Wikipedia

From Wikipedia

Wikipedia (Listeni / ˌwɪkɨpiːdiə / nobe Listeni / ˌwɪkipiːdiə / Wik-i-pee-dee-ə) is a free-ukufinyelela, free kokuqukethwe encyclopedia Internet, asekelwa futhi usingathwa non-nzuzo Wikimedia Foundation. Cishe wonke umuntu okwazi ukufinyelela isayithi [4] bangahlela pheze yisiphi lwezihloko zayo. Wikipedia yiyona website yesithupha ethandwa kakhulu [3] futhi lwakha kunawo futhi ethandwa kakhulu reference jikelele ngomsebenzi Internet BakaJehova. [5] [6] [7] Njengoba ka 2014, it has 18 billion ukubukwa page futhi cishe abayizigidi ezingu-500 izivakashi unique ngenyanga ngayinye. [8]


Jimmy Wales and Larry Singer Wikipedia campaign on January 15, 2001 Singer [9] called his name, [10] CAPS of Wiki (from the Hawaiian word for "Quick") [11] and the encyclopedia. Although the content of Wikipedia was originally only in English, it soon became a multilingual, through the launch of translations in different languages. All versions of Wikipedia is the same, but important difference in the content and in editing practices. Now the English Wikipedia is in need of Wikipedia more than 200, but it remains the largest, and articles of over 4.5 million.


Wikipedia uye wazakhela idumela njengoba umthombo wezindaba ngenxa Ukubuyekeza walo okusheshayo lwezihloko ezihlobene zindaba breaking. [12] [13] [14] Ngaphezu kwalokho, kulula ukungena Wikipedia eziphakeme kuqhathaniswa encyclopedia odlule kanye ukufakwa walo kokuqukethwe okuningi unacademic baye bathola ebanzi abezindaba ukunakwa.


Kufakaza obala Wikipedia eziphakeme futhi kuye kwaholela abanye ukukhathazeka, njenge izinga lokubhala yayo, [15] phansi kanye nokunemba imininingwane yayo. [16] [17] Nokho, nakuba ezinye izihloko zinemiBhalo engaqinisekisiwe noma ulwazi ayihlangani, [18] a 2005 inhlolovo of Wikipedia eyanyatheliswa ngo Nature ngokusekelwe ngokuqhathanisa 42 wesayensi athikili nge Encyclopædia Britannica wathola ukuthi ezingeni Wikipedia sika zokunemba kwakusondela Encyclopædia Britannica kanye bobabili amazinga ezifanayo eliphansi 'amaphutha amabi ". [19] Njengoba ka 2014, i-English Wikipedia iqukethe cishe abayizigidi ezinhlanu izihloko, abangaphezu koyedwa kayikhulu Britannica sika 40,000. [20] izinqubomgomo Wikipedia zihlanganisa verifiability kanye nomzimba elikhulayo amazinga kubandakanya for izinga siqinisekiso. [21]

Nature [edit]

"Njengoba ihlaya athandwa uya, 'Inkinga nge Wikipedia ukuthi nje usebenza practice. In ithiyori, singaphinde ukusebenza. '"

-Miikka Ryökäs [22] 

Kulungisa [edit] 



Umehluko emkhatsini yencwajana isihloko eziveziwe njengoba kuboniswe. 

Ngokungafani encyclopedia yendabuko, Wikipedia kungenziwa eyahlelwa yimuphi umfundi. Ngaphandle amakhasi ikakhulukazi ezizwelayo kanye / nobe phansi yizikhukhula ukuthi abizwa "evikelwe" ngezinga elithile, [23] Wikipedia izivakashi bangahlela izihloko ngisho noma abanalo akhawunti Wikipedia. Ezithile Omagazini abalandelayo lulwimi zinikeza version modified yale nqubomgomo; Ngokwesibonelo, abasebenzisi ezibhalisiwe nje angase adale isihloko esisha ku neyesiNgisi. [24] Isihloko njalo acekelwa phansi kungaba Semi-ezivikelwe, okusho ukuthi nje esungulwe, abasebenzisi iqinisekiswe bayakwazi ukwenza ukuhlela kuleso sihloko. [25] A ikakhulukazi Isihloko ingxabano zingase PUK ukuze abaphathi nje ziyakwazi ukwenza izinguquko. [26] An sihloko babonwa ephethwe uMdali walo noma ezinye umhleli futhi hhayi vetted ngu yimuphi igunya eqashelwayo. [27] Kunalokho, abahleli abangalala ukuze bavumelane nokuqukethwe kanye nokwakheka ezihlokweni by kuvunyelwana. 


Ngokuzenzakalelayo, i uhlela ukuba isihloko ngokushesha iba etholakalayo. Ngenxa yalokho, bangase izihloko inezinto ezinganembile, biases ehlukile, futhi nombhalo elingenangqondo kodwa eliphimiselekayo shu kuze umhleli ilungisa nokushiyeka okunjalo. Lehlukene edishini, ngamunye ngaphansi ehlukile control tekuphatsa, bakhululekile ukushintsha le nqubomgomo. Ngokwesibonelo, i-Wikipedia German ucondza "izinguqulo ezinzile" lwezihloko, [28] okuyinto Sekudlule izibuyekezo ezithile. Kulandela nezilingo eyayizothatha isikhathi eside nengxoxo nomphakathi, i-English Wikipedia elethula "izinguquko okulindile" system in December 2012. [29] Ngaphansi kwalesi simiso, edits abasebenzisi ezintsha awasho izihloko ezithile impikiswano noma ukucekelwa phansi kwempahla yizikhukhula kungaba 'ngokweyame abukeze kusukela Wikipedia esungulwe umhleli ngaphambi ncwadi ". 




Esibonakalayo kwemaphutsa of Wikipedia 

Ukubuyekezwa izinguquko [edit] 

Nakuba izinguquko kungukuthi ehlelekile kubuyekezwe, isofthiwe ukuthi amandla Wikipedia inikeza amathuluzi athile sivumele noma ubani ukuba abukeze izinguquko kwabanye. Page The "Umlando" of Isihloko ngasinye ilandisa izibuyekezo. [Amanothi 1] [30] Abahleli angayiqeda izinguquko, isibonelo ecaleni lapho kokuqukethwe ewusizo lasuswa. Abahleli Ungabuka izinguquko website sika zakamuva, iziphi ukhonjiswe ukuhlelwa kwezenzakalo reverse. Qhaza avamile ngokuvamile silondoloza 'watchlist' lwezihloko ukuthi ukuwaheha ukuze zikwazi aziswe izinguquko esizayo. New page patrol kuyinqubo lapho izihloko abasanda wadala kuthiwa ihlolwe ukuze izinkinga ezisobala. [31] 


Kulungisa Automated [edit] 

Izinhlelo Computer wabiza bots ziye zasetshenziswa kabanzi ukwenza imisebenzi elula futhi engamukelekile, ezifana sokulungisa nasekupeleteni ezivamile kanye nezindaba zezindlela namacebo okuloba, noma ukuqala izihloko ezifana geography okufakwe ifomathi evamile kusuka idatha ezibalo. [32] [33] [34] One sandla impikiswano bakamalalahlengezela ukudala izihloko kanye bot wakhe kwabikwa ukudala kuze izihloko abayizinkulungwane eziyishumi on the Wikipedia IsiSwidi ngezinsuku ezithile. [35] Kukhona ezinye bots eyenzelwe axwayise ngokuzenzakalelayo abasebenzisi okwenza ovamile kwemaphutsa amaphutha (ezifana izingcaphuno angenakuqhathaniswa nobe obakaki olungenakuqhathaniswa ), [36] futhi avimbele ukudalwa izixhumanisi amawebhusayithi ethile. Bots nazo isicelo lokuvala enforcements okuyinto thola futhi buyisela izinguquko by osolisayo abasebenzisi ezintsha, IPS okwabelwana noma IPS ibamba kuya amakhasi ihlushwa sockpuppets njengendlela ukuphinda kungenzeka of umsebenzisi ezivinjelwe kusetshenziswa ezinye izindlela amakheli IP. [Ukulandisa ezidingekayo] Abanye abasebenzisi kungaba lokubuyisa nanoma iyiphi ukuhlela yokuthi musa abonakale ngumsebenzisi zivinjelwe mbuzo. Esinye bot lichazwa ngokuthi i bot anti-ocekela phansi ukuthi izama ukuthola kanye revert phansi ngokushesha futhi ngokuzenzakalelayo. [37] futhi Bots ungabika edits ezivela akhawunti ethile noma ikheli IP zokhahlamba njengoba kwakwenziwa ngesikhathi the MH17 jet ukubeka phansi isigameko ngoJulayi 2014. [38] Bots on Wikipedia kufanele yamukeleke ngaphambi kusebenze. [39] 


Ngokusho Andrew Lih, ukwanda lamanje Wikipedia izigidi zihloko kwakuyoba nzima ukucabanga ngaphandle kokusebenzisa bots enjalo. [40] 


Ukucekela phansi impahla [edit] 

Isihloko Main: Ukucekela phansi impahla on Wikipedia 

Yimuphi edit ukuthi eshintsha nokuqukethwe ngendlela ukuxegisa ngamabomu ubuqotho Wikipedia kubhekwa phansi. Imihlobo ezivame kakhulu futhi ezisobala phansi zihlanganisa ukufakwa of inhlamba kanye amahlaya ongahluziwe. Ukucekela phansi impahla kungase futhi zihlanganisa ukukhangisa lulwimi, kanye nezinye izinhlobo spam. [41] Ngezinye izikhathi abahleli bophezela phansi ngokususa ulwazi noma yaliwe ngumtshina ngokuphelele ikhasi inikezwe. Izinhlobo Okungajwayelekile of ukucekela phansi impahla, ezifana kwalokho ngamabomu yokwaziswa zizinhle kodwa ongathembekile isihloko, kungaba nzima ukubona. Izichwensi kungazenza ukufometha ayibalulekile, shintsha page engasho lutho ezifana isihloko ikhasi noma categorization, lokuxhaphaza ikhodi ecashile of isihloko noma ukusebenzisa izithombe disruptively. [42] 


Onezinwele ezimhlophe umnumzana osekhulile isudi kanye tie ukhuluma ngesikhathi yesikhulumi. 


Intatheli American John Seigenthaler (1927-2014), into of sigameko Seigenthaler 

Ukucekelwa phansi kwempahla osobala ngokuvamile kulula ukususa kusuka Wiki izihloko; isikhathi yamaMede ukuthola futhi silungise phansi nje imizuzu embalwa. [16] [17] Nokho, abanye phansi kudinga isikhathi eside ukulungisa. 


