Editing
Wikipedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{short description|Free multilingual online encyclopedia}} {{about|the online encyclopedia|Wikipedia's home page|Main Page|the English edition|English Wikipedia|a list of Wikipedias in other languages|List of Wikipedias|other uses|Wikipedia (disambiguation)}} {{pp-vandalism|small=yes}} {{pp-move-indef}} {{Use mdy dates|date=March 2021}} {{Use American English|date=June 2019}} {{Infobox website | name = Wikipedia | logo = [[File:Wikipedia-v2-logo.svg|150px|frameless|An incomplete sphere made of large, white jigsaw puzzle pieces. Each puzzle piece contains one glyph from a different writing system, with each glyph written in black.]]<br />[[File:Wikipedia-logo-textonly.svg|200px|The Wikipedia wordmark which displays the name Wikipedia, written in all caps. The{{nbsp}}''W'' and the{{nbsp}}''A'' are the same height and both are taller than the other letters which are also all the same height. It also displays Wikipedia's slogan: "The Free Encyclopedia".]] | logo_caption = The [[Wikipedia logo|logo of Wikipedia]], a globe featuring [[glyph]]s from various [[writing system]]s | screenshot = Wikipedia Portal Screenshot (2022).svg{{!}}border | screenshot_alt = Wikipedia portal showing the different languages sorted by article count | collapsible = yes | caption = Wikipedia's desktop homepage | type = [[Online encyclopedia]] | language_count = {{NUMBEROF|languages|Wikipedia}} | country_of_origin = United States | owner = {{Unbulleted list|[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|}} | authors = {{Unbulleted list|[[Jimmy Wales]]|[[Larry Sanger]]<ref name="autogenerated1" />}} | url = {{URL|https://www.wikipedia.org/|wikipedia.org}} | commercial = No | registration = Optional<ref group=note>Registration is required for certain tasks, such as editing protected pages, creating pages on the English Wikipedia, and uploading files.</ref> | num_users = [[List of Wikipedias#Statistics totals|>{{formatnum:{{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|totalactive.wikipedia}}}}}}]] active editors<ref group=note>To be considered [[Special:ActiveUsers|active]], a user must make at least one edit or other action in a given month.</ref><br />[[list of Wikipedias#Statistics totals|>{{formatnum:{{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|USERS|totalactive.wikipedia}}}}}}]] registered users | launch_date = {{Start date and age|mf=yes|p=yes|br=yes|2001|1|15}} | current_status = Active | content_license = {{Nowrap|[[Creative Commons license|CC Attribution / Share-Alike]] 3.0}}<br />Most text is also dual-licensed under [[GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]]; media licensing varies | programming_language = [[LAMP (software bundle)|LAMP]] platform<ref name="roadchap">{{cite web |url=https://rogchap.com/2011/09/06/top-40-website-programming-languages/ |title= Top 40 Website Programming Languages |website= rogchap.com |author= Chapman, Roger |date= September 6, 2011 |access-date= September 6, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130922015103/https://rogchap.com/2011/09/06/top-40-website-programming-languages/ |archive-date= September 22, 2013}}</ref> | oclc = 52075003 }} '''Wikipedia''' ({{IPAc-en|audio=En-uk-Wikipedia.ogg|ˌ|w|ɪ|k|ᵻ|ˈ|p|iː|d|i|ə}} {{respell|wik|ih|PEE|dee|ə}} or {{IPAc-en|audio=en-us-Wikipedia.ogg|ˌ|w|ɪ|k|i|-}} {{respell|wik|ee|-}}) is a [[Multilingualism|multilingual]] [[open online encyclopedia|free online encyclopedia]] written and maintained by a community of [[online volunteering|volunteers]] through [[open collaboration]] and a [[wiki]]-based editing system. Individual contributors, also called editors, are known as [[Wikipedians]]. Wikipedia is the largest and most-read [[reference work]] in history.<ref name="Wiki20">{{cite news|date=January 9, 2021|title=Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher|url=https://www.economist.com/international/2021/01/09/wikipedia-is-20-and-its-reputation-has-never-been-higher|access-date=February 25, 2021|newspaper=[[The Economist]]}}</ref> It is consistently one of the 10 [[List of most visited websites|most popular websites]] ranked by the [[Similarweb]] and former [[Alexa Internet|Alexa]]; {{as of|2022|lc=y|post=,}} Wikipedia was ranked the 7th most popular site.<ref name = "Wiki20" /><ref name="Alexa siteinfo" /><ref name="Similarweb">{{cite web|url=https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/|title=Similarweb Top Websites Ranking |work=[[Similarweb]] |accessdate=June 11, 2022}}</ref> It is hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], an [[501(c)(3) organization|American non-profit organization]] funded mainly through donations.<ref>{{cite news |last1=McGregor |first1=Jena |title=Wikimedia's approach to coronavirus: Staffers can work 20 hours a week, get paid for full time |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/17/wikimedias-approach-coronavirus-staffers-can-work-20-hours-week-get-paid-full-time/ |access-date=February 25, 2021 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=March 17, 2020}}</ref> On January 15, 2001, [[Jimmy Wales]]<ref name="auto1">{{cite magazine |url=https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1975813_1975844_1976488,00.html |title= Jimmy Wales – The 2006 Time 100 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date= May 8, 2006 |access-date= November 11, 2017 |first=Chris |last=Anderson}}</ref> and [[Larry Sanger]] launched Wikipedia. Sanger coined its name as a [[blend word|blend]] of "wiki" and "encyclopedia."<ref name="MiliardWho"/><ref name="J Sidener"/> Wales was influenced by the "[[spontaneous order]]" ideas associated with [[Friedrich Hayek]] and the [[Austrian School]] of economics, after being exposed to these ideas by Austrian economist and [[Mises Institute]] Senior Fellow [[Mark Thornton]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123976347774119699 |title=Wikipedia's Model Follows Hayek |date=April 15, 2009 |newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref> Initially available only in English, versions in other languages were quickly developed. Its combined editions comprise more than {{spellnum per MOS|{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}}} articles, attracting around 2{{nbsp}}billion unique device visits per month and more than 17 million edits per month (1.9{{nbsp}}edits per second) {{as of|2020|11|lc=y}}.