Wikipedia

|{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}|{{{l2|{{{2}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}
|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{l3|{{{3}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}
|{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{l4|{{{4}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}
|{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{5}}}|{{{l5|{{{5}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{6|}}}
|{{#if:{{{7|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{6}}}|{{{l6|{{{6}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{7|}}}
|{{#if:{{{8|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{7}}}|{{{l7|{{{7}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{8|}}}
|{{#if:{{{9|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{8}}}|{{{l8|{{{8}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{9|}}}
|{{#if:{{{10|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{9}}}|{{{l9|{{{9}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{10|}}}

Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts through a formal process. Nupedia was founded on March 9, 2000 under the ownership of Bomis, Inc, a Web portal company. Its principal figures were Jimmy Wales, Bomis CEO, and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was described by Sanger as differing from existing encyclopedias in being open content, in not having size limitations, as it was on the Internet, and in being free of bias, due to its public nature and potentially broad base of contributors.<ref name=QANupedia>Larry Sanger, "Q & A about Nupedia", Nupedia, March 2000</ref> Nupedia had a seven-step review process by appointed subject-area experts, but later came to be viewed as too slow for producing a limited number of articles. Funded by Bomis, there were initial plans to recoup its investment by the use of advertisements.<ref name=QANupedia/> It was initially licensed under its own Nupedia Open Content License, switching to the GNU Free Documentation License prior to Wikipedia's founding at the urging of Richard Stallman.

On January 10, 2001, Larry Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki alongside Nupedia. Under the subject "Let's make a wiki", he wrote:

No, this is not an indecent proposal. It's an idea to add a little feature to Nupedia. Jimmy Wales thinks that many people might find the idea objectionable, but I think not. (…) As to Nupedia's use of a wiki, this is the ULTIMATE "open" and simple format for developing content. We have occasionally bandied about ideas for simpler, more open projects to either replace or supplement Nupedia. It seems to me wikis can be implemented practically instantly, need very little maintenance, and in general are very low-risk. They're also a potentially great source for content. So there's little downside, as far as I can see.<ref>{{cite news |first=Larry |last=Sanger |title=Let's make a wiki |date=January 10, 2001 |publisher=Internet Archive |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html }}</ref>

Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at http://www.wikipedia.com, and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.<ref>{{cite news

|first=Larry
|last=Sanger
|title=Wikipedia is up!
|date=January 17, 2001
|publisher=Internet Archive
|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20010506042824/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000684.html

}}</ref> It had been, from January 10, a feature of Nupedia.com in which the public could write articles that could be incorporated into Nupedia after review. It was relaunched off-site after Nupedia's Advisory Board of subject experts disapproved of its production model.<ref name=SangerMemoir>{{

1. if: {{{archiveurl|}}}{{{archivedate|}}}

 | {{#if: {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}| {{#if: {{{archivedate|}}} |1}}}}

   #if: ||
   }}

}} }}{{#if: {{{title|}}}

 |{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
   | {{#if: {{{authorlink|}}}
     | [[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if: {{{last|}}}
       | Sanger{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , Larry }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}]]
     | {{#if: {{{last|}}}
       | Sanger{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , Larry }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
   | {{#if: {{{coauthors|}}} | ; {{{coauthors}}} }}. 
 }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|“|"
 }}{{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}
   | [{{{archiveurl}}} The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir] 
   | {{#if: {{{url|}}} 
     | The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir 
     | The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|”|"}}{{#if: {{{format|}}} |  ({{{format}}}) 
   }}{{#if: {{{work|}}}
   | , {{{work}}}}}{{#if: {{{publisher|}}}
   | , {{#if: {{{location|}}} |{{{location}}}: }}Slashdot
 }}{{#if: {{{date|}}}
   | , {{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|April 18, 2005}}|April 18, 2005|April 18, 2005|April 18, 2005}}
 }}{{#if: {{{pages|}}}
   | , pp. {{{pages}}}
   |{{#if: {{{page|}}}
     | , p. {{{page}}}
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{id|}}} 
   | . {{{id}}}
 }}{{#if: {{{accessdate|}}}  
 | . Retrieved on [[{{{accessdate}}}]]
 }}.{{#if: {{{language|}}}
 |  ({{{language}}}) 
 }}{{#if: {{{archivedate|}}}
 |  Archived from the original on [[{{{archivedate}}}]].
 }}{{ #if: {{{quote|}}}
   |  "{{{quote}}}"
 }}|Template error: argument title is required.}} </ref> Wikipedia thereafter operated as a standalone project without control from Nupedia. Its policy of "neutral point-of-view" was codified in its initial months, though it is similar to Nupedia's earlier "nonbias" policy. There were otherwise few rules initially. Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and search engine indexing. It grew to approximately 20,000 articles, and 18 language editions, by the end of its first year. It had 26 language editions by the end of 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the end of 2004.<ref>"Multilingual statistics", Wikipedia, March 30, 2005</ref> Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers went down, permanently, in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia.