Ngokwesibonelo, kwelinye sehlakalo high-profile, i umhleli engaziwa wethula ukwaziswa okungamanga singene Biography of sibalo yezombusazwe American John Seigenthaler, ngo-2005 Seigenthaler wamangalelwa owethulwe njengendlela umsolwa kokubulawa John F. Kennedy. [43] Lesi sihloko wahlala uncorrected izinyanga ezine. [43] Seigenthaler, umqondisi owasungula isihloko of USA Today kanye umsunguli Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, ebizwa Wikipedia co-umsunguli Jimmy Wales futhi wabuza ukuthi ayenakho yini indlela yokwazi ukuthi obani nesandla the ukwaziswa okungelona iqiniso. Wales waphendula ngokuthi ayizange, nakuba isephulamthetho sagcina kuhlehlela. [44] [45] Emva sigameko, Seigenthaler echazwe Wikipedia ngokuthi "inamaphutha futhi imithwalo ithuluzi lokucwaninga". [43] Lesi senzakalo saholela izinguquko inqubomgomo at Wikipedia, ngokuqondile kubhekiswe tightening up the verifiability kwezihloko umlandvomufi abantu abaphila. [46] 


Imithetho kanye nemithetho elawula nokuqukethwe kanye nomhleli nokuziphatha [edit] 

Okuqukethwe Wikipedia kuncike imithetho (ikakhulukazi, imithetho copyright) of the United States kanye of the US isimo Virginia, lapho iningi amaseva Wikipedia sika akuphi. Beyond izindaba zomthetho, izimiso isihloko of Wikipedia kuthiwa esisekelwe 'wezinsika emihlanu ", kanye nezinqubomgomo eminingi neziqondiso enzelwe ukuba balolonge okuqukethwe ngokufanele. Ngisho le mithetho zigcinwa ifomu wiki, futhi Wikipedia abahleli njengendlela bhala emphakathini abuyekeze izinqubomgomo website kanye nemihlahlandlela. [47] Abahleli kungaba qhuba la imithetho ngokususa noma ukulungisa material non-imithetho. Ekuqaleni, nemithetho on izinhlelo okungezona English of Wikipedia zazisekelwe inguqulo imithetho on the English Wikipedia. Baye kusukela diverged ngezinga elingakanani. 


Main Page of the English Wikipedia on October 20, 2010 

Page oyinhloko English Wikipedia 

Inguqulo mobile ye-English Wikipedia Main Page in the isiphequluli sewebhu Android on a i5800 Samsung 

Inguqulo mobile ye-English Wikipedia Main Page 

Izinqubomgomo bokuqukethwe [edit] 

Page Main: Wikipedia: Izinqubomgomo zokuqukethwe 

Ngokuvumelana nemithetho on the English Wikipedia, ngamunye entry e Wikipedia, ukuba afanelwe ukufakwa, kumele kube ngesihloko okusho encyclopedic futhi akuyona entry isichazamazwi noma isichazamazwi-like. [48] A sihloko kufanele futhi bahlangabezane nezindinganiso Wikipedia sika of "notability", [49] ngokuvamile kusho ukuthi kumelwe ukuba wathola Ukusabalala okuphawulekayo imithombo secondary efana media ezivamile- noma zamaphephabhuku ezinkulu yemfundo ezimele ngendaba ka ngesihloko. Ngaphezu kwalokho, Wikipedia uhlose idlulisele lwati kuphela ukuthi kakade osungulwe futhi wahlonishwa. [50] It akumele ukwethula ulwazi olusha noma ucwaningo original. A bathi kungenzeka ukuba inselele kudinga kukhulunywa emthonjeni onokwethenjelwa. Phakathi Wikipedia abahleli, lokhu ngokuvamile wabekwa ngokuthi "verifiability, hhayi ngeqiniso 'ukuveza umqondo wokuthi abafundi, hhayi encyclopedia, yibona ekugcineni abanomthwalo ekubhekeni yiqiniso komunci nokwenza nekuhumusha zabo siqu. [51] Lokhu kungaholela ukususwa ukwaziswa isebenza, ngaleyo ndlela bulimaze ukufakwa kolwazi kanye nokukhula encyclopedia. [52] Ekugcineni, Wikipedia akumele bathathe izinhlangothi. [53] Bonke imibono kanye nemibono, uma ezibangelwa imithombo yangaphandle, kumele bajabulele i share elifanele Ukuhlanganisa kungakapheli isihloko. [54] Lo waziwa ngokuthi indawo hlangothi of umbono (NPOV). 


Open ukubambisana [edit] 

Bheka futhi: Okuqukethwe okukhiqizwe ngumsebenzisi 

Ngo-2003, ezomnotho PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli wagomela ukuthi izindleko aphansi transaction of iqhaza a Wiki Ukwakha kulethe ukuthuthukiswa ngokubambisana, nokuthi izici ezifana nokufinyelela okulula izinguqulo ezidlule of a umusa page "ukwakhiwa zokudala" phezu "imbubhiso zokudala". [55] encwadini yakhe 2008, Ikusasa Internet nendlela Stop It, Zittrain ugagula yempumelelo Wikipedia sokuba isifundo njalo emisha kangakanani open ukubambisana uye wakhuthaza kuwebhu. [56] 


At OOPSLA 2009, Wikimedia isikhulu technology isikhulu futhi senior software umklami Brion Vibber wanikeza isethulo esithi "Ukusebenza Community okwenza ngcono: Ukwenza Abantu Yakho Run njengoba kahle njengoba Site Yakho" [57] kuwo okuxoxwe nezinselele ukusingatha iminikelo evela emphakathini enkulu futhi wafanisa inqubo yalowo yentuthuko software. 


Ifayela: Ukuhlela Hoxne hoard at the British Museum.ogv 

Wikipedians and British Museum curators sebenzisana on isihloko Hoxne hoard ngoJuni 2010. 

Ngezinye izikhathi Wikipedians Sinika omunye nomunye barnstars umsebenzi omuhle ukuze sisazise ezahlukene zomsebenzi zenani kuyoshaya kude editing ezilula zihlanganisa ukwesekwa kwezenhlalo, izenzo zokuphatha, kanye izinhlobo zomsebenzi ukuhambisana. Lomkhuba barnstar iye ihlaziye ukunquma lokho kunemithelela kungenzeka for ezinye imiphakathi waziphatha ezinkulu Sangdi. [58] 


Ukuxazululwa [edit] 

Uma ushintsho ngokuphindaphindiwe owabangelwa umhleli eyodwa abese ukuhlehliswa ngenye, i "Hlela war" ingase wagomela ukuba sebeqale. [59] [60] Wikipedia has izindlela eziningi izingxabano sokuxazulula. Ukuze athole umphakathi ukuvumelana wonkana, abahleli angamvusa izingqinamba at the Village Pump noma iqale isicelo Comment. Izinkundla akhethekile akhona for centralizing ingxoxo izinqumo ezithile, njengabaphostoli yini noma cha isihloko kufanele asuswe. (qhathanisa Notability in English Wikipedia.) 


Arbitration Committee [edit] 

Isihloko Main: Arbitration Committee 

IKomiti Arbitration wengamela lokugcina ukuxazululwa indlela. Nakuba izingxabano ngokuvamile bavele kokungezwani imibono emibili ephikisayo kanjani izihloko okufanele ukufunda, iKomidi Arbitration ngokucacile enqaba ngqo abuse ngalo umbono okufanele yokutholwa. Zokuhlaziya imininingwane zisikisela ukuthi ikomidi engayinaki okuqukethwe ezingxabanweni futhi ligxile endleleni izimpikiswano kuqhutshwa kunalokho, [61] esebenza cha kangaka ukuxazulula izingxabano futhi wenze ukuthula phakathi abahleli ezingqubuzanayo, kodwa ukuze Zikhipha abahleli eziyinkinga uma uvumela abahleli engase ikhiqize back e ukubamba iqhaza. Ngakho-ke, ikomidi asisho zilawule okuqukethwe lwezihloko, yize ngezinye izikhathi kube liyakulahla izinguquko kokuqukethwe uma ibona okuqukethwe entsha wephula izinqubomgomo Wikipedia (isibonelo, uma okuqukethwe entsha kubhekwa olubandlululayo). Amakhambi Its zihlanganisa nezixwayiso kanye probations (elisetshenziswa 63% of amacala) kanye nabahleli esivala kusuka ezihlokweni (43%), izindaba subject (23%) noma Wikipedia (16%). Complete nokuvinjelwa kusuka Wikipedia kuthiwa ikakhulu kuphela izimo of ukuzenza ongeyena nokuziphatha anti-social. Lapho ukuziphatha akuyona ukuzenza ongeyena nobe anti-kwezenhlalo, kodwana kunalokho anti-ukuvumelana nobe wephula izinqubomgomo ukuhlela, izixwayiso bavame ukuba ikhishwe. [62] 


Community [edit] 

Isihloko Main: Wikipedia emphakathini 



Wikimania, kwaba nengqungquthela yonyaka kubasebenzisi of Wikipedia nezinye imiklamo eziqhutshwa yi-Wikimedia Foundation 

Ngamunye sihloko kanye umsebenzisi of Wikipedia ngamunye uye i wahlobanisa page "Ngokukhululekile". Lezi zakha oyinhloko zokuxhumana umzila abahleli ukuxoxa luphinde nenkhulumomphikiswano izindaba kokuqukethwe noma inqubomgomo. [63] 


Umphakathi Wikipedia sika uye wachazwa ngokuthi inkolo-like, [64] nakuba ngaso sonke anezincazelo ngokuphelele negative. [65] ukuthanda Iphrojekthi sika for cohesiveness, ngisho noma kudinga ukuhlehla ehlanganisa ukunganakwa of kokuqinisekisa, yaziwe njengoba 'anti-elitism ". [66] 


Izibalo zabantu of Wikipedia abahleli 

Wikipedia ayidingi ukuba abahleli balo kanye neqhaza ahlinzeke ukuhlonza. [67] Njengoba Wikipedia ayekhula, "Ngubani uyabhala Wikipedia?" saba omunye imibuzo evame ukubuzwa on kuphrojekthi, ngokuvamile ngokubhekisela eminye imisebenzi Web 2.0 ezifana Digg [ukulandisa okudingekayo]. [68] kanye Jimmy Wales wagomela ngokuthi "kuphela emphakathini ... iqembu elizinikezele ambalwa amavolontiya "kwenza ingxenye enkulu yomsebenzi iminikelo eya Wikipedia nokuthi ngalokho hlelo 'njenganoma iyiphi inhlangano wendabuko". Ngo-2008, a Slate umagazini esihlokweni wabika ukuthi: ". Abacwaningi e Palo Alto, 1 amaphesenti of abasebenzisi Wikipedia banesibopho cishe isigamu lezinhlelo isayithi sika" [69] Le ndlela yokuhlaziya iminikelo kamuva phikisa ngu Aaron Swartz, ngubani yaphawula ukuthi izihloko eziningana yena banambitha kwadingeka izingxenye ezinkulu okuqukethwe kwabo (kukalwa inani abalingiswa) nesandla abasebenzisi nge low Hlela esikwenzayo kubalulekile. [70] 




Ucwaningo 2010 (olusha ngo 2012) ukuthi kwenziwa ngcono ikhombisa ukukhula Wikipedia futhi empeleni ukulungiswa it. [Ukulandisa ezidingekayo] 

Ucwaningo lwenziwa ngo 2012 Wikipedia kwadingeka abasebenzisi abakhuthele cishe 80.000. [71] [hhayi ukulandisa inikezwe] [ukulandisa okudingekayo] Kuze kuya 60% of abasebenzisi Wikipedia ebhalisiwe ungalokothi wenze esinye edit emva kwamahora zabo zokuqala 24. [Lapho?] Izincazelo ezingabanga ukuthi abasebenzisi enjalo ukubhalisela nje injongo olulodwa, noma uyesaba away by nakho kwabo. [72] Ngokusho Eric Goldman, abahleli abahluleka ukuhambisana Wikipedia imicikilisho zamasiko, ezifana inkulumo ukusayina amakhasi, ngokuphelele eyobonisa ukuthi kukhona Wikipedia abangaphandle, okwandisa amathuba okuthi Wikipedia wangaphakathi ngeke libhekise iminikelo yabo njengomuntu usongo. Abe ngaphakathi Wikipedia kuhilela izindleko non-eziwubala: the sandla kulindeleke ukwakha ikhasi yomsebenzisi, ufunde amakhodi zobuchwepheshe Wikipedia-eziqondene, bazithobe i Arcane ukuxazululwa inqubo, futhi sifunde "isiko Okumangaza ocebile nge e-emahlaya ngaphakathi ezibhekisela" . Non-ngemvume-in abasebenzisi kukhona kwezinye izakhamuzi ngomqondo lesibili class on Wikipedia, [73] ngokuthi "abahlanganyeli basuke izitifiketi ngamalungu omphakathi wiki, abanezincwadi nesithakazelo ilungelo lokufuna ekulondolozeni ikhwalithi umkhiqizo msebenzi, ngesisekelo iqhaza kwabo eziqhubekayo ", [74] kanti imilando umnikelo amakheli IP angeke ngempela nanoma yimuphi ngokuqiniseka kufanele zafundiswa noma sola phezu, umsebenzisi esithile. 