<!-- {{As of|2020|11|lc=y}} PLEASE UPDATE AS NEEDED --><ref name="small screen"/><ref name="Wikimedia_Stats">{{cite web |title=Wikistats – Statistics For Wikimedia Projects |url=https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-wikipedia-projects |website=stats.wikimedia.org |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |access-date=November 18, 2020}}</ref> In 2006, ''[[Time (magazine)|Time magazine]]'' stated that the policy of allowing anyone to edit had made Wikipedia the "biggest (and perhaps best) encyclopedia in the world."<ref name="auto1"/> Wikipedia has received praise for its enablement of the [[democratization of knowledge]], extent of coverage, unique structure, culture, and reduced degree of commercial bias; but [[criticism of Wikipedia|criticism]] for exhibiting [[criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage|systemic bias]], particularly [[gender bias on Wikipedia|gender bias]] against women and alleged [[Ideological bias on Wikipedia|ideological bias]].<ref name="Econ21">{{Cite news|date=January 9, 2021|title=Happy Birthday, Wikipedia|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/01/09/happy-birthday-wikipedia}}</ref><ref name="Slate-Neutrality">{{cite news|last=Harrison|first=Stephen|date=9 June 2020|title=How Wikipedia Became a Battleground for Racial Justice|work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|url=https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html|access-date=17 August 2021}}</ref> Its [[Reliability of Wikipedia|reliability]] was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has improved over time, as Wikipedia has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.<ref name="Wiki20" /><ref name="Econ21" /><ref name="Last best">{{cite news |last1=Cooke |first1=Richard |title=Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet |url=https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/ |access-date=13 October 2020 |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |date=17 February 2020 |language=en-us}}</ref> The website's coverage of controversial topics such as [[Wikipedia coverage of American politics|American politics]] and major events like the [[Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic|COVID-19 pandemic]] has received substantial media attention. It has been [[Censorship of Wikipedia|censored]] by world governments, ranging from specific pages to the entire site. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has become an element of [[Wikipedia in culture|popular culture]], with references in [[bibliography of Wikipedia|books]], [[list of films about Wikipedia|films]], and [[academic studies about Wikipedia|academic studies]]. In April 2018,<!-- This should be replaced with the date it actually started, per [[WP:ANNOUNCED]]. --> [[Facebook]] and [[YouTube]] announced that they would help users detect [[fake news]] by suggesting [[Wikipedia and fact-checking|fact-checking links]] to related Wikipedia articles.<ref name="auto">{{cite news|first=Noam|last=Cohen|author-link=Noam Cohen|title=Conspiracy videos? Fake news? Enter Wikipedia, the 'good cop' of the Internet|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/conspiracy-videos-fake-news-enter-wikipedia-the-good-cop-of-the-internet/2018/04/06/ad1f018a-3835-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=April 7, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180614045810/https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/conspiracy-videos-fake-news-enter-wikipedia-the-good-cop-of-the-internet/2018/04/06/ad1f018a-3835-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html |archive-date=June 14, 2018|url-access=limited}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Facebook fights fake news with author info, rolls out publisher context|url=https://social.techcrunch.com/2018/04/03/facebook-author-info/|access-date=2021-07-15|website=TechCrunch|language=en-US}}</ref> Articles on [[breaking news]] are often accessed as a source of frequently updated information about those events.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kelly |first=Samantha Murphy |date=2022-05-20 |title=Meet the Wikipedia editor who published the Buffalo shooting entry minutes after it started |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/wikipedia-editors-breaking-news/index.html |access-date=2022-05-24 |website=CNN}}</ref> {{TOC limit|3}} == History == {{main|History of Wikipedia}} {{Multiple image | footer = [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]] | width = | image1 = Jimmy Wales September 2015.jpg | width1 = 100 | image2 = L Sanger.jpg | width2 = 116 }} === Nupedia === {{main|Nupedia}} [[File:Nupedia.svg|thumb|alt=Logo reading "Nupedia.com the free encyclopedia" in blue with the large initial "N"|Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project called [[Nupedia]].]] Various collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before the start of Wikipedia, but with limited success.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/ |title = The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed? |website = Nieman Lab |access-date = June 5, 2016}}</ref> Wikipedia began as a complementary project for [[Nupedia]], a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process.<ref name="KockJungSyn2016">{{cite journal |last1=Kock |first1=Ned |last2=Jung |first2=Yusun |last3=Syn |first3=Thant |author1-link=Ned Kock |title=Wikipedia and e-Collaboration Research: Opportunities and Challenges |journal=[[International Journal of e-Collaboration]] |date=2016 |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=1–8 |doi=10.4018/IJeC.2016040101 |url=https://cits.tamiu.edu/kock/pubs/journals/2016JournalIJeC_WikipediaEcollaboration/Kock_etal_2016_IJeC_WikipediaEcollaboration.pdf |publisher=IGI Global |issn=1548-3681 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160927001627/https://cits.tamiu.edu/kock/pubs/journals/2016JournalIJeC_WikipediaEcollaboration/Kock_etal_2016_IJeC_WikipediaEcollaboration.pdf |archive-date=September 27, 2016}}</ref> It was founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of [[Bomis]], a [[web portal]] company. Its main figures were Bomis CEO [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]], [[editor-in-chief]] for Nupedia and later Wikipedia.