Wales and Sanger attribute the concept of using a wiki to Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb or Portland Pattern Repository. Wales mentioned that he heard the concept first from Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee of Bomis who showed him the same wiki, in December 2000,<ref>Jimmy Wales, "Re: Sanger's memoirs", April 20, 2005,<wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org></ref> but it was after Sanger heard of its existence in January 2001 from Ben Kovitz, a regular at the wiki,<ref name=SangerMemoir/> that he proposed the creation of a wiki for Nupedia to Wales and Wikipedia's history started. Under a similar concept of free content, though not wiki-based production, the GNUpedia project existed alongside Nupedia early in its history. It subsequently became inactive, and its creator, free-software figure Richard Stallman, lent his support to Wikipedia.<ref>{{

1. if: {{{archiveurl|}}}{{{archivedate|}}}

 | {{#if: {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}| {{#if: {{{archivedate|}}} |1}}}}

   #if: ||
   }}

}} }}{{#if: {{{title|}}}

 |{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
   | {{#if: {{{authorlink|}}}
     | [[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if: {{{last|}}}
       | Stallman{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , Richard }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}]]
     | {{#if: {{{last|}}}
       | Stallman{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , Richard }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
   | {{#if: {{{coauthors|}}} | ; {{{coauthors}}} }}. 
 }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|“|"
 }}{{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}
   | [{{{archiveurl}}} The Free Encyclopedia Project] 
   | {{#if: {{{url|}}} 
     | The Free Encyclopedia Project 
     | The Free Encyclopedia Project
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|”|"}}{{#if: {{{format|}}} |  ({{{format}}}) 
   }}{{#if: {{{work|}}}
   | , {{{work}}}}}{{#if: {{{publisher|}}}
   | , {{#if: {{{location|}}} |{{{location}}}: }}Free Software Foundation
 }}{{#if: {{{date|}}}
   | , {{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|1999}}|1999|1999|1999}}
 }}{{#if: {{{pages|}}}
   | , pp. {{{pages}}}
   |{{#if: {{{page|}}}
     | , p. {{{page}}}
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{id|}}} 
   | . {{{id}}}
 }}{{#if: {{{accessdate|}}}  
 | . Retrieved on [[{{{accessdate}}}]]
 }}.{{#if: {{{language|}}}
 |  ({{{language}}}) 
 }}{{#if: {{{archivedate|}}}
 |  Archived from the original on [[{{{archivedate}}}]].
 }}{{ #if: {{{quote|}}}
   |  "{{{quote}}}"
 }}|Template error: argument title is required.}} </ref>

Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in a perceived English-centric Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002. Later that year, Wales announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and its website was moved to wikipedia.org. Various other projects have since forked from Wikipedia for editorial reasons, such as Wikinfo, which abandoned "neutral point-of-view" in favor of multiple complementary articles written from a "sympathetic point-of-view".

The Wikimedia Foundation was created from Wikipedia and Nupedia on June 20, 2003.<ref>Jimmy Wales: "Announcing Wikimedia Foundation", June 20, 2003, <wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org></ref> Wikipedia and its sister projects thereafter operated under this non-profit organization. Wikipedia's first sister project, "In Memoriam: September 11 Wiki", had been created in October 2002 to detail the September 11, 2001 attacks; Wiktionary, a dictionary project, was launched in December 2002; Wikiquote, a collection of quotations, a week after Wikimedia launched; and Wikibooks, a collection of collaboratively-written free books, the next month. Wikimedia has since started a number of other projects, detailed below.

Wikipedia has traditionally measured its status by article count. In its first two years, it grew at a few hundred or fewer new articles per day; by 2004, this had accelerated to a total of 1,000 to 3,000 per day (counting all editions). The English Wikipedia reached its 100,000-article milestone on January 22, 2003<ref>"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, reaches its 100,000th article", Wikimedia Foundation, January 21, 2003</ref>. Wikipedia reached its one millionth article, among the 105 language editions that existed at the time, on September 20, 2004,<ref>"Wikipedia Reaches One Million Articles", Wikimedia Foundation, September 20, 2004</ref> while the English edition alone reached its 500,000th on March 18, 2005.<ref>"Wikipedia Publishes 500,000th English Article", Wikimedia Foundation, March 18, 2005</ref> This figure had doubled less than a year later, with the millionth article in the English edition being created on March 1, 2006<ref>"English Wikipedia Publishes Millionth Article", Wikimedia Foundation, March 1, 2006ref>; meanwhile, the millionth user registration had been made just 2 days before.