A 2007 Ukutadisha by abacwaningi ezivela Dartmouth College wathola ukuthi "qhaza engaziwa futhi okuvamile kuya Wikipedia [...] injengoba esinokwethenjelwa umthombo wolwazi njengalabo nomthelela ngubani babhalise esizeni". [75] A 2009 Ukutadisha by umhleli Business Insider nentatheli Henry Blodget [76] wabonisa kutsi in isampula okungahleliwe athikili wokuqukethwe kunawo Wikipedia (kukalwa inani lombhalo nomthelela esindayo kuze edit yakamuva banambitha) is adalwe "kwabangaphandle" (abasebenzisi nge low edit okuzama), kanti kulungisa iningi futhi kwebinza lwenziwa "wangaphakathi" (iqembu khetha of abasebenzisi esungulwe). A 2008 Ukutadisha lwathola ukuthi Wikipedians ayemancane ovumelana, evulekile, futhi kanembeza kunabanye. [77] [78] A 2009 cwaningo wasikisela kwakukhona 'ubufakazi nokumelana ezikhula emphakathini Wikipedia kokuqukethwe entsha ". [79] 


Ucwaningo oluthile lwathola ukuthi isizinda sandla kuya Wikipedia "kwaba kancane 13% abesifazane; yobudala isilinganiso esivivaneni kwaba maphakathi nawo-20s" [80] A 2011 Ukutadisha by abacwaningi baseNyuvesi Minnesota lwathola ukuthi abesifazane sakhiwe 16.1% of. abahleli 38,497 owaqala ukuhlela Wikipedia-2009 [81] Ngo isihloko January 2011 New York Times, Noam Cohen waphawula ukuthi 13% nje of nomthelela Wikipedia kukhona female ngokusho vo 2009 Wikimedia Foundation. [82] Sue Gardner, owayekade umqondisi ophethe i Wikimedia Foundation, uthemba ukubona iminikelo zesifazane ukwandisa kuya amaphesenti amabili nanhlanu by 2015 [83] Linda Basch, ongumongameli we-National Council for Research on Women, yaphawula umehluko kulezi Wikipedia umhleli izibalo kanye iphesenti labesifazane njengamanje acedzele degrees impohlo sika, degrees master kanye PhD nezinhlelo e-United States (bonke at amazinga amaphesenti 50 noma xaxa). [84] 


Esabela, amanyuvesi ahlukahlukene aye aphatha edit-a-thons ukukhuthaza abesifazane abengeziwe ukuba bahlanganyele emphakathini Wikipedia. In kokuwa 2013, amakolishi 15 no emanyuvesi, kuhlanganise Yale, Brown, no Pennsylvania State, banikela wasekolishi udumo abafundi ukuba 'ukubhala ukucabanga ezilwela amalungelo abesifazane' phakathi Wikipedia mayelana nobuchwepheshe [ukulandisa okudingekayo]. Nokho, bambalwa abesifazane aqhubeka amalungu usasebenza of Wikipedia ngemuva edit-a-thons ayengamele. Lapho ebuzwa ukuthi kungani, ukusabela ezivamile kwaba ukuthi kwakumelwe 'bematasa ". [85] 


Abaphathi [edit] 

Abahleli in nokuma okuhle emphakathini ezohamba for omunye amazinga eziningi zokuzithandela buphathi: le iqala "nomqondisi", [86] [87] abasebenzisi anelungelo abangakwazi susa amakhasi, ukuvimbela izihloko ekubeni kwashintsha uma phansi nobe isihloko izingxabano , futhi bazame ukuvimbela abantu abathile evela kwemaphutsa. Naphezu igama, abaphathi kungukuthi okuthiwa ukujabulela yimuphi lungelo elikhethekile ngo ekuthathweni; kunalokho, amandla abo anesizotha kuphela ekwenzeni edits ukuba nemiphumela project-ububanzi futhi ngaleyo ndlela kuthiwa Ayivumeliwe kuya abahleli avamile, nokuqhamuka nemingcele ezihloselwe ukuvimbela abantu abathile evela ekwenzeni edits onakalisayo (efana phansi). [88] [89] 


Abahleli abangaphansi baba abaphathi kunokuba eminyakeni esidlule, ngokwengxenye ngenxa inqubo ekunqabeleni engahle Wikipedia abaphathi isibe ezinzima zamandla angaphezu. [90] 


Ulimi Amahumusho [edit] 

Bheka futhi: List of udinga Ama-Wikipedia 

Circle frame.svg 

Ukusatshalaliswa izihloko 32,765,226 ngolimi ezahlukene kwizihumusho (njengoba of 14 Agasti 2014) [91] 


   English (14%) 

   Swedish (5.5%) 

   Dutch (5.5%) 

   German (5.3%) 

   French (4.7%) 

   Russian (3.5%) 

   Italian (3.5%) 

   Spanish (3.4%) 

   Vietnamese (3.4%) 

   Waray-Waray (3.3%) 

   Okunye (51.2%) 

Kukhona Njengamanje 287 olimi kwizihumusho of Wikipedia (obizwa nangokuthi ngolimi izinguqulo, noma bamane udinga Ama-Wikipedia); ala, abayishumi nanye babe izihloko kwesigidi ngalinye (English, isiDashi, isiJalimane, isiFulentshi, isiNtaliyane, isiPolish, iSpanishi, Russian, isiSwidi, Vietnamese, no-Waray Waray), ezine ngaphezulu babe izihloko kuka 700,000 (isiCebuano, Chinese, isiJapane, isiPutukezi), 37 ngaphezulu babe izihloko kuka 100,000, kanti 73 ngaphezulu babe izihloko kuka 10,000. [92] [93] The kunawo, i English Wikipedia, has izihloko kuka million 4.5. Njengoba of June 2013, ngokusho Alexa, lo isizinda English (en.wikipedia.org; English Wikipedia) uthola cishe 56% of traffic Wikipedia sika ayesehle, ne uqhekeko ezisele phakathi kwezinye izilimi (iSpanishi: 9%; Japanese: 8%; Russian: 6%; German: 5%; French: 4%; Italian:. 3%) [94] Njengoba of August 2014, izinhlelo zolimi kunayo eziyisithupha yilezi (ngokulandelana of esihlokweni count) the English, isiSwidi, Dutch, isiJalimane , isiFulentshi, futhi udinga Ama-Wikipedia zaseRussia. [95] i nokuhlalisana kokuqukethwe ezindiminingi on Wikipedia ube khona ngenxa Unicode, ogama ukwesekwa yethulwa phakathi Wikipedia ngoJanuwari 2002 by Brion Vibber emva kwase efanayo yena lwenteke izinhlamvu of Esperanto. [96] [97] 


Kusukela Wikipedia kusekelwe Web ngakhoke emhlabeni wonke, abanikela a edition olufanayo lulwimi ingasebenzisa zezigodi ezahlukene noma kungenzeka bavela emazweni ehlukene (njengoba kunjalo ngoba edition English). Lezi umehluko kungaholela abanye zingxabano phezu nesipelingi umehluko (isib color Versus color) [98] noma ngamaphuzu umbono. [99] 


Nakuba izinhlelo ezahlukene zolimi aphethwe nemigomo efana 'indawo hlangothi of umbono' global, baba washintsha namanye amaphuzu kwenchubomgomo kanye practice, iningi njengaku ekutheni izithombe ezingasekelwe ilayisense ngokukhululekile lingasetshenziswa ngaphansi isimangalo of ukusetshenziswa engenzeleli. [100] [101] [102] 


Jimmy Wales uye wachazwa Wikipedia ngokuthi "ukuze adale futhi ukusabalalisa a encyclopedia free of the esezingeni kwenzeke ukuba wonke umuntu ongashadile on planethi ngolimi lwabo siqu". [103] Nakuba ngamunye imisebenzi edition ngolimi ucishe ngokuzimela, ezinye imizamo kwenziwa ukuze aqondise kuzo bonke. Basuke kweLuhlelo ngokwengxenye by Meta-Wiki, Wiki i Wikimedia Foundation enikelwe nokugcina zonke imiklamo yayo (Wikipedia nabanye). [104] Ngokwesibonelo, Meta-Wiki inikeza izibalo ezibalulekile on zonke izibuyekezo ulimi Wikipedia, [105] futhi it ucondza uhlu lwezihloko njalo Wikipedia kumele babe [106] uhlu siphathelene kokuqukethwe eziyisisekelo by subject:. Biography, umlando, amazwe, umphakathi, isiko, isayensi, ezobuchwepheshe, kanye mathematics. Ngokuqondene nazo, akuyona ezingavamile for izihloko ezihlobene kakhulu olimini oluthile hhayi ukuba bangumfuziselo kwenye edition. Ngokwesibonelo, izihloko mayelana emadolobheni amancane e-United States bangase nje khona ngesiNgisi, ngisho nalapho behlangana notability criteria yezinye ngolimi Wikipedia imiklamo. 




Ukulinganisa eminikelo amasheya ezivela ezifundazweni ezahlukene kuleli zwe ukuze ezahlukene Wikipedia editions 

Izihloko elihunyushwe bamele nje ingxenye encane athikili yaba izinhlelo iningi, ngokwengxenye ngenxa yokuthi translation ngokuzenzakalela lwezihloko is Ayivumeliwe. [107] Izihloko atholakalayo ngolimi ezingaphezu kwesisodwa angase anikele "links interwiki", okuyinto link izihloko uzakwabo kwamanye editions . 


