its novel editorial model, it suffers omissions and inaccuracies which can sometimes be serious. A separate study suggests that in many cases, vandalism is reverted fairly quickly, but that this does not always happen.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | One of the studies, by ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', identified that among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not significant: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three. In the pairs of articles reviewed, eight serious errors such as misinterpretations of important concepts were detected, four from each encyclopaedia. Reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica. Additionally, it was found that Wikipedia articles are 2.6 times as long as Britannica articles, meaning that there is a lower error/omission per word ratio in Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite news|title=Wikipedia and Britannica about as accurate in science entries, reports Nature|date=[[December 14]] [[2005]]|work=[[Wikinews]]|publisher=[[Wikimedia]]|url=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_Britannica_about_as_accurate_in_science_entries%2C_reports_Nature}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Critics of Wikipedia often charge that allowing anyone to edit makes Wikipedia an unreliable work, and that some editors may employ clever use of semantics to make possibly biased statements sound more credible. Wikipedia contains no formal [[peer review]] process for fact-checking, and the editors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about, leading to criticism that its contents lack authority,<ref name="Who">Simon Waldman, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1335892,00.html Who knows?]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[October 26]] [[2004]].</ref> and according to [[Danah Boyd]], that "[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes."<ref>[[Danah Boyd]], "[http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php Academia and Wikipedia]", Many-to-Many, [[January 4]] [[2005]].</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Although Wikipedia has a policy of citing reputable sources, this is only sometimes adhered to. ''Encyclopædia Britannica'''s executive editor, Ted Pappas, was quoted in ''[[The Guardian]]'' as saying: "The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven."<ref name="Who" /> and former ''Britannica'' editor [[Robert McHenry]] criticized the wiki approach on the grounds that "What [a user] certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him". <ref>[[Robert McHenry]], "[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html The Faith-Based Encyclopedia]", [[Tech Central Station]], [[November 15]] [[2004]].</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Academic circles have not been exclusively dismissive of Wikipedia as a reference. Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in ''Science''. The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light",<ref>{{cite web|author=Linden, Hartmut|year=[[2002-08-02]]| url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5582/777|title=A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light|work=[[Science (journal)|Science]]|accessdate=2005}} (subscription access only)</ref> and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. However, these links are offered as background sources for the reader, not as sources used by the writer, and the "enhanced perspectives" are not intended to serve as reference material themselves.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having, according to Sanger, an "anti-elitist" philosophy of active contempt for [[expert]]ise.<ref name="SangerElitism">[[Larry Sanger]], "[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism]", [[Kuro5hin]], [[December 31]] [[2004]].</ref> It is possible that articles subject to strong opinions (such as [[George W. Bush]]) are more prone to be edited poorly, but this is uncertain — often such articles receive extra attention and strong consensus exactly because they are the subject of heated debate. Other articles that do not produce such emotive responses may tend to be more stable.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Other commentators have drawn a middle ground, that it contains much valuable knowledge and has some reliability, even if the degree is not yet assessed with certainty. People taking such a view include [[Danah Boyd]], [[Larry Sanger]] (re-applying [[Eric S. Raymond|Eric Raymond]]'s "Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow"<ref>"[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense?]", [[September 24]] [[2001]].</ref>) and technology figure [[Joi Ito]], who wrote, "the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived."<ref>[[Joi Ito]], "[http://joi.ito.com/archives/2004/08/29/wikipedia_attacked_by_ignorant_reporter.html#c014592 Wikipedia attacked by ignorant reporter]", Joi Ito's Web, [[August 29]] [[2004]].</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Bill Thompson (technology writer)|Bill Thompson]], a well known technology writer, commented that the debate is probably symptomatic of much learning about information which is happening in society today, arguing that:
| |
| − | {{cquote|It is the same with search engine results. Just because something comes up in the top 10 on MSN Search or Google does not automatically give it credibility or vouch for its accuracy or importance... One benefit that might come from the wider publicity that Wikipedia is currently receiving is a better sense of how to evaluate information sources... The days when everything you saw on a screen had been carefully filtered, vetted, edited and checked are long gone. Product placement, advertorials and sponsorship are all becoming more common. An educated audience is the only realistic way to ensure that we are not duped, tricked, fleeced or offended by the media we consume, and learning that online information sources may not be as accurate as they pretend to be is an important part of that education. I use the Wikipedia a lot. It is a good starting point for serious research, but I would never accept something that I read there without checking.|20px|20px|[[Bill Thompson (technology writer)|Bill Thompson]]| [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4534712.stm What is it with Wikipedia?]}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Coverage====
| |
| − | A common criticism is that editors, being volunteers, write on what interests them, and what they are aware of. Therefore coverage both within topics, and across the encyclopedia, is uneven and may at times be seriously unbalanced, with obvious and notable omissions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wikipedia has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. For example, like any Internet group, the site can become dominated by cliques of habitual users who express both condescension and hostility to users not involved in the "in-group" — habitual users also feel a sense of "ownership" over "their" pages, leading to edit wars.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ''Encyclopædia Britannica's'' editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg has argued this case,<ref name="Who" /> as has former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger who stated in 2004 that "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven."<ref name="SangerElitism" />