<ref name="autogenerated1"/><ref name="Meyers"/> Nupedia was initially licensed under its own Nupedia [[free content|Open Content]] License, but even before Wikipedia was founded, Nupedia switched to the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] at the urging of [[Richard Stallman]].<ref name="stallman1999"/> Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,<ref name="SangerMemoir" /><ref name="Sanger"/> while Sanger is credited with the strategy of using a [[wiki]] to reach that goal.<ref name="WM foundation of WP 1">{{cite web |url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html |title = Wikipedia-l: LinkBacks? |access-date = February 20, 2007}}</ref> On January 10, 2001, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.<ref name="nupedia feeder from WP 1">{{cite news |first = Larry |last = Sanger |title = Let's Make a Wiki |date = January 10, 2001 |publisher = Internet Archive |url=https://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/https://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html |archive-date = April 14, 2003 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> === Launch and growth === The [[domain name|domain]]s ''wikipedia.com'' (later redirecting to ''wikipedia.org'') and ''wikipedia.org'' were registered on January 12, 2001<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wikipedia.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193149/https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wikipedia.com|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 27, 2007|title=WHOIS domain registration information results for wikipedia.com from Network Solutions|date=September 27, 2007|access-date=August 31, 2018}}</ref> and January 13, 2001<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wikipedia.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194913/https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wikipedia.org|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 27, 2007|title=WHOIS domain registration information results for wikipedia.org from Network Solutions|date=September 27, 2007|access-date=August 31, 2018}}</ref> respectively, and Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001<ref name="KockJungSyn2016" /> as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,<ref name="WikipediaHome" /> and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.<ref name="SangerMemoir" /> Its integral policy of "neutral point-of-view"<ref name="NPOV" /> was codified in its first few months. Otherwise, there were initially relatively few rules, and it operated independently of Nupedia.<ref name="SangerMemoir" /> Bomis originally intended it as a business for profit.<ref name="Seth-Finkelstein">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/sep/25/wikipedia.internet |title = Read me first: Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says |author = Finkelstein, Seth |work = [[The Guardian]] |date = September 25, 2008 |location = London}}</ref> [[File: English Wikipedia HomePage 2001-12-20.png|thumb|The Wikipedia home page on December 20, 2001]] {{Wikipedia editor graph}} {{Wikipedia article graph|caption=Number of English Wikipedia articles}} Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, [[Slashdot]] postings, and web [[search engine]] indexing. Language editions were created beginning in March 2003, with a total of 161 in use by the end of 2004.<ref>{{Cite mailing list|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-March/000048.html| title=Alternative language wikipedias |date=16 March 2001 |mailing-list=Wikipedia-L |last=Wales |first=Jimmy |access-date=January 16, 2022}}</ref><ref name="WP early language stats 1">{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics |title = Multilingual statistics |website = Wikipedia |date = March 30, 2005 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing the ''[[Yongle Encyclopedia]]'' made during the [[Ming Dynasty]] in 1408, which had held the record for almost 600 years.<ref name="EB_encyclopedia" /> Citing fears of commercial [[advertising]] and lack of control, users of the [[Spanish Wikipedia]] [[fork (software development)|fork]]ed from Wikipedia to create [[Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español|Enciclopedia Libre]] in February 2002.<ref name="EL fears and start 1">{{cite web |title = [long] Enciclopedia Libre: msg#00008 |url=https://osdir.com/ml/science.linguistics.wikipedia.international/2003-03/msg00008.html |website = Osdir |access-date = December 26, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081006065927/https://osdir.com/ml/science.linguistics.wikipedia.international/2003-03/msg00008.html |archive-date = October 6, 2008 |df = mdy-all}}</ref> Wales then announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and changed Wikipedia's domain from ''wikipedia.com'' to ''wikipedia.org''.<ref name="Shirky" /><ref>{{cite web|last=Vibber|first=Brion|date=August 16, 2002|title=Brion VIBBER at pobox.com|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-August/003982.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140620071550/https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-August/003982.html|archive-date=June 20, 2014|access-date=December 8, 2020|website=[[Wikimedia]]}}</ref> Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of new articles and of editors, appears to have peaked around early 2007.<ref name="guardian WP user peak 1">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist |title = Wikipedia approaches its limits |first = Bobbie |last = Johnson |work = The Guardian |location = London |date = August 12, 2009 |access-date = March 31, 2010}}</ref> Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800.<ref name="WP growth modelling 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth}}</ref> A team at the [[Palo Alto Research Center]] attributed this slowing of growth to the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change.<ref name="wikisym slowing growth 1">{{cite conference |url=https://www.wikisym.org/ws2009/procfiles/p108-suh.pdf |title = The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia |year = 2009 |location = Orlando, FL|conference = The International Symposium on Wikis |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511110022/https://www.wikisym.org/ws2009/procfiles/p108-suh.pdf |archive-date = May 11, 2011}}</ref><!