The Wikimedia Foundation applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark Wikipedia® on September 17, 2004. The mark was granted registration status on January 10, 2006. Trademark protection was accorded by Japan on December 16, 2004 and in the European Union on January 20, 2005. Technically a service mark, the scope of the mark is for: "Provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet".

There are currently plans to license the usage of the Wikipedia trademark for some products, such as books or DVDs.<ref>{{cite news

|first=Vipin
|last=Nair
|title=Growing on volunteer power
|date=December 5, 2005
|publisher=Business Line
|url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ew/2005/12/05/stories/2005120500070100.htm

}}</ref> The German Wikipedia will be printed in its entirety by Directmedia, in 100 volumes of 800 pages each, beginning in October 2006, and publishing will finish in 2010.

Software and hardware

Wikipedia is run by MediaWiki free software on a cluster of dedicated servers located in Florida and four other locations around the world. MediaWiki is Phase III of the program's software. Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki by Clifford Adams (Phase I). At first it required CamelCase for links; later it was also possible to use double brackets. Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database in January 2002. This software, Phase II, was written specifically for the Wikipedia project by Magnus Manske. Several rounds of modifications were made to improve performance in response to increased demand. Ultimately, the software was rewritten again, this time by Lee Daniel Crocker. Instituted in July 2002, this Phase III software was called MediaWiki. It was licensed under the GNU General Public License and used by all Wikimedia projects.

Wikipedia was served from a single server until 2003, when the server setup was expanded into a distributed multitier architecture. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache software, and seven Squid cache servers. By September 2005, its server cluster had grown to around 100 servers in four locations around the world.

Page requests are processed by first passing to a front-end layer of Squid caching servers. Requests that cannot be served from the Squid cache are sent to two load-balancing servers running the Perlbal software, which then pass the request to one of the Apache web servers for page-rendering from the database. The web servers serve pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the Wikipedias. To increase speed further, rendered pages for anonymous users are cached in a filesystem until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses. Wikimedia has begun building a global network of caching servers with the addition of three such servers in France. A new Dutch cluster is also online now. In spite of all this, Wikipedia page load times remain quite variable. The ongoing status of Wikipedia's website is posted by users at a status page on OpenFacts.

Funding

Wikipedia is funded through the Wikimedia Foundation. Its 4th Quarter 2005 costs were $321,000 with hardware making up almost 60% of the budget.<ref>{{

1. if: {{#if: {{{url|}}} | {{#if: {{{title|}}} |1}}}}

 ||You must specify  title =  and url =  when using {{cite web}}.

{{#if: ||}} }}{{

1. if: {{{archiveurl|}}}{{{archivedate|}}}

 | {{#if: {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}| {{#if: {{{archivedate|}}} |1}}}}
   ||You must specify archiveurl =  and archivedate =  when using {{cite web}}.

{{#if: ||}} }} }}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}

 | {{#if: {{{authorlink|}}}
   | [[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if: {{{last|}}}
     | {{{last}}}{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , {{{first}}} }}
     | {{{author}}}
   }}]]
   | {{#if: {{{last|}}}
     | {{{last}}}{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , {{{first}}} }}
     | {{{author}}}
   }}
 }}

}}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}

 | {{#if: {{{coauthors|}}}| ; {{{coauthors}}} }}

}}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}|

   {{#if: {{{date|}}}
   |  ({{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{date}}}}}|{{{date}}}|[[{{{date}}}]]|{{{date}}}}})
   | {{#if: {{{year|}}}
     | {{#if: {{{month|}}}
       |  ({{{month}}} {{{year}}})
       |  ({{{year}}})
     }}
   }}
 |}}

}}{{#if: {{{last|}}}{{{author|}}}

 | . }}{{
 #if: {{{editor|}}}
 |  {{{editor}}}: 

}}{{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}

   | {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}} | {{#if: {{{title|}}} | [{{{archiveurl}}} Budget/2005] }}}}
   | {{#if: {{{url|}}} | {{#if: {{{title|}}} | Budget/2005 }}}}

}}{{#if: {{{format|}}} | ({{{format|}}}) }}{{#if: {{{language|}}} | ({{{language}}}) }}{{#if: {{{work|}}}

 | . Wikimedia Foundation

}}{{#if: {{{pages|}}}

 |  {{{pages}}}

}}{{#if: {{{publisher|}}}

 | . {{{publisher}}}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
   | 
   | {{#if: {{{date|}}}{{{year|}}}{{{month|}}} || }}
 }}

}}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}

 ||{{#if: {{{date|}}}
   |  ({{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{date}}}}}|{{{date}}}|[[{{{date}}}]]|{{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{date}}}}}|1970-01-01|[[{{{date}}}]]|{{{date}}}}}}})
   | {{#if: {{{year|}}}
     | {{#if: {{{month|}}}
       |  ({{{month}}} {{{year}}})
       |  ({{{year}}})
     }}
   }}
 }}

}}.{{#if: {{{archivedate|}}}

 |  Archived from the original on [[{{{archivedate}}}]].