Isihloko esanyatheliswa ngo yocwaningo PLoS ONE ngo-2012, besebenzisa amaphethini lomzimba imisebenzi isihloko omphakathi, kulinganiselwa isabelo iminikelo kuya kwizihumusho ezahlukene Wikipedia kusukela ezifundeni ezahlukene zomhlaba. Ngokwesibonelo, siye libike ukuthi ukulungiswa kusukela North America anqunyelwe pheze 50% in the English Wikipedia futhi lokhu value Sehlile amaphesenti amabili nanhlanu alula English Wikipedia. Lesi sihloko sibuye ihlanganisa ezinye asakazwa ngezilimi ezahlukene. [108] The Wikimedia Foundation uthemba ukwandisa inani abahleli in the Global South kuya amaphesenti amathathu nesikhombisa by 2015 [109] 


On 1 March 2014, The Economist esihlokweni esihloko sithi "Ikusasa Wikipedia" labala kuhlaziywa kwezimo ngokuqondene idatha enyatheliswa Wikimedia ngabachazela ukuthi: ". Inani wabahleli the lesiNgisi version uwile ngumuntu wesithathu eminyakeni eyisikhombisa" [110] Izinga attrition for abahleli abakhuthele English Wikipedia kwaba ekhonjiwe by The Economist njengoba kakhulu Ngokungafani izibalo for Wikipedia kwezinye izilimi (non-English Wikipedia). The Economist libike ukuthi isibalo nomthelela nge-avareji ka emihlanu lezinhlelo ngaphezulu ngenyanga kwaba kuqhathaniswa njalo kusukela 2008 for Wikipedia kwezinye izilimi cishe 42,000 abahleli phakathi variances emincane zonyaka ka abahleli phansi noma phezulu mayelana 2,000. Amazinga attrition for abahleli e English Wikipedia, by kuqhathanisa ebukhali, ishiwo njengoba NEKUKHULUMA ngo 2007 at cishe 50,000 abahleli okuyinto usunciphe 30,000 abahleli njengoba of ukuqala 2014 Ngesikhathi ecashunwe mkhuba rate, inani abahleli abakhuthele English Wikipedia ilahlekelwe cishe 20,000 abahleli attrition kusukela 2007, kanti emafayeleni mkhuba rate kubonisa ukulahlekelwa yomunye abahleli 20,000 by 2021, wehlele 10,000 abahleli asebenzayo on English Wikipedia by 2021 Uma kwesokunxele zingancishiswa. [110] Njengoba sazi ukuthi ukuhlaziywa mkhuba leyashicilelwa The Economist presents inani abahleli asebenzayo for Wikipedia kwezinye izilimi (non-English Wikipedia) njengoba osele kuqhathaniswa njalo futhi siphumelele ekusekeleni izinombolo zayo cishe 42,000 abahleli abakhuthele, umehluko uye bakhomba ukuphumelela Wikipedia kwezinye izilimi ukugcina esebenzayo yayo abahleli on nesisekelo nalesebentisa nokuqhubekayo. [110] Akukho ukuphawula senziwa ngokuqondene yikuphi nezindinganiso umahluko edit inqubomgomo kusuka Wikipedia kwezinye izilimi (non-English Wikipedia) wayeyonikeza ohlukile kwenzeke ukuba English Wikipedia for ngempumelelo ameliorating eningi umhleli attrition rates on ulimi lwesiNgisi Wikipedia. [111] 


Umlando [edit] 

Isihloko Main: Umlando Wikipedia 



Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger 

Logo ukufundwa "Nupedia.com the encyclopedia free" in blue ne initial enkulu "N". 


Wikipedia odabuka zavela kwenye encyclopedia project, Nupedia. 

Wikipedia waqala njengendlela project ayahambelana for Nupedia, a free online lesiNgisi encyclopedia project ogama zihloko ezalotshwa ngu ochwepheshe babuyekeza ngaphansi inqubo esemthethweni. Nupedia yasungulwa ngoMashi 9, 2000, ngaphansi ubunikazi Bomis, yenkampani a web portal. Izibalo zako ezisemqoka babengamadodana CEO Bomis Jimmy Wales no Larry Sanger, umhleli-in-chief for Nupedia futhi kamuva Wikipedia. Nupedia kwaba ilayisense okokuqala ngaphansi Nupedia Open License yaso Content, ziguquka kuya GNU Free Documentation License ngaphambi kokusungulwa Wikipedia sika at ukunxusa Richard Stallman. [112] Sanger naseWales wasungula Wikipedia. [113] [114] Ngenkathi Wales is udumo ngokuchaza umgomo wokwenza encyclopedia obala kuhleleke, [115] [116] Sanger is udumo isu lokusebenzisa Wiki ukufinyelela lowo mgomo. [117] Ngo-January 10, 2001, Sanger ohlongozwayo on the Nupedia sekheli ohlwini ukudala Wiki njengoba project a 'feeder "for Nupedia. [118] 


audio sangaphandle 

  The Book of Great Knowledge, Ingxenye 1, Imibono noPawulu Kennedy, CBC, January 15, 2014. 

Wikipedia lase ngokomthetho umkhankaso on January 15, 2001, njengelungu edition-ngolimi lwesiNgisi single at www.wikipedia.com, [119] futhi umemezele by Sanger on the Nupedia Uhlu lwamaposi ekhompyutha. [115] inqubomgomo Wikipedia of 'phuzu-ka-umbono hlangothi "[120] kwase eyabekwa ezinyangeni zayo zokuqala. Ngale kwalokho, kwakukhona imithetho emibalwa ekuqaleni Wikipedia lasebenza ngokuzimela of Nupedia. [115] Ekuqaleni, Bomis wayehlose ukwenza Wikipedia ibhizinisi inzuzo. [121] 


Wikipedia yazuza qhaza zakuqala kusuka Nupedia, Slashdot ezithunyelwe, futhi search engine web indexing. Ngo-August 8, 2001, kwadingeka Wikipedia kuka 8,000 izihloko. [122] On September 25, 2001, kwadingeka Wikipedia kuka 13,000 izihloko. [123] Futhi ngasekupheleni 2001 sase esekhule izihloko cishe 20,000 no 18 olimi editions. Kwase 26 olimi asakazwa by sekwephuzile 2002, 46 ekupheleni 2003, futhi 161 ngu izinsuku okugcina 2004 [124] Nupedia and Wikipedia Bahlala kwaze amaseva yangaphambili sika zathathwa phasi unomphela ngo-2003, futhi okulotshwe kuwo ezahlanganiswa Wikipedia. English Wikipedia wadlula uphawu lwezihloko million ezimbili on September 9, 2007, okusenza le encyclopedia kunazo zonke ezake babuthana, odlulele ngisho 1407 Yongle Encyclopedia, ezazikade aphethwe irekhodi iminyaka 600. [125] 


Kokubala ukwesaba of ukukhangisa kwezohwebo kanye nokuntuleka okulawula Wikipedia, abasebenzisi of the Wikipedia Spanish olunjengemfoloko nokunye kusuka Wikipedia ukudala Enciclopedia Khulula ngo February 2002 [126] La liya wakhuthaza Wales ukumemezela ukuthi Wikipedia ngeke sibonise intengiso, futhi ukushintsha domain Wikipedia sika kusukela wikipedia.com ukuze wikipedia.org. [127] 


Nakuba English Wikipedia wafinyelela izihloko million ezintathu August 2009, ukwanda kwe-edition, ngokoMthetho izinombolo lwezihloko nesesiphelo nomthelela, kubonakala sengathi kwafinyelela umvuthwandaba nxazonke zakuqala 2007. [128] Around nawo-1800 kuya zihloko kwanezelwa nsuku zonke kuze encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 ukuthi isilinganiso kwaba cishe 800. [129] Iqembu at the Palo Alto Research Center isixhazululo le unciphisa sokukhula kuya okwandayo wedwa le project kanye ukumelana ukushintsha. [130] Abanye basikisela ukuthi ukukhula is flattening ngokwemvelo ngenxa izihloko ukuthi kungaba ngokuthi "low-choma izithelo" - izihloko ezisenza ngokucacile isihloko -. kakade zidalwe azakhela kabanzi [131] [132] [133] 


Ngo-November 2009, umcwaningi at the Rey Juan Carlos University e Madrid (Spain) lwathola ukuthi English Wikipedia wayengasenaso 49,000 abahleli phakathi nezinyanga ezintathu zokuqala of 2009; uma kuqhathaniswa, leli project walahlekelwa abahleli 4.900 nje kuphela phakathi nenkathi efanayo ngo-2008 [134] [135] The Wall Street Journal ekhonjiwe uhla imithetho zisetshenziswa kulungisa kanye nezimpikiswano ezihlobene kokuqukethwe okunjalo phakathi izizathu lokhu kuthambekela. [136] Wales baphikisana la izimangalo ngo-2009, bephika ukuwa, singabaze indlela lesifundo. [137] kweminyaka emibili kamuva, Wales wavuma ukuba khona nokwehla okuncane, siphawula ukwehla kusukela "kancane kuka 36,000 abalobi" ngoJuni 2010 kuya 35,800 in June 2011 [138] in the interview efanayo, Wales aphinde athi inani abahleli sasithi "ezinzile futhi esimeme," a isimangalo okuyinto ephenywa mit sika Technology Review esihlokweni 2013 esihloko sithi "ekuncipheni Wikipedia." [139 ] ngo July 2012, Atlantic libike ukuthi isibalo abaphathi nako ziyancipha. [140] in the 25 November 2013 issue of kamagazini New York, uKatherine Ward sathi "Wikipedia, iwebhusayithi lesithupha-kunazo-kusetshenziswa, elibheke i yangaphakathi esibucayi. Ngo 2013, mit sika Technology Review yembula ukuthi kusukela ngo-2007, le site ilahlekelwe yesithathu abahleli ivolontiya ukuvuselela bese ulungise izigidi le encyclopedia inthanethi of amakhasi nalabo zisekhona abaye egxile ngokuya on minutiae. "[141] 




Wikipedia blackout wokumelana uSopa ngoJanuwari 18, 2012 

Ngo-January 2007, Wikipedia wangena okokuqala uhlu top-eziyishumi amawebhusayithi athandwa kakhulu e-United States, ngokusho comScore Networks. With million 42,9 izivakashi eziyingqayizivele, Wikipedia yayibekwe ezingeni number 9, odlulele iNew York Times (# 10) no Apple (# 11). Lokhu kwasho okukhulu phezu January 2006, lapho ayedla kwaba isibalo 33, kanye Wikipedia ethola azungeze 18.3 million izivakashi eziyingqayizivele. [142] Ngo February 2014, kwaba Wikipedia website lesithupha ethandwa kakhulu emhlabeni wonke ngokusho Alexa Internet, [94] ekutholeni 12 billion zokubukwa kwamakhasi njalo ngenyanga [143] (2.7 billion kusukela United States [144]). On 9 February 2014, The New York Times yabika ukuthi Wikipedia has 18 billion zokubukwa kwamakhasi futhi cishe abayizigidi ezingu-500 izivakashi eziyingqayizivele ngenyanga, "ngokwezinto izilinganiso liqinile comScore." [8] 