-- ''Hidden while in discussion on the talk page'': New or occasional editors have significantly higher rates of their edits reverted (removed) than an elite group of regular editors, colloquially known as "the [[cabal]]". This could make it more difficult for the project to recruit and retain new contributors over the long term, resulting in stagnation in article creation. --> Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because articles that could be called "[[wikt:low-hanging fruit|low-hanging fruit]]"—topics that clearly merit an article—have already been created and built up extensively.<ref name="bostonreview the end of WP 1">{{cite magazine |url=https://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/edit-page-wikipedia-evgeny-morozov |title = Edit This Page; Is it the end of Wikipedia |magazine = Boston Review |first = Evgeny |last = Morozov |date = November–December 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211050926/https://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/edit-page-wikipedia-evgeny-morozov|archive-date=December 11, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last = Cohen |first = Noam |author-link=Noam Cohen |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29cohen.html |title = Wikipedia – Exploring Fact City |work = The New York Times |date = March 28, 2009 |access-date = April 19, 2011}}</ref><ref name="stanford WP lack of future growth 1">{{cite journal |first1=Austin |last1=Gibbons |first2=David |last2=Vetrano |first3=Susan |last3=Biancani |year=2012 |url=https://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs341-2012/reports/09-GibbonsVetranoBiancaniCS341.pdf |title=Wikipedia: Nowhere to grow |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140718091331/https://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs341-2012/reports/09-GibbonsVetranoBiancaniCS341.pdf |archive-date=July 18, 2014 |url-status=live }} {{open access}}</ref> {{anchor|Decline in participation since 2009}} In November 2009, a researcher at the [[Rey Juan Carlos University]] in [[Madrid]] found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, it lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.<ref name="guardian editors leaving 1">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/26/wikipedia-losing-disgruntled-editors |title = Wikipedia falling victim to a war of words |work = The Guardian |location = London |first = Jenny |last = Kleeman |date = November 26, 2009 |access-date = March 31, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=https://libresoft.es/publications/thesis-jfelipe |title = Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis |website=Libresoft |format = PDF |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120403172516/https://libresoft.es/publications/thesis-jfelipe |archive-date = April 3, 2012}}</ref> ''The Wall Street Journal'' cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.<ref name="WSJ WP losing editors 1">Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages, The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2009.</ref> Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the study's methodology.<ref name="telegraph Wales WP not losing editors 1">{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6660646/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Wales-denies-site-is-losing-thousands-of-volunteer-editors.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6660646/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Wales-denies-site-is-losing-thousands-of-volunteer-editors.html |archive-date=2022-01-10 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title = Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales denies site is 'losing' thousands of volunteer editors |first = Emma |last = Barnett |work = The Daily Telegraph |location = London |date = November 26, 2009 |access-date = March 31, 2010}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Two years later, in 2011, he acknowledged a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, he also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable".<ref name="wiki-women" /> A 2013 ''[[MIT Technology Review]]'' article, "The Decline of Wikipedia", questioned this claim, revealing that since 2007, Wikipedia had lost a third of its volunteer editors, and that those remaining had focused increasingly on minutiae.<ref name="Simonite-2013">{{cite journal |last = Simonite |first = Tom |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/10/22/175674/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ |title = The Decline of Wikipedia |date = October 22, 2013 |journal = [[MIT Technology Review]] |access-date = November 30, 2013}}</ref> In July 2012, ''[[The Atlantic]]'' reported that the number of administrators was also in decline.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829 |title = 3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins |work = The Atlantic |date = July 16, 2012}}</ref> In the November 25, 2013, issue of ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' magazine, Katherine Ward stated, "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis."<ref>Ward, Katherine. ''New York'' Magazine, issue of November 25, 2013, p. 18.</ref> The number of active English Wikipedia editors has since remained steady after a long period of decline.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2013-05-05|title=Who really runs Wikipedia?|newspaper=The Economist|url=https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/05/05/who-really-runs-wikipedia|access-date=2021-11-26|issn=0013-0613}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Mandiberg|first=Michael|date=2020-02-23|title=Mapping Wikipedia|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/where-wikipedias-editors-are-where-they-arent-and-why/605023/|access-date=2021-11-26|website=The Atlantic|language=en}}</ref> === Milestones === [[File:European Wikipedias article count 2019 map.svg|thumb|[[Cartogram]] showing number of articles in each European language {{as of|2019|1|lc=y|post=.