}}{{#if: {{{doi|}}}

 |  DOI:{{{doi}}}.

}}{{#if: {{{accessdate|}}}

 |  Retrieved on 2006-03-11{{#if: {{{accessyear|}}} | , [[{{{accessyear}}}]] }}.

}}{{#if: {{{accessmonthday|}}}

 |  Retrieved on {{{accessmonthday}}}{{#if: {{{accessyear|}}} | , [[{{{accessyear}}}]] }}.

}}{{#if: {{{accessdaymonth|}}}

 |  Retrieved on {{{accessdaymonth}}}{{#if: {{{accessyear|}}} | , [[{{{accessyear}}}]] }}.

}}{{#if: {{{quote|}}}

 |  “{{{quote}}}”

}}</ref>

Bomis, an online advertising company that hosts mostly adult-oriented web-rings, played a significant part in the early development of Wikipedia and the network itself.

Evaluations

Further information: Criticism of Wikipedia

Wikipedia has become increasingly controversial as it has gained prominence and popularity, with many critics alleging that Wikipedia's open nature makes it unauthoritative and unreliable, that it exhibits severe systemic bias and inconsistency, and that the group dynamics of its community are hindering its goals. Wikipedia has also been criticized for its use of dubious sources, its disregard for credentials, and its vulnerability to vandalism and special interest groups. Critics of Wikipedia include Wikipedia editors themselves, ex-editors, representatives of other encyclopedias, and even subjects of articles.

Reliability

Wikipedia has been both praised and criticized for being open to editing by anyone. Proponents contend that open editing improves quality over time, while critics allege that non-expert editing undermines quality.

Wikipedia has been criticized for a perceived lack of reliability, comprehensiveness, and authority. It is considered to have no or limited utility as a reference work among many librarians, academics, and the editors of more formally written encyclopedias. Many university lecturers discourage their students from using any encyclopedia as a reference in academic work, preferring primary sources instead.<ref>Wide World of WIKIPEDIA</ref> A website called Wikipedia Watch has been created to denounce Wikipedia as having "…a massive, unearned influence on what passes for reliable information." <ref>Wikipedia Watch</ref>

Some argue that allowing anyone to edit makes Wikipedia an unreliable work. Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking, and the editors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about. In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, librarian Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and is "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window" (Waldman, 2004). Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's executive editor, Ted Pappas, was quoted in The Guardian as saying: "The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven."<ref name="Who">Simon Waldman, "Who knows?", The Guardian, October 26, 2004.</ref> On October 24, 2005, The Guardian published an article "Can you trust Wikipedia?" where a group of experts critically reviewed entries for their fields. Discussing Wikipedia as an academic source, Danah Boyd said in 2005 that "[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes".<ref>Danah Boyd, "Academia and Wikipedia", Many-to-Many, January 4, 2005.</ref>

Academic circles have not been exclusively dismissive of Wikipedia as a reference. Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in Science. The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light" (Linden, 2002), and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. However, these links are offered as background sources for the reader, not as sources used by the writer, and the "enhanced perspectives" are not intended to serve as reference material themselves.

Some critics have suggested that Wikipedia cannot justifiably be called an "encyclopedia", a term which (it is claimed) implies a high degree of reliability and authority that Wikipedia, due to its open editorial policies, may not be able to maintain. However, Wikipedia does meet all the criteria for the basic definition of the word encyclopedia.

In a 2004 piece called "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia," former Britannica editor Robert McHenry criticized the wiki approach, writing,

[h]owever closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler… The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.<ref>Robert McHenry, "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia", Tech Central Station, November 15, 2004.</ref>

In response to this criticism, proposals have been made to provide various forms of provenance for material in Wikipedia articles.<ref>"Wikipedia:Provenance", Wikipedia (May 9, 2006).</ref> The idea is to provide source provenance on each interval of text in an article and temporal provenance as to its vintage. In this way a reader can know "who has used the facilities before him" and how long the community has had to process the information in an article to provide calibration on the "sense of security". However, these proposals for provenance are quite controversial. Aaron Krowne wrote a rebuttal article in which he criticized McHenry's methods, and labeled them "FUD," the marketing technique of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt."<ref>Aaron Krowne, "The FUD-based Encyclopedia", Free Software Magazine, March 1, 2005.</ref>

Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having, according to Sanger, an "anti-elitist" philosophy of active contempt for expertise.<ref name="SangerElitism">Larry Sanger, "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism", Kuro5hin, December 31, 2004.</ref>

The English-language website also suffers from frequent timeouts, server errors and occasional downtime due to heavy user traffic. These problems have had a negative impact on Wikipedia's desired image as a fast and reliable source of information.