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The same fluidity that allows articles to be patchy has also led to Wikipedia being praised for making it possible for articles to be updated or created in response to current events. For example, the then-new article on the [[2004 Indian Ocean earthquake]] on its English edition was cited often by the press shortly after the incident.<ref>Cited by [http://www.workers.org/ww/2005/tsunami0113.php Workers World] ([[January 8]] [[2005]]) and Chicago Times ([[January 16]] [[2005]])</ref> Its editors have also argued that, as a website, Wikipedia is able to include articles on a greater number of subjects than print encyclopedias may.<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections Wikipedia:Replies to common objections]", Wikipedia, 22:53 [[April 13]] [[2005]].</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Community===
| |
| − | The [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Community Wikipedia community] consists of users who are proportionally few, but highly active. Emigh and Herring argue<ref name="emigh" /> that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices."<ref name="emigh" /> Editors on [[Wikinfo]], a [[fork (computing)|fork]] of Wikipedia, similarly argue that new or controversial editors to Wikipedia are often unjustly labeled "[[Internet troll|trolls]]" or "problem users" and blocked from editing.<ref>"[http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Critical_views_of_Wikipedia Critical views of Wikipedia]", [[Wikinfo]], 07:28 [[March 30]] [[2005]].</ref> Its community has also been criticized for responding to complaints regarding an article's quality by advising the complainer to fix the article (a common complaint about [[open-source software]] development as well).<ref>Andrew Orlowski, "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/23/wiki_fiddlers_big_book/ Wiki-fiddlers defend Clever Big Book]", [[The Register]], [[July 23]] [[2004]].</ref> It has also been described as "cult-like",<ref>{{cite news|url=http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1667346,00.html|title=Log on and join in, but beware the web cults|first=Charles|last=Arthur|date=[[2005-12-15]]|publisher=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/03/wikipedia/index.html|title=Wikipedia: The know-it-all Web site|date=[[2003-08-04]]|first=Kristie|last=Lu Stout|publisher=[[Cable News Network|CNN]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=What is it with Wikipedia?|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4534712.stm|date=[[2005-12-16]]|publisher=[[British Broadcasting Company|BBC]]|first=Bill|last=Thompson}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|date=[[2005-12-06]]|first=Andrew|last=Orlowski|publisher=[[The Register]]}}</ref> although, as these instances demonstrate, not always with entirely negative connotations.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In a page on [[WP:RESEARCH|researching with Wikipedia]], the community view is argued that Wikipedia is valuable for being a social community. That is, authors can be asked to defend or clarify their work, and disputes are readily seen.<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia]", Wikipedia ([[March 28]] [[2005]]).</ref> Wikipedia editions also often contain [[reference desk]]s in which the community answers questions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Responses to criticisms===
| |
| − | In an [http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm interview] with ''[[BusinessWeek]]'' on [[December 13]] [[2005]], Wales discussed the reasons that the [[Seigenthaler hoax]] had gone undetected, and steps being taken to address them. He stated that one problem was that Wikipedia's use had grown faster than its self-monitoring system could comfortably handle, and that therefore new page creation would be deliberately restricted to account-holders only, addressing one of Seigenthaler's main criticisms. He also gave his opinion that encyclopedias as a whole (whether print or online) were not usually appropriate for primary sources and should not be relied upon as authoritative (as some were doing), but that nonetheless on balance Wikipedia was more reliable as "background reading" on subjects than most online sources. He stated that Wikipedia was a "work in progress".<ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm Wikipedia: "A Work in Progress"] [[December 14]] [[2005]]. </ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In response to this criticism, proposals have been made to provide various forms of provenance for material in Wikipedia articles.<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Provenance Wikipedia:Provenance]", Wikipedia ([[May 9]] [[2006]]).</ref> The idea is to provide ''source provenance'' on each interval of text in an article and ''temporal provenance'' as to its vintage. In this way a reader can know "who has used the facilities before him" and how long the community has had to process the information in an article to provide calibration on the "sense of security". For example, Cross<ref>[http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/cross/index.html Cross, Tom. "Puppy smoothies: Improving the reliability of open, collaborative Wikis"]. First Monday.</ref> proposes a temporal provenance scheme which colors text based how many edit sessions a piece of text has survived (red for new text, yellow for text that has survived 50 edits, green if 100, black if more than 150 edits). However, these proposals for provenance are quite controversial. Aaron Krowne wrote a rebuttal article in which he criticized McHenry's methods, and labeled them "[[FUD]]", the marketing technique of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".<ref>Aaron Krowne, "[http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_02/fud_based_encyclopedia/ The FUD-based Encyclopedia]", [[Free Software Magazine]], [[March 1]] [[2005]].</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Awards==
| |
| − | Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004.<ref>"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trophy_box Trophy Box]", [[Meta-Wiki]] ([[March 28]] [[2005]]).</ref> The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities, awarded by [[Prix Ars Electronica]]; this came with a €10,000 ($12,700) grant and an invitation to present at the PAE Cyberarts Festival in [[Austria]] later that year. The second was a Judges' [[Webby Awards|Webby award]] for the "community" category. Wikipedia was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby. 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.
| |
| − | Wikipedia has received plaudits from sources including [[BBC News]], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[The Economist]]'', ''[[Newsweek]]'', ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', ''[[The Guardian]]'', ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'', ''[[The Times]]'' (London), ''[[Toronto Star]]'', ''[[Globe and Mail]]'', ''[[The Financial Times]]'', ''[[Time Magazine]]'', ''[[Irish Times]]'', ''[[Reader's Digest]]'', and ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''. Founder Jimmy Wales was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by ''[[TIME Magazine]]'' in 2006.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In 2006, in a Multiscope research, the Dutch Wikipedia was rated third best Dutch language site (after Google and Gmail), with a score of 8.3.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==In popular culture==
| |
| − | {{main|Wikipedia in popular culture}}
| |
| − | With increased usage and awareness, there has been an increasing number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture. Many parody Wikipedia's openness, with characters vandalising or modifying the online encyclopedia project's articles. Still others feature characters using the references as a source, or positively comparing a character's intelligence to Wikipedia.
| |