}} One square represents 10,000 articles. Languages with fewer than 10,000 articles are represented by one square. Languages are grouped by language family and each language family is presented by a separate color.]] In January 2007, Wikipedia first became one of the ten [[list of most popular websites|most popular websites]] in the US, according to [[Comscore]] Networks. With 42.9 million unique visitors, it was ranked #9, surpassing ''[[The New York Times]]'' (#10) and [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] (#11). This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when Wikipedia ranked 33rd, with around 18.3 million unique visitors.<ref>{{cite magazine |url = https://www.pcworld.com/article/129135/wikipedia_breaks_into_us_top_10_sites.html |title = Wikipedia Breaks Into US Top 10 Sites |magazine = PCWorld |date = February 17, 2007 |access-date = March 26, 2021 |archive-date = March 19, 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120319204141/http://www.pcworld.com/article/129135/wikipedia_breaks_into_us_top_10_sites.html |url-status = dead }}</ref> {{as of|2020|March}}, it ranked 13th<ref name="Alexa siteinfo" /> in popularity according to [[Alexa Internet]]. In 2014, it received eight billion page views every month.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryOverview.htm |title = Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report – Wikipedia Page Views Per Country |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = March 8, 2015}}</ref> On February 9, 2014, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that Wikipedia had 18 billion [[pageview|page view]]s and nearly 500 million [[unique user#Unique visitor|unique visitor]]s a month, "according to the ratings firm comScore".<ref name="small screen">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/technology/wikipedia-vs-the-small-screen.html?_r=0 |title = Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen |work = The New York Times |date = February 9, 2014 |last = Cohen |first = Noam |author-link=Noam Cohen}}</ref> Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that have accumulated improvements piecemeal through "[[stigmergy|stigmergic]] accumulation".<ref name="sagepub WP and encyclopedic production 1">{{cite journal|first1=Jeff|last1=Loveland|first2=Joseph|last2=Reagle|date=January 15, 2013|title=Wikipedia and encyclopedic production|journal=New Media & Society|volume=15|issue=8|page=1294|doi=10.1177/1461444812470428|s2cid=27886998}}</ref><ref name="theatlantic WP actually a reversion 1">{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/what-if-the-great-wikipedia-revolution-was-actually-a-reversion/272697|title=What If the Great Wikipedia 'Revolution' Was Actually a Reversion? |first=Rebecca J.|last=Rosen|website=[[The Atlantic]]|date=January 30, 2013|access-date=February 9, 2013}}</ref> {{anchor|BlackoutProtest}} On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the [[United States Congress]]—the [[Stop Online Piracy Act]] (SOPA) and the [[PROTECT IP Act]] (PIPA)—by [[protest against SOPA and PIPA|blacking out its pages for 24 hours]].<ref name="LA Times Jan 19">{{cite news |url=https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/wikipedia-sopa-blackout-congressional-representatives.html |title = Wikipedia: SOPA protest led eight million to look up reps in Congress |first = Deborah |last = Netburn |work = Los Angeles Times |date = January 19, 2012 |access-date = March 6, 2012}}</ref> More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced its content.<ref name="BBC WP blackout protest 1">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia joins blackout protest at US anti-piracy moves |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16590585 |work = BBC News |date = January 18, 2012 |access-date = January 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage |title = SOPA/Blackoutpage |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = January 19, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180622185443/https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage |archive-date = June 22, 2018 |url-status=dead}}</ref> On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for ''[[The Economic Times]]'' indicated that not only had Wikipedia's growth stalled, it "had lost nearly ten percent of its page views last year. There was a decline of about two billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by twelve percent, those of German version slid by 17 percent and the Japanese version lost nine percent."<ref name="economictimes.indiatimes.com">{{cite news |first = Subodh |last = Varma |title = Google eating into Wikipedia page views? |date = January 20, 2014 |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29094246.cms |work = The Economic Times |access-date = February 10, 2014}}</ref> Varma added, "While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's [[Knowledge Graph]]s project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users."<ref name="economictimes.indiatimes.com" /> When contacted on this matter, [[Clay Shirky]], associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's [[Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society]] said that he suspected much of the page-view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need to click [any further]."<ref name="economictimes.indiatimes.com" /> By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was ranked the fifth most popular website globally.<ref name="Alexa">{{cite web |url=https://www.alexa.com/topsites |title = Alexa Top 500 Global Sites |website = [[Alexa Internet]] |access-date = December 28, 2016}}</ref> In January 2013, [[274301 Wikipedia]], an [[asteroid]], was named after Wikipedia; in October 2014, Wikipedia was honored with the ''[[Wikipedia Monument]]''; and, in July 2015, 106 of the 7,473 700-page volumes of Wikipedia became available as [[Print Wikipedia]]. In April 2019, an Israeli [[lunar lander]], [[Beresheet]], crash landed on the surface of the [[Moon]] carrying a copy of nearly all of the English Wikipedia engraved on thin nickel plates; experts say the plates likely survived the crash.