At the end of 2005, controversy erupted after journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. found that his biography had been written largely as a hoax about Seigenthaler. This led to the decision to restrict the ability to start articles to registered users.

Coverage

Wikipedia's editing process assumes that exposing an article to many users will result in accuracy. Referencing Linus' law of open-source development, Sanger stated earlier: "Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow."<ref>Larry Sanger, "Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense?", Kuro5hin, September 24, 2001.</ref> Technology figure Joi Ito wrote on Wikipedia's authority, "[a]lthough it depends a bit on the field, the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived."<ref>Joi Ito, "Wikipedia attacked by ignorant reporter", Joi Ito's Web, August 29, 2004.</ref> Conversely, in an informal test of Wikipedia's ability to detect misinformation, its author remarked that its process "isn't really a fact-checking mechanism so much as a voting mechanism", and that material which did not appear "blatantly false" may be accepted as true.<ref>Anonymous blogger, "How Authoritative is Wikipedia", Dispatches from the Frozen North, September 4, 2004.</ref>

Wikipedia has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg has argued that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. The entry on Hurricane Frances was five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."<ref name="Who" /> (As of December 2005, this is no longer the case.) Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger stated in 2004, "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven."<ref name="SangerElitism" />

Wikipedia has been praised for making it possible for articles to be updated or created in response to current events. For example, the then-new article on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on its English edition was cited often by the press shortly after the incident. Its editors have also argued that, as a website, Wikipedia is able to include articles on a greater number of subjects than print encyclopedias may.<ref>"Wikipedia:Replies to common objections", Wikipedia, 22:53 April 13, 2005.</ref>

Microsoft Encarta has started to solicit comments from readers in attempt to improve the accuracy and timeliness of its encyclopedia. Encarta Feedback allows any user to propose revisions for review by their staff.<ref>"Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-04-11/Encarta editing", Wikipedia, April 11, 2005.</ref>

The German computing magazine c't performed a comparison of Brockhaus Multimedial, Microsoft Encarta, and Wikipedia in October 2004: Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In overall score, Wikipedia was rated 3.6 out of 5 points ("B-"), Brockhaus Premium 3.3, and Microsoft Encarta 3.1.<ref>Michael Kurzidim: Wissenswettstreit. Die kostenlose Wikipedia tritt gegen die Marktführer Encarta und Brockhaus an, in: c't 21/2004, October 4, 2004, S. 132-139.</ref> In an analysis of online encyclopedias, Indiana University professors Emigh and Herring wrote that "Wikipedia improves on traditional information sources, especially for the content areas in which it is strong, such as technology and current events."<ref>William Emigh and Susan C. Herring, "Collaborative Authoring on the Web: A Genre Analysis of Online Encyclopedias", paper presented at the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004.</ref>. The journal Nature reported in 2005 that science articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those in Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia had an average of four mistakes per article; Britannica contained three. Of eight "serious errors" found — including misinterpretations of important concepts — four came from each source.<ref>{{

1. if: {{{archiveurl|}}}{{{archivedate|}}}

 | {{#if: {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}| {{#if: {{{archivedate|}}} |1}}}}

   #if: ||
   }}

}} }}{{#if: {{{title|}}}

 |{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
   | {{#if: {{{authorlink|}}}
     | [[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if: {{{last|}}}
       | {{{last}}}{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , {{{first}}} }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}]]
     | {{#if: {{{last|}}}
       | {{{last}}}{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , {{{first}}} }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
   | {{#if: {{{coauthors|}}} | ; {{{coauthors}}} }}. 
 }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|“|"
 }}{{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}
   | [{{{archiveurl}}} Wikipedia survives research test] 
   | {{#if: {{{url|}}} 
     | Wikipedia survives research test 
     | Wikipedia survives research test
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|”|"}}{{#if: {{{format|}}} |  ({{{format}}}) 
   }}{{#if: {{{work|}}}
   | , BBC News}}{{#if: {{{publisher|}}}
   | , {{#if: {{{location|}}} |{{{location}}}: }}BBC
 }}{{#if: {{{date|}}}
   | , {{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|December 15, 2005}}|December 15, 2005|December 15, 2005|December 15, 2005}}
 }}{{#if: {{{pages|}}}
   | , pp. {{{pages}}}
   |{{#if: {{{page|}}}
     | , p. {{{page}}}
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{id|}}} 
   | . {{{id}}}
 }}{{#if: {{{accessdate|}}}  
 | . Retrieved on [[{{{accessdate}}}]]
 }}.{{#if: {{{language|}}}
 |  ({{{language}}}) 
 }}{{#if: {{{archivedate|}}}
 |  Archived from the original on [[{{{archivedate}}}]].
 }}{{ #if: {{{quote|}}}
   |  "{{{quote}}}"
 }}|Template error: argument title is required.}} </ref>. On March 24, 2006, Britannica provided a rebuttal labeling the study "fatally flawed". <ref>{{