Ngo-January 18, 2012, i-English Wikipedia iqhaza ochungechungeni imibhikisho Bafunisiswa ngokumelene imithetho emibili ehlongozwayo e-United States Congress-the Stop Online ukudunwa Act (uSopa) kanye uvikele Act IP (PIPA) -ngomusa blacking out amakhasi alo for 24 amahora. [145] Ngaphezu 162 million abantu babebheka blackout Incazelo ikhasi esikhundleni saso Wikipedia nokuqukethwe okwesikhashana. [146] [147] 


Loveland and Reagle bathi, ngo nqubo, Wikipedia kulandela isiko omude encyclopedia ezingokomlando ukuthi zanqwabelana ngcono piecemeal ngokusebenzisa 'yokuzuza stigmergic ". [148] [149] 


On 20 January 2014, Subodh Varma abika for The Economic Times wabonisa ukuthi hhayi nje kwadingeka Wikipedia iqhaza isicaba kodwa has "walahlekelwa ngu-10 cent of walo enamakhasi ukubukwa ngonyaka odlule ngamunye. Yilokho ukwehla ngu-2 billion phakathi kuka-December 2012 no-December 2013. izinguqulo Its ethandwa kakhulu abahola slide:. enamakhasi imibono English Wikipedia lehle ngo-12 cent per, labo of version German Ngafaka by 17 cent kanye version Japanese per balahlekelwa 9 angu "[150] Varma wanezela ukuthi,"While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's Knowledge Graphs project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users."[150] When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate professor at NewYork University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for internet and Security indicated that he suspected much of the page-view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need toclick [any further]."[150] 


Graph of number of articles in the English Wikipedia showing steady growth 

Number of articles in the English Wikipedia (in blue) 

Growth of the number of articles in the English Wikipedia showing a max around 2007 

Growth of the number of articles in the English Wikipedia (in blue) 

Graph showing the number of days between every 10,000,000th edit (ca. 50 days), from 2005 to 2011 

Number of days between every 10,000,000th edit 



Analysis of content[edit] 

See also: Academic studies about Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia 

Although poorly written articles are flagged for improvement,[151] critics note that the style and quality of individual articles may vary greatly. Others argue that inherent biases (willful or not) arise in the presentation of facts, especially controversial topics and public or historical figures. Although Wikipedia's stated mission is to provide information and not argue value judgements, articles often contain overly specialized, trivial, or objectionable material.[152] 


In 2006, the Wikipedia Watch criticism website listed dozens of examples of plagiarism by Wikipedia editors on the English version.[153] 


Articles in Wikipedia are loosely categorized according to their subject matter.[154] 


Accuracy of content[edit] 

Main article: Reliability of Wikipedia 

Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica are carefully and deliberately written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy. Conversely, Wikipedia is often cited for factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica by the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that 'the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.'[19] Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."[155] The findings by Nature were disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[156][157] and in response, Nature gave a rebuttal of the points raised by Britannica.[158] In addition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others have examined the sample size and selection method used in the Nature effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in Nature's manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported confidence intervals), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small sample size, 42 or 4 x 101 articles compared, vs >105 and >106 set sizes for Britannica and the English Wikipedia, respectively).[159] 


As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.[160] Concerns have been raised by PC World in 2009 regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[161] the insertion of false information,[162] vandalism, and similar problems. 


Economist Tyler Cowen wrote: "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 some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal articles and relevant information is omitted from news reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found on Internet sites, and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them.[163] 


Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.[164] Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.[165] Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.[166] 


External video 

 Inside Wikipedia - Attack of the PR Industry , Deutsche Welle, 7:13 mins[167]

Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, and various forms of paid advocacy seen as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable online encyclopedia.[30][168] In response to paid advocacy and undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article by Jeff Elder in The Wall Street Journal on 16 June 2014 to have strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.[169] The article stated that: "Beginning Monday (from date of article), changes in Wikipedia’s terms of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement. Katherine Maher, the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation’s chief communications officer, said the changes address a sentiment among volunteer editors that, 'we’re not an advertising service; we’re an encyclopedia.'"[18][169][170][171][172] These issues, among others, had been parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.[173] 


On 5 March 2014, Julie Beck writing for The Atlantic magazine in an article titled "Doctors’ #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia", stated that "Fifty percent of physicians look up conditions on the (Wikipedia) site, and some are editing articles themselves to improve the quality of available information."[174] Beck continued to detail in this article new programs of Dr. Amin Azzam at the University of San Francisco to offer medical school courses to medical students for learning to edit and improve Wikipedia articles on health-related issues, as well as internal quality control programs within Wikipedia organized by Dr. James Heilman to improve a group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance up to Wikipedia's highest standard of peer review evaluated articles using its Featured Article and Good Article peer review evaluation standards.[174] In a 7 May 2014 follow-up article in The Atlantic titled "Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text", Julie Beck quotes Wikiproject's Dr. James Heilman as stating: "Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality reference."[175] Beck added that: "Wikipedia has its own peer review process before articles can be classified as 'good' or 'featured.' Heilman, who has participated in that process before, says 'less than 1 percent' of Wikipedia's medical articles have passed.[175] 


Most university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[176] some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.[177][178] Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citeable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.[179] Wales once (2006 or earlier) said he receives about ten emails weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia; he told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia", he said.[180] 


In February 2007, an article in The Harvard Crimson newspaper reported that a few of the professors at Harvard University include Wikipedia in their syllabi, but that there is a split in their perception of using Wikipedia.[181] In June 2007, former president of the American Library Association Michael Gorman condemned Wikipedia, along with Google,[182] stating that academics who endorse the use of Wikipedia are "the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything". 


A Harvard law textbook, Legal Research in a Nutshell (2011), cites Wikipedia as a "general source" that "can be a real boon" in "coming up to speed in the law governing a situation" and, "while not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more in-depth resources".[183] 


Quality of writing[edit] 

Because contributors usually rewrite small portions of an entry rather than making full-length revisions, high- and low-quality content may be intermingled within an entry. Roy Rosenzweig, a history professor, stated that American National Biography Online outperformed Wikipedia in terms of its "clear and engaging prose", which, he said, was an important aspect of good historical writing.[184] Contrasting Wikipedia's treatment of Abraham Lincoln to that of Civil War historian James McPherson in American National Biography Online, he said that both were essentially accurate and covered the major episodes in Lincoln's life, but praised "McPherson's richer contextualization […] his artful use of quotations to capture Lincoln's voice […] and […] his ability to convey a profound message in a handful of words." By contrast, he gives an example of Wikipedia's prose that he finds "both verbose and dull". Rosenzweig also criticized the "waffling—encouraged by the npov policy—[which] means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history". By example, he quoted the conclusion of Wikipedia's article on William Clarke Quantrill. While generally praising the article, he pointed out its "waffling" conclusion: "Some historians […] remember him as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while others continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero."[184] 


Other critics have made similar charges that, even if Wikipedia articles are factually accurate, they are often written in a poor, almost unreadable style. Frequent Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski commented: "Even when a Wikipedia entry is 100 per cent factually correct, and those facts have been carefully chosen, it all too often reads as if it has been translated from one language to another then into to a third, passing an illiterate translator at each stage."[185] A study of articles on cancer was undertaken in 2010 by Yaacov Lawrence of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University limited to those Wikipedia articles which could be found in the Physician Data Query and excluding Wikipedia articles written at the "start" class or the "stub" class level. Lawrence found the articles accurate but not very readable, and thought that "Wikipedia's lack of readability (to non-college readers) may reflect its varied origins and haphazard editing".[186] The Economist argued that better-written articles tend to be more reliable: "inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete information".[187] 


Coverage of topics and systemic bias[edit] 

See also: Notability in English Wikipedia 

Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has terabytes of disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed encyclopedia.[188] The exact degree and manner of coverage on Wikipedia is under constant review by its editors, and disagreements are not uncommon (see deletionism and inclusionism).[189][190] Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic because Wikipedia is not censored. The policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of images of Muhammad in the English edition of its Muhammad article, citing this policy. The presence of politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in Wikipedia has led to the censorship of Wikipedia by national authorities in China,[191] Pakistan,[192] and the United Kingdom,[193] among other countries. 




Pie chart of Wikipedia content by subject as of January 2008[194] 

A 2008 study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and Palo Alto Research Center gave a distribution of topics as well as growth (from July 2006 to January 2008) in each field:[194] 


Culture and the arts: 30% (210%) 

Biographies and persons: 15% (97%) 

Geography and places: 14% (52%) 

Society and social sciences: 12% (83%) 

History and events: 11% (143%) 

Natural and physical sciences: 9% (213%) 

Technology and the applied sciences: 4% (−6%) 

Religions and belief systems: 2% (38%) 

Health: 2% (42%) 

Mathematics and logic: 1% (146%) 

Thought and philosophy: 1% (160%) 

These numbers refer only to the quantity of articles: it is possible for one topic to contain a large number of short articles and another to contain a small number of large ones. Through its "Wikipedia Loves Libraries" program, Wikipedia has partnered with major public libraries such as the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts to expand its coverage of underrepresented subjects and articles.[195] 


A 2011 study conducted by researchers at the University of Minnesota indicated that male and female editors focus on different coverage topics. There was a greater concentration of females in the People and Arts category, while males focus more on Geography and Science.[196] 


Coverage of topics and selectional bias[edit] 

In September 2009, Wikipedia articles covered about half a million places on Earth. However, research conducted by the Oxford Internet Institute has shown that the geographic distribution of articles is highly uneven. Most articles are written about North America, Europe, and East Asia, with very little coverage of large parts of the developing world, including most of Africa.[197] 


A "selection bias"[198] may arise when more words per article are devoted to one public figure than a rival public figure. Editors may dispute suspected biases and discuss controversial articles, sometimes at great length. Wales has noted the dangers of bias on controversial political topics or polarizing public figures.[199] 


Systemic bias[edit] 

When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, there may arise a systemic bias, such as non-opposite definitions for apparent antonyms. In 2011, Wales noted that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, which predominantly consists of young males with high education levels in the developed world (cf previously).[138] The 22 October 2013 essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's Technology Review titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and policy creep on recent downward trends in the number of editors available to support Wikipedia's range and coverage of topics.[139] 


Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally, for example favouring certain ethnicities or majority religions.[200] It may more specifically follow the biases of Internet culture, inclining to being young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases of its own may include over-emphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events.[200] 