<ref name="WRD-20190805">{{cite news |last=Oberhaus |first=Daniel |title=A Crashed Israeli Lunar Lander Spilled Tardigrades On The Moon |url=https://www.wired.com/story/a-crashed-israeli-lunar-lander-spilled-tardigrades-on-the-moon/ |date=August 5, 2019 |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |access-date=August 6, 2019}}</ref><ref name="VOX-20190806">{{cite news |last=Resnick |first=Brian |title=Tardigrades, the toughest animals on Earth, have crash-landed on the moon – The tardigrade conquest of the solar system has begun. |url=https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/6/20756844/tardigrade-moon-beresheet-arch-mission |date=August 6, 2019|work=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] |access-date=August 6, 2019}}</ref> In June 2019, scientists reported that all 16 GB of article text from the English Wikipedia had been encoded into [[synthetic genomics|synthetic DNA]].<ref name="CNET-20190629">{{cite news |last=Shankland |first=Stephen |title=Startup packs all 16GB of Wikipedia onto DNA strands to demonstrate new storage tech – Biological molecules will last a lot longer than the latest computer storage technology, Catalog believes. |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/startup-packs-all-16gb-wikipedia-onto-dna-strands-demonstrate-new-storage-tech/ |date=June 29, 2019 |work=[[CNET]] |access-date=August 7, 2019}}</ref> == Current state == {{Update|part=current state|date=June 2022|updated=February 2020}}[[File:Screenshot of English Wikipedia article on Earth on 30 March 2021 (cropped).png|thumb|Screenshot of [[English Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Earth]], 30 March 2021]] On January 23, 2020, the English-language Wikipedia, the largest language section of the online encyclopedia, [[History of Wikipedia#Third decade: 2020–present|published its six millionth article]]. By February 2020, Wikipedia ranked eleventh in the world in terms of Internet traffic.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org |title=wikipedia.org Competitive Analysis, Marketing Mix and Traffic |website=alexa.com |access-date=26 December 2021 }}</ref> As a key resource for disseminating information related to COVID-19, the World Health Organization partnered with Wikipedia to help combat the spread of misinformation.<ref>{{cite news |first=Matt |last=Chase |date=9 January 2021 |url=https://www.economist.com/international/2021/01/09/wikipedia-is-20-and-its-reputation-has-never-been-higher |title=Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher |newspaper=The Economist |access-date=9 January 2021 |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=McNeil |first=Donald G. |date=22 October 2020 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/wikipedia-who-coronavirus-health.html |title=Wikipedia and W.H.O. Join to Combat Covid-19 Misinformation |work=The New York Times |access-date=26 December 2021 }}</ref> Wikipedia accepts [[Basic Attention Token]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://brave.com/wikipedia-verified-publisher/|title = Wikipedia is now a Brave Verified Publisher, Ready to Receive BAT Donations from Brave Users |website=brave.com |date = 28 August 2019 |access-date=26 December 2021 }}</ref> == Openness == [[File:History Comparison Example (Vector).png|thumb|Differences between versions of an article are highlighted]] Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the [[procrastination]] principle<ref group="note">The procrastination principle dictates that one should wait for problems to arise before solving them.</ref> regarding the security of its content.<ref name="zittrain">{{cite book |last = Zittrain |first = Jonathan |title = The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It – Chapter 6: The Lessons of Wikipedia |author-link = Jonathan Zittrain |publisher = Yale University Press |year = 2008 |url=https://archive.org/details/futureofinternet00zitt |isbn = 978-0300124873 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> === Restrictions === Due to Wikipedia's increasing popularity, some editions, including the English version, have introduced editing restrictions for certain cases. For instance, on the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article.<ref>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration|Registration notes}}</ref> On the English Wikipedia, among others, particularly controversial, sensitive or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to varying degrees.<ref name="WP protection policy 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:Protection policy|Protection Policy}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1 = Hafner |first1 = Katie |title = Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html |access-date = December 5, 2016 |work = The New York Times |date = June 17, 2006}}</ref> A frequently vandalized article can be "semi-protected" or "extended confirmed protected", meaning that only "autoconfirmed" or "extended confirmed" editors can modify it.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Protection policy|English Wikipedia's protection policy]]</ref> A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only [[Wikipedia administrators|administrators]] can make changes.<ref>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Full protection|English Wikipedia's full protection policy}}</ref> A 2021 article in the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'' identified Wikipedia's page-protection policies as "[p]erhaps the most important" means at its disposal to "regulate its market of ideas".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Harrison|first1=Stephen|last2=Benjakob|first2=Omer|title=Wikipedia is twenty. It's time to start covering it better.|date=January 14, 2021|url=https://www.cjr.org/opinion/wikipedia-is-twenty-its-time-to-start-covering-it-better.php|access-date=January 15, 2021|website=[[Columbia Journalism Review]]|location=New York City|language=en}}</ref> In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors, depending on certain conditions. For example, the [[German Wikipedia]] maintains "stable versions" of articles<ref name="WP some sites stable versions 1">{{cite mailing list |first = P. |last = Birken |url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikide-l/2008-December/021594.html |title = Bericht Gesichtete Versionen |mailing-list = Wikide-l |date = December 14, 2008 |language = de |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = February 15, 2009}}</ref> which have passed certain reviews. Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012.