1. if: {{{archiveurl|}}}{{{archivedate|}}}

 | {{#if: {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}| {{#if: {{{archivedate|}}} |1}}}}

   #if: ||
   }}

}} }}{{#if: {{{title|}}}

 |{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
   | {{#if: {{{authorlink|}}}
     | [[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if: {{{last|}}}
       | {{{last}}}{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , {{{first}}} }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}]]
     | {{#if: {{{last|}}}
       | {{{last}}}{{#if: {{{first|}}} | , {{{first}}} }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
   | {{#if: {{{coauthors|}}} | ; {{{coauthors}}} }}. 
 }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|“|"
 }}{{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}
   | [{{{archiveurl}}} Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica] 
   | {{#if: {{{url|}}} 
     | Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica 
     | Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|”|"}}{{#if: {{{format|}}} |  ({{{format}}}) 
   }}{{#if: {{{work|}}}
   | , WikiNews}}{{#if: {{{publisher|}}}
   | , {{#if: {{{location|}}} |{{{location}}}: }}Wikipedia Foundation
 }}{{#if: {{{date|}}}
   | , {{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|March 24, 2006}}|March 24, 2006|March 24, 2006|March 24, 2006}}
 }}{{#if: {{{pages|}}}
   | , pp. {{{pages}}}
   |{{#if: {{{page|}}}
     | , p. {{{page}}}
   }}
 }}{{#if: {{{id|}}} 
   | . {{{id}}}
 }}{{#if: {{{accessdate|}}}  
 | . Retrieved on [[{{{accessdate}}}]]
 }}.{{#if: {{{language|}}}
 |  ({{{language}}}) 
 }}{{#if: {{{archivedate|}}}
 |  Archived from the original on [[{{{archivedate}}}]].
 }}{{ #if: {{{quote|}}}
   |  "{{{quote}}}"
 }}|Template error: argument title is required.}} </ref>.

Community

The Wikipedia community consists of users who are proportionally few, but highly active. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices."<ref>Emigh, ibid.</ref> Editors on Wikinfo, a fork of Wikipedia, similarly argue that new or controversial editors to Wikipedia are often unjustly labeled "trolls" or "problem users" and blocked from editing.<ref>"Critical views of Wikipedia", Wikinfo, 07:28 March 30, 2005.</ref> Its community has also been criticized for responding to complaints regarding an article's quality by advising the complainer to fix the article.<ref>Andrew Orlowski, "Wiki-fiddlers defend Clever Big Book", The Register, July 23, 2004.</ref>

In a page on researching with Wikipedia, its authors argue that Wikipedia is valuable for being a social community. That is, authors can be asked to defend or clarify their work, and disputes are readily seen.<ref>"Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia", Wikipedia (March 28, 2005).</ref> Wikipedia editions also often contain reference desks in which the community answers questions.

Awards

Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004<ref>"Trophy Box", Meta-Wiki (March 28, 2005).</ref>: The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities, awarded by Prix Ars Electronica; this came with a 10,000 euro 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. Wikipedia was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby. In September 2004, the Japanese Wikipedia was awarded a Web Creation Award from the Japan Advertisers Association. This award, normally given to individuals for great contributions to the Web in Japanese, was accepted by a long-standing contributor on behalf of the project. Wikipedia has received plaudits from sources including BBC News, Washington Post, The Economist, Newsweek, Los Angeles Times, Science, The Guardian, Chicago Sun-Times, The Times (London), Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, The Financial Times, Time Magazine, Irish Times, Reader's Digest and The Daily Telegraph. Founder Jimmy Wales was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by TIME Magazine in 2006.