The study of systemic bias is part of the field titled organizational behavior in industrial organization economics. It is studied in several principle modalities in both non-profit and for-profit institutions. The issue of concern is that patterns of behavior may develop within large institutions, such as Wikipedia, which become institutionally maladapted and harmful to the productivity and viability of the larger institutions from which they develop. The eight major categories of study for maladaptive organizational behavior as they apply to maintaining and supporting Wikipedia are: (1) Counterproductive work behavior or CWB consists of behavior by employees or volunteer editors that harm or intended to harm Wikipedia and its editors constructive contributions usually identified as "edit warring" or "disruptive editing";[201] (2) Mistreatment of human resources used for editing and maintaining Wikipedia; There are several types of mistreatment that employees or volunteer editors for Wikipedia endure while editing along with a large contingent of corrective measures and norms of editing policy available as counter-measures for such mistreatment; (3) Abusive supervision is the extent to which a supervisor engages in a pattern of behavior that harms subordinates, such as fellow editors at Wikipedia. Editors at various levels of experience are often entrusted with corrective procedures and referrals for correcting abusive editing practices when these are identified.;[202] (4) Bullying; Although definitions of bullying vary, it involves a repeated pattern of harmful behaviors directed towards individuals, such as editors viewed as individual contributors.;[203] (5) Incivility consists of low-intensity discourteous and rude behavior with ambiguous intent to detract from productivity and violate norms for appropriate behavior in the workplace, such as that which may be found while editing contributions.;[204] (6) Gender bias is behavior that denigrates or mistreats an individual worker, such as a voluntary editor at Wikipedia, due to his or her gender, creates an offensive workplace for the worker and interferes with an individual being able to do the job; The gender gap at Wikipedia is well-recognized as an issue deserving of attention as discussed in the separate subsection above; Although an effective counter-measure to this gender gap has yet to be fully identified at Wikipedia, several programs have been examined for their possible potential in moving towards achieving gender equality.;[205] (7) Occupational stress concerns the imbalance between the demands (aspects of occupation or, for example, Wikipedia editing that require mental or physical effort) and resources that help cope with demands.;[206] and (8) Maladaptive standards and practices, where the accumulation of piecemeal standards adopted over time begin to show a cumulative negative effect upon the overall success and improvement of the institutions they were originally designed to guide and assist.[207] 


In 2013, Deepak Chopra said that "a band of committed skeptics [on Wikipedia] have focused their efforts to discredit anyone whom they judge an enemy".[208] In an interview with BBC World Service, Rupert Sheldrake made similar complaints about a group of skeptics influencing Wikipedia.[209] University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne responded to the allegation citing evidence that the claim was false, and chided BBC World Service for allowing Sheldrake to "proclaim his conspiracy theories" on the station.[210] 


Taha Yasseri of the University of Oxford in 2013 studied the statistical trends of systemic bias introduced by editing conflicts and their resolution on Wikipedia.[211][212] The research was among the most technical studies of systemic bias related to organizational behavior at Wikipedia examined as the counterproductive work behavior of edit warring. Yasseri contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of counterproductive behavior at Wikipedia and instead relied on the statistical measurement of detecting "reverting/reverted pairs" or "mutually reverting edit pairs." Such a "mutually reverting edit pair" is defined where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to revert the first editor in the "mutually reverting edit pairs." The results were tabulated for all language versions of Wikipedia, with the English Wikipedia three largest conflict rates being for articles covering (i) G.W. Bush, (ii) Anarchism and (iii) Mohammad.[212] By comparison, for German Wikipedia the three largest conflict rates at the time of the Oxford study were for the articles covering (i) Croatia, (ii) Scientology and (iii) 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.[212] 


Explicit content[edit] 

Main category: Wikipedia objectionable content 

See also: Criticism of Wikipedia § Sexual content 

Main articles: Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia and Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons 

“ Problem? What problem? So, you didn’t know that Wikipedia has a porn problem? ” 

—Larry Sanger, [213] 

Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information of graphic content. Articles depicting arguably objectionable content (such as Feces, Cadaver, Human penis, and Vulva) contain graphic pictures and detailed information easily available to anyone with access to the internet, including children. 


The site also includes sexual content such as images and videos of masturbation and ejaculation, as well as photographs of nude children and photos from hardcore pornographic films in its articles. 


The Wikipedia article about Virgin Killer – a 1976 album from German heavy metal band Scorpions – features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl. The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer was blocked for four days by most Internet service providers in the United Kingdom, after it was reported by a member of the public as child pornography,[214] to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), which issues a stop list to Internet service providers. IWF, a non-profit, non-government-affiliated organization, later criticized the inclusion of the picture as "distasteful".[215] 


In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on Wikimedia Commons contained child pornography, and were in violation of US federal obscenity law.[216] Sanger later clarified that the images, which were related to pedophilia and one about lolicon, were not of real children, but said that they constituted "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", under the PROTECT Act of 2003.[217] That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are obscene under American law.[217] Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.[218] Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation,[219] saying that Wikipedia did not have "material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it."[219] Following the complaint by Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete had been made hastily, Wales voluntarily gave up some of the powers he had held up to that time as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing-list that this action was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted".[220] Critics, including Wikipediocracy, noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.[221] 


Privacy[edit] 

One privacy concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain private: to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure" in the eyes of the law.[222] It is a battle between the right to be anonymous in cyberspace and the right to be anonymous in real life ("meatspace"). A particular problem occurs in the case of an individual who is relatively unimportant and for whom there exists a Wikipedia page against her or his wishes. 


In January 2006, a German court ordered the German Wikipedia shut down within Germany because it stated the full name of Boris Floricic, aka "Tron", a deceased hacker. On February 9, 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned, with the court rejecting the notion that Tron's right to privacy or that of his parents was being violated.[223] 


Wikipedia has a "Volunteer Response Team" that uses the OTRS system to handle queries without having to reveal the identities of the involved parties. This is used, for example, in confirming the permission for using individual images and other media in the project.[224] 


Criticism[edit] 

Further information: Criticism of Wikipedia 

As Wikipedia has become a main source for a wide range of general knowledge, criticism sites have developed that were instrumental in exposing the dark side of Wikipedia such as paid advocacy.[225] As of 2014, the most prominent site is Wikipediocracy, which, according to Wikipedia, "has provided some journalists with background information on Wikipedia's controversies."[226] 


The open nature of Wikipedia has led to various concerns, such as the quality of writing,[15] vandalism[16][17] and the accuracy of information. Some articles may contain unverified or inconsistent information,[18] against which Wikipedia applies policies for promoting verifiability and ensuring a neutral point of view. Other criticisms of Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia, include claims that the very principle of being open for editing by anyone makes it difficult for Wikipedia to be fully authoritative and reliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia). Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices. Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels. 


In a 2008 article in the Times Higher Education magazine, philosopher Martin Cohen frames Wikipedia of having "become a monopoly" with "all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators", which he describes as a "youthful cab-driver's" perspective. Cohen's argument, however, finds a grave conclusion in these circumstances: "To control the reference sources that people use is to control the way people comprehend the world. Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought." That freedom is undermined by what he sees as what matters on Wikipedia, "not your sources but the 'support of the community'."[227] 


In a 2012 article in The Journal of Academic Librarianship, based on philosopher Don Fallis and historian Timothy Messer-Kruse writings about Wikipedia, concludes; the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the majority “weight” of viewpoints[clarify] creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[228][229][230] 


Several Wikipedians have criticized Wikipedia's large and growing number of policies and regulations[specify] for editing which, states Jemielniak, as of 2014 includes over fifty policies and nearly 150,000 words.[21][231] 


Operation[edit] 

A group of Wikipedia editors may form a WikiProject to focus their work on a specific topic area, using its associated discussion page to coordinate changes across multiple articles.[232] 


Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters[edit] 

Main article: Wikimedia Foundation 



Wikimedia Foundation logo 

Wikipedia is hosted and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related projects such as Wiktionary and Wikibooks. The Wikimedia Foundation relies on public contributions and grants to fund its mission.[233] The Wikimedia chapters, local associations of users and supporters of the Wikimedia projects, also participate in the promotion, development, and funding of the project. The 22 October 2013 essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's Technology Review titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" was accurate in describing Sue Gardner's progress in fund raising while at the foundation.[139] "On Gardner's watch, the funds the Wikimedia Foundation has raised each year to support the site have grown from $4 million to $45 million."[139] The foundation's most recent IRS Form 990 shows revenue of $39.7 million and expenses of almost $29 million, with assets of $37.2 million and liabilities of about $2.3 million. 


In May 2014, Wikimedia Foundation named Lila Tretikov as its new Executive Director, who is taking over for Sue Gardner.[234] The Wall Street Journal reported on 1 May 2014 that Tretikov's information technology background from her years at University of California offers Wikipedia an opportunity to develop in more concentrated directions guided by her often repeated position statement that, "Information, like air, wants to be free."[235][236] The same Wall Street Journal article reported these directions of development according to an interview with spokesman Jay Walsh of Wikimedia who "said Tretikov would address that issue (paid advocacy) as a priority. 'We are really pushing toward more transparency... We are reinforcing that paid advocacy is not welcome.' Initiatives to involve greater diversity of contributors, better mobile support of Wikipedia, new geo-location tools to find local content more easily, and more tools for users in the second and third world are also priorities, Walsh said."[235] 


Software operations and support[edit] 

See also: MediaWiki 

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 system.[237] The software incorporates programming features such as a macro language, variables, a transclusion system for templates, and URL redirection. MediaWiki is licensed under the GNU General Public License and it is used by all Wikimedia projects, as well as many other wiki projects. Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker. 


Several MediaWiki extensions are installed[238] to extend the functionality of the MediaWiki software. 


In April 2005, a Lucene extension[239][240] was added to MediaWiki's built-in search and Wikipedia switched from MySQL to Lucene for searching. The site currently uses Lucene Search 2.1,[241] which is written in Java and based on Lucene library 2.3.[242] 


In July 2013, after extensive beta testing, a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) extension, VisualEditor, was opened to public use.[243][244][245][246] It was met with much rejection and criticism, and was described as "slow and buggy".[247] The feature was turned off afterward. 


Internal quality control and assessment of importance[edit] 

A new article often starts as a "stub", a very short page consisting of definitions and some links. On the other extreme, the most developed articles may be nominated for "featured article" status. One "featured article" per day, as selected by editors, appears on the main page of Wikipedia.[248][249] Researcher Giacomo Poderi found that articles tend to reach featured status via the intensive work of a few editors.[250] A 2010 study found unevenness in quality among featured articles and concluded that the community process is ineffective in assessing the quality of articles.[251] In 2007, in preparation for producing a print version, the English-language Wikipedia introduced an assessment scale against which the quality of articles is judged.[252] 


Wikipedia, in general, uses a two axis approach to the internal quality control and assessment of importance which it uses to organize the support and development of its content for users. The range of quality control assessments begin with "Stub" class and "Start" class assessments, which then are refined and improved to "C" class and "B" class, respectively, until the article undergoes community peer review to meet one of the highest quality standards: either A-Class, "good article" or the highest quality of "featured article". Of the total of about 4.4 million articles assessed as of 11 December 2013, approximately five thousand are at the "Featured Article" status (about .1% of total). These statistics are actively updated and maintained by the internal quality control standards at Wikipedia.[253] 


The second axis of quality control is the assessment of importance within individual topic-oriented editor communities, called WikiProjects. These Wikiprojects assign article importance based on their relative importance within their topic area. These range across four levels of gradation from "Top" importance, to "High" importance, to "Mid" importance, to "Low" importance. Of the total number of 4.4 million articles supported as of 11 December 2013, approximately 41 thousand are of "Top" importance ranging up to approximately 1.98 million articles assessed internally as of "Low" importance. These statistics are actively updated and maintained by Wikipedia and are cross-correlated with its quality assessments of individual articles as described above.[253] 


Circle frame.svg 

Quality-wise distribution of over 4.375 million articles and lists on the English Wikipedia, as of 28th December 2013[254] 


  Featured articles (0.11%) 

  Featured lists (0.04%) 

  A class (0.03%) 

  Good articles (0.46%) 

  B class (2.11%) 

  C class (3.72%) 

  Start class (24.77%) 

  Stub class (54.33%) 

  Lists (3.24%) 

  Unassessed (11.19%) 



Circle frame.svg 

Importance-wise distribution of over 4.375 million articles and lists on the English Wikipedia, as of 28th December 2013[254] 


  Top importance (0.96%) 

  High importance (3.31%) 

  Mid importance (12.49%) 

  Low importance (45.49%) 

  ??? (37.76%) 

All rated articles by quality and importance 

Quality Importance 

Top High Mid Low ??? Total 

Featured article FA 1,032 1,595 1,476 856 170 5,129 

Featured list FL 134 515 598 551 122 1,920 

A-Class article A 181 334 519 277 68 1,379 

 GA 1,682 3,908 7,605 7,286 1,472 21,953 

B 10,571 20,210 30,606 22,438 12,514 96,339 

C 8,165 23,154 51,676 62,752 34,994 180,741 

Start 15,155 65,145 263,262 596,658 242,715 1,182,935 

Stub 3,897 26,982 197,335 1,462,717 823,396 2,514,327 

List 2,406 8,998 25,618 65,570 55,034 157,626 

Assessed 43,223 150,841 578,695 2,219,105 1,170,485 4,162,349 

Unassessed 119 334 1,687 19,101 453,715 474,956 

Total 43,342 151,175 580,382 2,238,206 1,624,200 4,637,305 

About this table 



500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,000Top importanceHigh importanceMid-importanceLow importance??? 