<ref name="BInsider pending changes intro 1">{{cite news |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/pending-changes-safeguard-on-wikipedia-2012-12 |title = Wikipedia Has Figured Out A New Way To Stop Vandals In Their Tracks |work = Business Insider |first = William |last = Henderson |date = December 10, 2012}}</ref> Under this system, new and unregistered users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are reviewed by established users before they are published.<ref>{{cite news |last = Frewin |first = Jonathan |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/10312095 |title = Wikipedia unlocks divisive pages for editing |journal = BBC News |date = June 15, 2010 |access-date = August 21, 2014}}</ref> [[File:Wikipedia editing interface.png|thumb|left|Wikipedia's editing interface]] === Review of changes === Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikipedia provides tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. Each article's History page links to each revision.<ref group=note>Revisions with libelous content, criminal threats, or copyright infringements may be removed completely.</ref><ref name="Torsten_Kleinz" /> On most articles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's History page. Anyone can view the [[Help:Recent changes|latest changes]] to articles, and anyone registered may maintain a [[wiki#Controlling changes|"watchlist"]] of articles that interest them so they can be notified of changes. "New pages patrol" is a process where newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.<ref>[[Wikipedia:New pages patrol]]</ref> In 2003, economics Ph.D. student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low [[transaction cost]]s of participating in a [[wiki]] created a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favored "creative construction" over "creative destruction".<ref name="FMonday collaborative effort 1">{{cite journal |last1=Ciffolilli |first1=Andrea |title=Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia |journal=First Monday |date=December 2003 |volume=8 |issue=12 |doi=10.5210/fm.v8i12.1108 |url=https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1108/1028 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161206104747/https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1108/1028 |archive-date=December 6, 2016}}</ref> === Vandalism === {{main|Vandalism on Wikipedia}} Any change or edit that manipulates content in a way that deliberately compromises Wikipedia's integrity is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include additions of obscenities and crude humor; it can also include advertising and other types of spam.<ref name="upenn link spamming 1">{{cite conference |last1 = West |first1 = Andrew G. |last2 = Chang |first2 = Jian |last3 = Venkatasubramanian |first3 = Krishna |last4 = Sokolsky |first4 = Oleg |last5 = Lee |first5 = Insup |title = Proceedings of the 8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference on - CEAS '11 |chapter = Link Spamming Wikipedia for Profit |conference = 8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse, and Spam Conference |pages = 152–161 |date = 2011 |chapter-url=https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=cis_papers |doi = 10.1145/2030376.2030394|isbn = 9781450307888 }}</ref> Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing content or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the article's underlying code, or use images disruptively.<ref name="WP vandalism manipulation 1" /> [[File:John Seigenthaler Sr. speaking.jpg|thumb|alt=White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium.|American journalist [[John Seigenthaler]] (1927–2014), subject of the [[Seigenthaler incident]]]] Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to detect and fix it is a few minutes.<ref name="MIT_IBM_study" /><ref name="CreatingDestroyingAndRestoringValue" /> However, some vandalism takes much longer to detect and repair.<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> In the [[Seigenthaler biography incident]], an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure [[John Seigenthaler]] in May 2005, falsely presenting him as a suspect in the [[assassination of John F. Kennedy]].<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> It remained uncorrected for four months.<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of ''[[USA Today]]'' and founder of the [[Freedom Forum]] [[First Amendment Center]] at [[Vanderbilt University]], called Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales said he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced.<ref name="book The World is Flat 1">{{cite book |last = Friedman |first = Thomas L. |title = The World is Flat |year = 2007 |publisher = [[Farrar, Straus & Giroux]] |isbn = 978-0374292782 |page = 124}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://archive.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17798 |title = Founder shares cautionary tale of libel in cyberspace |last = Buchanan |first = Brian |date = November 17, 2006 |publisher = archive.firstamendmentcenter.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121221140311/https://archive.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17798 |archive-date = December 21, 2012 |url-status=dead |access-date = November 17, 2012}}</ref> After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> The incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia for tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.<ref>{{cite news |last = Helm |first = Burt |title = Wikipedia: "A Work in Progress" |url=https://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress |newspaper = [[BusinessWeek]] |date = December 13, 2005 |access-date = July 26, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120708062333/https://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress |archive-date = July 8, 2012}}</ref> In 2010, 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.<ref name="tosh CC WP funny 1">{{cite web |url=https://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/2010/02/03/your-wikipedia-entries |title = Your Wikipedia Entries |date = February 3, 2010 |website = Tosh.0 |access-date = September 9, 2014}}</ref><ref name="tosh CC WP funny 2">{{cite web |url=https://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/wikipedia-updates |title = Wikipedia Updates |date = February 3, 2010 |website = Tosh.0 |access-date = September 9, 2014}}</ref> === Edit warring === Wikipedians often have disputes regarding content, which may result in repeated competing changes to an article, known as "edit warring".