Authors

One of the positive attributes of Wikipedia is that it allows anybody to contribute to it. However, one of the negative attributes of Wikipedia is that anybody can contribute to it. During December 2005, Wikipedia had about 27,000 users who made at least five edits that month; 17,000 of these active users worked on the English edition.<ref>Paragraph's statistics taken from "Active wikipedians" (Wikipedia Statistics, April 13, 2006).</ref> A more active group of about 4,000 users made more than 100 edits per month, over half of these users having worked in the English edition. According to Wikimedia, one-quarter of Wikipedia's traffic comes from users without accounts, who are less likely to be editors.<ref>"Wikipedia", Meta-Wiki, 08:02 March 30, 2005.</ref>

Maintenance tasks are performed by a group of volunteer developers, stewards, bureaucrats, and administrators, which number in the hundreds. Administrators are the largest such group, privileged with the ability to prevent articles from being edited, delete articles, or block users from editing in accordance with community policy. Many users have been temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vandalism or the minor infraction of policies may result in a warning or temporary block, while long-term or permanent blocks for prolonged and serious infractions are given by Jimmy Wales or, on its English edition, an elected Arbitration Committee.

Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger has said that having the GFDL license as a "guarantee of freedom is a strong motivation to work on a free encyclopedia."<ref>Larry Sanger, "Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias", Kuro5hin, July 25, 2001.</ref> In a study of Wikipedia as a community, economics professor Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in wiki software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a "creative construction" approach encourages participation.<ref>Andrea Ciffolilli, "Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia", First Monday December 2003.</ref> Wikipedia has been viewed as a social experiment in anarchy, democracy, or communism. Its founder has replied that it is not intended as one, though that is a consequence.<ref>Jimmy Wales, "Re: Illegitimate block", January 26, 2005, <wikien-l@wikimedia.org>.</ref> Critics of Wikipedia have also viewed it as an oligarchy which is controlled primarily by its administrators, stewards, and bureaucrats, or simply by a small number of its contributors. Daniel Brandt of Wikipedia Watch has referred to Jimbo Wales as the "dictator" of Wikipedia; however, most Wikipedia users either do not consider Wales to be a dictator, or consider him to be one who rarely gives non-negotiable orders. [1]

In popular culture

Wikipedia is parodied at several websites, including Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia. Webster's Dictionary has been parodied as Webster's Wikipedia on the flash clip Masters of Doom: The Animated Series.

The May 7, 2005 FoxTrot comic strip showed one character appending his older sister to unflattering Wikipedia articles. In a similar joke, the web comic Penny Arcade also satirized Wikipedia with a comic strip depicting Skeletor vandalizing the He-Man article.

On the May 9, 2006 episode of The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert referred to Wikipedia as his source of information for research on Sigmund Freud. In his normal, deadpan, sarcastic delivery, Colbert's segment "The Wørd", mocked Wikipedia's sometimes questionable information.

In 2006, popular knowledge of Wikipedia had reached a level such that "Wikipedia" began to be used as a generic term for an information source. Commenting to the New York Times on the demands on Central Intelligence Agency analysts to produce instant information, John McLaughlin, former acting U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, stated, "intelligence analysts end up being the Wikipedia of Washington".<ref name=McLaughlin>Tim Weiner, "Langley, We Have a Problem", New York Times, 14 May 2006</ref> Previously, a review of a new television series about terrorists noted that the characters routinely gave detailed background of events in the history of Islam and stated, "no one, and I assume even terrorists, talks like a walking Wikipedia."<ref name="sleeping cell">Wajahat Ali, "Sleeping Cell", altmuslim.com 16 January 2006</ref>

See also

• Internet encyclopedia project
• List of encyclopedias
• Open Site

References

Further reading

Find more about {{{1|Wikipedia}}} on Wikipedia's sister projects:
</span>	[[wikt:Special:Search/{{{wikt|{{{1|Wikipedia}}}}}}|Dictionary definitions]]
Image:Wikibooks-logo.svg	[[b:Special:Search/{{{b|{{{1|Wikipedia}}}}}}|Textbooks]]
Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg	[[q:Special:Search/{{{q|{{{1|Wikipedia}}}}}}|Quotations]]
Image:Wikisource-logo.svg	[[s:Special:Search/{{{s|{{{1|Wikipedia}}}}}}|Source texts]]
Image:Commons-logo.svg	[[commons:Special:Search/{{{commons|{{{1|Wikipedia}}}}}}|Images and media]]
}}} |{{{2|}}}|{{{1|}}}}}	[[n:Special:Search/{{{n|{{{1|Wikipedia}}}}}}|News stories]]
Image:Wikiversity-logo-Snorky.svg	[[v:Special:Search/{{{v|{{{1|Wikipedia}}}}}}|Learning resources]]