  Featured articles 

  Featured lists 

  A-class articles 

  Good articles 

  B-class articles 

  C-class articles 

  Start-class articles 

  Stub articles 

  Lists 

  Unassessed articles and lists 

[Note that the table above is updated automatically, but the bar-chart and the two pie-charts are not auto-updated. In them, new data has to be entered by a Wikipedia editor (i.e. user). Also, all pie-charts may be displayed properly in desktop view, but not in mobile view.] 


Hardware operations and support[edit] 

Ambox current red.svg 

This section is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (July 2014) 

Wikipedia receives between 25,000 and 60,000 page requests per second, depending on time of day.[255] Page requests are first passed to a front-end layer of Squid caching servers.[256] Further statistics, based on a publicly available 3-month Wikipedia access trace, are available.[257] Requests that cannot be served from the Squid cache are sent to load-balancing servers running the Linux Virtual Server software, which in turn pass them to one of the Apache web servers for page rendering from the database. The web servers deliver pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the language editions of Wikipedia. To increase speed further, rendered pages are cached in a distributed memory cache until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses. 


Wikipedia employed 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 in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache HTTP Server, and seven Squid servers.[citation needed] Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of Linux servers (mainly Ubuntu),[258][259] with a few OpenSolaris machines for ZFS.[citation needed] As of December 2009, there were 300 in Florida and 44 in Amsterdam.[260] By January 22, 2013, Wikipedia had migrated its primary data center to an Equinix facility in Ashburn, Virginia.[261][262] 


Diagram showing flow of data between Wikipedia's servers. Twenty database servers talk to hundreds of Apache servers in the backend; the Apache servers talk to fifty squids in the frontend. 


Overview of system architecture, December 2010. See server layout diagrams on Meta-Wiki. 

Internal research and operational development[edit] 

In accordance with growing amounts of incoming donations exceeding seven digits in 2013 as recently reported,[263] the Foundation has reached a threshold of assets which qualify its consideration under the principles of industrial organization economics indicating the need for the re-investment of donations into the internal research and development of the Foundation.[264] Two of the recent projects of such internal research and development have been the creation of a Visual Editor and a largely under-utilized "Thank" tab which were developed for the purpose of ameliorating issues of editor attrition, which have met with limited success.[247][265] The estimates for reinvestment by industrial organizations into internal research and development was studied by Adam Jaffe who recorded that the range of 4% to 25% annually was to be recommended, with high end technology requiring the higher level of support for internal reinvestment.[266] At the 2013 level of contributions for Wikimedia presently documented as 45 million dollars, the computed budget level recommended by Jaffe and Caballero for reinvestment concerning internal research and development is between 1.8 million and 11.3 million dollars annually.[266] 


According to the Michael Porter five forces analysis framework for industry analysis, Wikipedia and its parent institution Wikimedia are known as "first movers" and "radical innovators" in the services provided and supported by an open-source, on-line encyclopedia.[267] The "five forces" are centered around the issue of "competitive rivalry" within the encyclopedia industry where Wikipedia is seen as having redefined by its "radical innovation" the parameters of effectiveness applied to conventional encyclopedia publication. This is the first force of Porter's five forces analysis.[268] The second force is the "threat of new entrants" with competitive services and products possibly arising on the internet or the web. As a "first mover", Wikipedia has largely eluded the emergence of a fast second to challenge its radical innovation and its standing as the central provider of the services which it offers through the World Wide Web.[269] Porter's third force is the "threat of substitute products" and it is too early to identify Google's "Knowledge Graphs" as an effective competitor given the current dependence of "Knowledge Graphs" upon Wikipedia's free access to its open-source services.[267] The fourth force in the Porter five forces analysis is the "bargaining power of consumers" who use the services provided by Wikipedia, which has historically largely been nullified by the Wikipedia founding principle of an open invitation to expand and edit its content expressed in its moniker of being "the encyclopedia which anyone can edit."[268] The fifth force in the Porter five forces analysis is defined as the "bargaining power of suppliers" which is presently seen as the open domain of both the global internet as a whole and the resources of public libraries world-wide, and therefore it is not seen as a limiting factor in the immediate future of the further development of Wikipedia.[267] 


Internal news publications[edit] 

Community-produced news publications include the English Wikipedia's The Signpost, founded in 2005 by Michael Snow, an attorney, Wikipedia administrator and former chair of the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees.[270] It covers news and events from the site, as well as major events from other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikimedia Commons. Similar publications are the German-language Kurier, and the Portuguese-language Correro da Wikipédia. Other past and present community news publications on English Wikipedia include the "Wikiworld" web comic, the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, and newsletters of specific WikiProjects like The Bugle from WikiProject Military History and the monthly newsletter from The Guild of Copy Editors. There are also a number of publications from the Wikimedia Foundation and multilingual publications such as the Wikimedia Blog and This Month in Education. 


Access to content[edit] 

Content licensing[edit] 

When the project was started in 2001, all text in Wikipedia was 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.[271] GFDL was created for software manuals that come with free software programs that are licensed under GPL. This made it a poor choice for a general reference work; for example, the GFDL requires the reprints of materials from Wikipedia to come with a full copy of the GFDL license text. In December 2002, the Creative Commons license was released: it was specifically designed for creative works in general, not just for software manuals. The license gained popularity among bloggers and others distributing creative works on the Web. The Wikipedia project sought the switch to the Creative Commons.[272] Because the two licenses, GFDL and Creative Commons, were incompatible, in November 2008, following the request of the project, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) released a new version of GFDL designed specifically to allow Wikipedia to relicense its content to CC BY-SA by August 1, 2009. (A new version of GFDL automatically covers Wikipedia contents.) In April 2009, Wikipedia and its sister projects held a community-wide referendum which decided the switch in June 2009.[273][274][275][276] 


The handling of media files (e.g. image files) varies across language editions. Some language editions, such as the English Wikipedia, include non-free image files under fair use doctrine, while the others have opted not to, in part because of the lack of fair use doctrines in their home countries (e.g. in Japanese copyright law). Media files covered by free content licenses (e.g. Creative Commons' CC BY-SA) are shared across language editions via Wikimedia Commons repository, a project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia's accommodation of varying international copyright laws regarding images has led some to observe that its photographic coverage of topics lags behind the quality of the encyclopedic text.[277] 


The Wikimedia Foundation is not a licensor of content, but merely a hosting service for the contributors (and licensors) of the Wikipedia. This position has been successfully defended in court.[278][279] 


Methods of access[edit] 

Because Wikipedia content is distributed under an open license, anyone can reuse or re-distribute it at no charge. The content of Wikipedia has been published in many forms, both online and offline, outside of the Wikipedia website. 


Websites – Thousands of "mirror sites" exist that republish content from Wikipedia: two prominent ones, that also include content from other reference sources, are Reference.com and Answers.com. Another example is Wapedia, which began to display Wikipedia content in a mobile-device-friendly format before Wikipedia itself did. 

Mobile apps – A variety of mobile apps provide access to Wikipedia on hand-held devices, including both Android and iOS devices (see Wikipedia apps). (See also Mobile access.) 

Search engines – Some web search engines make special use of Wikipedia content when displaying search results: examples include Bing (via technology gained from Powerset)[280] and Duck Duck Go. 

Compact discs, DVDs – Collections of Wikipedia articles have been published on optical discs. An English version, 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, contained about 2,000 articles.[281][282] The Polish-language version contains nearly 240,000 articles.[283] There are German- and Spanish-language versions as well.[284][285] Also, "Wikipedia for Schools", the Wikipedia series of CDs / DVDs produced by Wikipedians and SOS Children, is a free, hand-checked, non-commercial selection from Wikipedia targeted around the UK National Curriculum and intended to be useful for much of the English-speaking world.[286] The project is available online; an equivalent print encyclopedia would require roughly 20 volumes. 

Books – There are efforts to put a select subset of Wikipedia's articles into printed book form.[287][288] Since 2009, tens of thousands of print on demand books which reproduced English, German, Russian and French Wikipedia articles have been produced by the American company Books LLC and by three Mauritian subsidiaries of the German publisher VDM.[289] 

Semantic Web – The website DBpedia, begun in 2007, extracts data from the infoboxes and category declarations of the English-language Wikipedia. Wikimedia has created the Wikidata project with a similar objective of storing the basic facts from each page of wikipedia and the other WMF wikis and make it available in a queriable semantic format, RDF. This is still under development. As of Feb 2014 it has 15,000,000 items and 1,000 properties for describing them. 

Obtaining the full contents of Wikipedia for reuse presents challenges, since direct cloning via a web crawler is discouraged.[290] Wikipedia publishes "dumps" of its contents, but these are text-only; as of 2007 there is no dump available of Wikipedia's images.[291] 


Several languages of Wikipedia also maintain a reference desk, where volunteers answer questions from the general public. According to a study by Pnina Shachaf in the Journal of Documentation, the quality of the Wikipedia reference desk is comparable to a standard library reference desk, with an accuracy of 55%.[292] 


Mobile access[edit] 

See also: Help:Mobile access 

Wikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit content using any standard web browser through a fixed Internet connection. Although Wikipedia content is now accessible through the mobile web since July 2013, The New York Times on 9 February 2014 quoted Erik Moller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, stating that the transition of internet traffic from desktops to mobile devices was significant and a cause for concern and worry.[8] The The New York Times article reported the comparison statistics for mobile edits stating that, "Only 20 percent of the readership of the English-language Wikipedia comes via mobile devices, a figure substantially lower than the percentage of mobile traffic for other media sites, many of which approach 50 percent. And the shift to mobile editing has lagged even more."[8] The New York Times reports that Mr. Moller of Wikimedia has assigned "a team of 10 software developers focused on mobile," out of a total of approximately 200 employees working at the Wikimedia Foundation. One principal concern cited by The New York Times for the "worry" is for Wikipedia to effectively address attrition issues with the number of editors which the on-line encyclopedia attracts to edit and maintain its content in a mobile access environment.[8] 


Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported in July 2014 that Google's Android mobile apps have dominated the largest share of global smartphone shipments for 2013 with 78.6% of market share over their next closest competitor in IOS with 15.2% of the market.[293] At the time of the Tretikov appointment and her posted web interview with Sue Gardner in May 2014, Wikimedia representatives made a technical announcement concerning the number of mobile access systems in the market seeking access to Wikipedia. Directly after the posted web interview, the representatives stated that Wikimedia would be applying an all-inclusive approach to accommodate as many mobile access systems as possible in its efforts for expanding general mobile access, including BlackBerry and the Windows Phone system, making market share a secondary issue.[236] The latest version of the Android app for Wikipedia was released on 23 July 2014 to generally positive reviews scoring over 4 on a scale of 5 at a poll of approximately 200,000 users downloading from Google.[294] The latest version for IOS was released on 3 April 2013 to similar reviews.[295] 


Access to Wikipedia from mobile phones was possible as early as 2004, through the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), via the Wapedia service. In June 2007 Wikipedia launched en.mobile.wikipedia.org, an official website for wireless devices. In 2009 a newer mobile service was officially released,[296] located at en.m.wikipedia.org, which caters to more advanced mobile devices such as the iPhone, Android-based devices or WebOS-based devices. Several other methods of mobile access to Wikipedia have emerged. Many devices and applications optimise or enhance the display of Wikipedia content for mobile devices, while some also incorporate additional features such as use of Wikipedia metadata (See Wikipedia:Metadata), such as geoinformation.[297][298] 


Wikipedia Zero is an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to expand the reach of the encyclopedia to the developing countries.[299] 


Impact[edit] 

Readership[edit] 

Wikipedia is extremely popular. In February 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites stating, "With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month..., Wikipedia trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors."[8] 


In addition to logistic growth in the number of its articles,[300] Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.[301] About 50% of search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google,[302] a good portion of which is related to academic research.[303] The number of readers of Wikipedia worldwide reached 365 million at the end of 2009.[304] The Pew Internet and American Life project found that one third of US Internet users consulted Wikipedia.[305] In 2011 Business Insider gave Wikipedia a valuation of $4 billion if it ran advertisements.[306] 


According to "Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011", the average age of Wikipedia readers is 36, with a rough parity between genders. Almost half of Wikipedia readers visit the site more than five times a month, and a similar number of readers specifically look for Wikipedia in search engine results. About 47% of Wikipedia readers do not realize that Wikipedia is a non-profit.[307] 


Cultural significance[edit] 

Main article: Wikipedia in culture 

Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases.[308][309][310] 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.[311] The encyclopedia's assertions are increasingly used as a source by organizations such as the US federal courts and the World Intellectual Property Organization[312] – though mainly for supporting information rather than information decisive to a case.[313] Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some US intelligence agency reports.[314] In December 2008, the scientific journal RNA Biology launched a new section for descriptions of families of RNA molecules and requires authors who contribute to the section to also submit a draft article on the RNA family for publication in Wikipedia.[315] 


Wikipedia has also been used as a source in journalism,[316][317] often without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for plagiarizing from Wikipedia.[318][319][320] 


In 2006, Time magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation (along with YouTube, Reddit, MySpace, and Facebook[321]) in the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by millions of people worldwide. 


In July 2007 Wikipedia was the focus of a 30-minute documentary on BBC Radio 4[322] which argued that, with increased usage and awareness, the number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the word is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar (Google, Facebook, YouTube) that they no longer need explanation and are on a par with such 20th-century words as hoovering or Coca-Cola. 


On September 28, 2007, Italian politician Franco Grillini raised a parliamentary question with the minister of cultural resources and activities about the necessity of freedom of panorama. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Wikipedia, "the seventh most consulted website", to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues.[323] 




Jimmy Wales receiving the Quadriga A Mission of Enlightenment award 

On September 16, 2007, The Washington Post reported that Wikipedia had become a focal point in the 2008 US election campaign, saying: "Type a candidate's name into Google, and among the first results is a Wikipedia page, making those entries arguably as important as any ad in defining a candidate. Already, the presidential entries are being edited, dissected and debated countless times each day."[324] An October 2007 Reuters article, titled "Wikipedia page the latest status symbol", reported the recent phenomenon of how having a Wikipedia article vindicates one's notability.[325] 


Active participation also has an impact. Law students have been assigned to write Wikipedia articles as an exercise in clear and succinct writing for an uninitiated audience.[326] 


Awards[edit] 

Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004.[327] The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities of the annual Prix Ars Electronica contest; this came with a €10,000 (£6,588; $12,700) grant and an invitation to present at the PAE Cyberarts Festival in Austria later that year. The second was a Judges' Webby Award for the "community" category.[328] Wikipedia was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby award. On January 26, 2007, Wikipedia was also awarded the fourth 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?"[329] 


In September 2008, Wikipedia received Quadriga A Mission of Enlightenment award of Werkstatt Deutschland along with Boris Tadić, Eckart Höfling, and Peter Gabriel. The award was presented to Wales by David Weinberger.[330]


Satire[edit] 

See also Category:Parodies of Wikipedia. 

Wikipedia page on Atlantic Records being edited to read: "You suck!" 


Wikipedia shown in "Weird Al" Yankovic's music video for his song "White & Nerdy" 

Many parodies target Wikipedia's openness and susceptibility to inserted inaccuracies, with characters vandalizing or modifying the online encyclopedia project's articles. 


Comedian Stephen Colbert has parodied or referenced Wikipedia on numerous episodes of his show The Colbert Report and coined the related term wikiality, meaning "together we can create a reality that we all agree on—the reality we just agreed on".[173] Another example can be found in a front-page article in The Onion in July 2006, with the title "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence".[331] "My Number One Doctor", a 2007 episode of the TV show Scrubs, played on the perception that Wikipedia is an unreliable reference tool with a scene in which Dr. Perry Cox reacts to a patient who says that a Wikipedia article indicates that the raw food diet reverses the effects of bone cancer by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article also wrote the Battlestar Galactica episode guide.[332] 


In 2008, the comedic website CollegeHumor produced a video sketch named "Professor Wikipedia", in which the fictitious Professor Wikipedia instructs a class with a medley of unverifiable and occasionally absurd statements.[333] 


The Dilbert comic strip from May 8, 2009, features a character supporting an improbable claim by saying "Give me ten minutes and then check Wikipedia."[334] 


In July 2009, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a comedy series called Bigipedia, which was set on a website which was a parody of Wikipedia. Some of the sketches were directly inspired by Wikipedia and its articles.[335] 


In 2010, comedian Daniel Tosh encouraged viewers of his show, Tosh.0, to visit the show's Wikipedia article and edit it at will. On a later episode, he commented on the edits to the article, most of them offensive, which had been made by the audience and had prompted the article to be locked from editing.[336][337] 


On August 23, 2013, the New Yorker website published a cartoon with this caption: "Dammit, Manning, have you considered the pronoun war that this is going to start on your Wikipedia page?"[338] 


Sister projects – Wikimedia[edit] 

Main article: Wikimedia project 

Wikipedia has also spawned several sister projects, which are also wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation, also called Wikimedia projects: "In Memoriam: September 11 Wiki",[339] created in October 2002,[340] detailed the September 11 attacks; Wiktionary, a dictionary project, was launched in December 2002;[341] Wikiquote, a collection of quotations, created a week after Wikimedia launched; and Wikibooks, a collection of collaboratively written free textbooks and annotated texts. Wikimedia has since started a number of other projects, including: Wikimedia Commons, a site devoted to free-knowledge multimedia; Wikinews, for citizen journalism; and Wikiversity, a project for the creation of free learning materials and the provision of online learning activities.[342] Of these, only Commons has had success comparable to that of Wikipedia. Another sister project of Wikipedia, Wikispecies, is a catalogue of species. In 2012 Wikivoyage, an editable travel guide, and Wikidata, an editable knowledge base, launched. 


Publishing[edit] 



A group of Wikimedians of the Wikimedia DC chapter at the 2013 DC Wikimedia annual meeting standing in front of the Encyclopedia Britannica (back left) at the US National Archives 

The most obvious economic effect of Wikipedia has been the death of commercial encyclopedias, especially the printed versions, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica, which were unable to compete with a product that is essentially free.[343][344][345] Nicholas Carr wrote a 2005 essay, "The amorality of Web 2.0", that criticized websites with user-generated content, like Wikipedia, for possibly leading to professional (and, in his view, superior) content producers going out of business, because "free trumps quality all the time". Carr wrote: "Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening."[346] Others dispute the notion that Wikipedia, or similar efforts, will entirely displace traditional publications. For instance, Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine, wrote in Nature that the "wisdom of crowds" approach of Wikipedia will not displace top scientific journals, with their rigorous peer review process.[347] 


There is also an ongoing debate about the influence of Wikipedia to the biography publishing business. "The worry is that, if you can get all that information from Wikipedia, what's left for biography?" Said Kathryn Hughes, professor of life writing at UEA and author of The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton and George Eliot: the Last Victorian.[348] 


Scientific use[edit] 

In computational linguistics, information retrieval and natural language processing, Wikipedia has seen widespread use as a corpus for linguistic research. In particular, it commonly serves as a target knowledge base for the entity linking problem, which is then called "wikification",[349] and to the related problem of word sense disambiguation.[350] Methods similar to wikification can in turn be used to find "missing" links in Wikipedia.[351] 


Related projects[edit] 

A number of interactive multimedia encyclopedias incorporating entries written by the public existed long before Wikipedia was founded. The first of these was the 1986 BBC Domesday Project, which included text (entered on BBC Micro computers) and photographs from over 1 million contributors in the UK, and covered the geography, art, and culture of the UK. This was the first interactive multimedia encyclopedia (and was also the first major multimedia document connected through internal links), with the majority of articles being accessible through an interactive map of the UK. The user interface and part of the content of the Domesday Project were emulated on a website until 2008.[352] 


One of the most successful early online encyclopedias incorporating entries by the public was h2g2, which was created by Douglas Adams. The h2g2 encyclopedia is relatively light-hearted, focusing on articles which are both witty and informative. Everything2 was created in 1998. All of these projects had similarities with Wikipedia, but were not wikis and neither gave full editorial privileges to public users. 


GNE, an encyclopedia which was not a wiki, also created in January 2001, co-existed with Nupedia and Wikipedia early in its history; however, it has been retired.[112] 


Other websites centered on collaborative knowledge base development have drawn inspiration from Wikipedia. Some, such as Susning.nu, Enciclopedia Libre, Hudong, and Baidu Baike likewise employ no formal review process, although some like Conservapedia are not as open. Others use more traditional peer review, such as Encyclopedia of Life and the online wiki encyclopedias Scholarpedia and Citizendium. The latter was started by Sanger in an attempt to create a reliable alternative to Wikipedia.[353][354]