• Fernanda B. Viegas, Martin Wattenberg, and Kushal Dave, "Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations", CHI 2004 April 24–April 29, 2004. Preliminary report "History Flow" available on the IBM website.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies
• Wikipedia:Introduction
• Wikipedia:FAQ
• Wikipedia:Press releases
• Wikipedia:Press coverage
• Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great
• Wikipedia:Replies to common objections
• Statistics
• Open Directory Project: Wikipedia
• OpenFacts: Copies of Wikipedia content
• SourceWatch: Wikipedia[2]

External links

Template:Spoken Wikipedia

• wikipedia.org, multi-lingual portal
• en.wikipedia.org, English language edition
• Meta-Wiki, policy-related and technical discussions regarding Wikimedia
• Wikimedia Foundation, parent organization of Wikipedia
• Larry Sanger on the origins of Wikipedia from Slashdot and Open Sources 2.0
• Larry Sanger about the origins of Wikipedia
• BBC article regarding Wikipedia flaws
• Guardian UK article
• Interview with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales," nPost, November 1, 2005.
• Wikipedia Signpost, newspaper about the English Wikipedia
• Wikipedia in the news. Aggregated news and rss-feed. (Multilingual)
• Why Wikipedia will survive the storm, from News.com
• Nature comparison between Wikipedia and Britannica
• Britannica's response to Nature's study on Wikipedia
• Critical Review Of Wikipedia
• Can Wikipedia Survive Its Own Success?, Wharton School
• Who Owns Your Wikipedia Biography?, The Register
• The Wiki Watch
• Uncyclopedia and Wickerpedia, Wikipedia parodies
• The Wikipedia FAQK, Q&A by Lore Sjöberg in Wired.

Template:Wikimedia Foundation Template:Featured article

af:Wikipedia als:Wikipedia am:ዊኪፔድያ ang:Wicipǣdia ar:ويكيبيديا an:Biquipedia roa-rup:Uichipedia frp:Vuiquipèdia ast:Uiquipedia ay:Wikipedia bm:Wikipedia bn:উইকিপিডিয়া zh-min-nan:Wikipedia be:Вікіпэдыя bs:Wikipedia br:Wikipedia bg:Уикипедия ca:Viquipèdia cv:Википеди ceb:Wikipedya cs:Wikipedie co:Wikipedia cy:Wicipedia da:Wikipedia de:Wikipedia et:Vikipeedia el:Βικιπαίδεια es:Wikipedia eo:Vikipedio eu:Wikipedia fa:ویکی‌پدیا fo:Wikipedia fr:Wikipédia fur:Vichipedie ga:Vicipéid gv:Wikipedia gl:Wikipedia gu:વિકિપીડિયા ko:위키백과 hy:Վիքիփեդիա hi:िविकपीिडया hr:Wikipedija io:Wikipedio ilo:Wikipedia id:Wikipedia ia:Wikipedia os:Википеди is:Wikipedia it:Wikipedia he:ויקיפדיה jv:Wikipedia kl:Wikipedia kn:ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ka:ვიკიპედია csb:Wikipedijô kw:Wikipedia sw:Wikipedia ht:Wikipedia ku:Wikipedia lad:ויקיפידיה la:Vicipaedia lv:Vikipēdija lb:Wikipedia lt:Vikipedija li:Wikipedia ln:Wikipedia jbo:uikiPEdi,as lmo:Wikipedia hu:Wikipédia mk:Википедија ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ mt:Wikipedija mi:Wikipedia mr:विकिपीडिआ ms:Wikipedia mo:Википедия nah:Wikipedia na:Wikipedia fj:Wikipedia nl:Wikipedia nds-nl:Wikipedia cr:ᐎᑭᐱᑎᔭ ja:ウィキペディア no:Wikipedia nn:Wikipedia nrm:Viqùipédie oc:Oiquipedià ng:Wikipedia nds:Wikipedia pl:Wikipedia pt:Wikipédia ro:Wikipedia rmy:Vikipidiya qu:Wikipidiya ru:Википедия war:Wikipedia sc:Wikipedia sco:Wikipaedia sq:Wikipedia scn:Wikipedia simple:Wikipedia sk:Wikipédia sl:Wikipedija so:Wikipedia sr:Википедија sh:Wikipedia su:Wikipédia fi:Wikipedia sv:Wikipedia tl:Wikipedia ta:விக்கிபீடியா tt:Wikipedia th:วิกิพีเดีย vi:Wikipedia tpi:Wikipedia chr:ᏫᎩᏇᏗᏯ tr:Vikipedi uk:Вікіпедія uz:Vikipediya vec:Wikipedia fiu-vro:Vikipeediä wa:Wikipedia yi:קיפּעדיע zh-yue:維基百科 bat-smg:Vikipedėjė zh:维基百科