<ref>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution|Dispute Resolution}}</ref><ref name="NBC WP editorial warzone 12">{{cite news |last=Coldewey |first=Devin |date=June 21, 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140822010030/http://sys03-public.nbcnews.com/technology/wikipedia-editorial-warzone-says-study-838793 |title=Wikipedia is editorial warzone, says study |department=Technology |work=[[NBC News]] |url=https://sys03-public.nbcnews.com/technology/wikipedia-editorial-warzone-says-study-838793 |archive-date=August 22, 2014}}</ref> It is widely seen as a resource-consuming scenario where no useful knowledge is added,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kalyanasundaram |first1=Arun |last2=Wei |first2=Wei |last3=Carley |first3=Kathleen M. |last4=Herbsleb |first4=James D. |date=December 2015 |title=An agent-based model of edit wars in Wikipedia: How and when is consensus reached |journal=2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) |location=Huntington Beach, CA |publisher=IEEE |pages=276–287 |doi=10.1109/WSC.2015.7408171 |isbn=978-1467397438|s2cid=9353425 |citeseerx=10.1.1.715.2758 }}</ref> and criticized as creating a competitive<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Suh |first1=Bongwon |last2=Convertino |first2=Gregorio |last3=Chi |first3=Ed H. |last4=Pirolli |first4=Peter |date=2009 |title=The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia |url=https://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1641309.1641322 |journal=Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration – WikiSym '09 |pages=1–10 |location=Orlando, FL |publisher=ACM Press |doi=10.1145/1641309.1641322 |isbn=978-1605587301|doi-access=free }}</ref> and conflict-based<ref>{{cite news |url=https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia |title=Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia? |last=Torres |first=Nicole |date=June 2, 2016 |work=Harvard Business Review |access-date=August 20, 2019 |issn=0017-8012}}</ref> editing culture associated with traditional masculine [[gender role]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bear |first1=Julia B. |last2=Collier |first2=Benjamin |date=March 2016 |title=Where are the Women in Wikipedia? Understanding the Different Psychological Experiences of Men and Women in Wikipedia |journal=Sex Roles |volume=74 |issue=5–6 |pages=254–265 |doi=10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y |s2cid=146452625 |issn=0360-0025}}</ref> == <span id="Rules_and_laws_governing_content">Policies and laws</span>{{anchor|Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior}} == {{anchor|Censorship}} {{External media | width = 220px | float = right |headerimage = [[File:Jimbo at Fosdem cropped.jpg|210px]] | video1 = [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-morley-safer-60-minutes/ Wikimania], ''[[60 Minutes]]'', [[CBS]], 20 minutes, April 5, 2015, co-founder Jimmy Wales at [[Fosdem]] | access-date = April 5, 2015}} Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, [[copyright]] laws) of the United States and of the US state of [[Virginia]], where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and guidelines intended to appropriately shape content. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.<ref name="pcworld who's behind WP">{{cite web |url=https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1866322157;fp;2;fpid;2 |title = Who's behind Wikipedia? |website = PC World |date = February 6, 2008 |access-date = February 7, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080209110303/https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id%3B1866322157%3Bfp%3B2%3Bfpid%3B2 |archive-date = February 9, 2008}}</ref> Editors can {{srlink|Wikipedia:Enforcement|enforce these rules}} by [[Deletion of articles on Wikipedia|deleting]] or modifying non-compliant material. Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on a translation of the rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent.<ref name="WP some sites stable versions 1" /> === Content policies and guidelines{{anchor|Content policies}} === According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is [[wikt:encyclopedic|encyclopedic]] and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-style.<ref name="WP content policy 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not}}. Retrieved April 1, 2010. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide."</ref> A topic should also meet [[notability in the English Wikipedia|Wikipedia's standards of "notability"]],<ref name="WP notability guide 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:Notability|Notability}}. Retrieved February 13, 2008. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."</ref> which generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject. Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized.<ref name="NOR" /> It must not present original research. A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference to a reliable source. Among Wikipedia editors, this is often phrased as "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the truthfulness of the articles and making their own interpretations.<ref name="WP Verifiability policy 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability}}. February 13, 2008. "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations must be attributed to a reliable, published source."</ref> This can at times lead to the removal of information that, though valid, is not properly sourced.<ref name="IHT WP valid info wrong removable 1">{{cite news |last = Cohen |first = Noam |author-link=Noam Cohen |title = For inclusive mission, Wikipedia is told that written word goes only so far |newspaper = [[International Herald Tribune]] |page = 18 |date = August 9, 2011}} {{subscription required}}</ref> Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.<ref name="autogenerated2" /> == Governance == {{further|Wikipedia:Administration|selfref=yes}} Wikipedia's initial [[anarchy]] integrated [[democracy|democratic]] and hierarchical elements over time.<ref>{{cite web |last1 = Sanger |first1 = Larry |title = The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir |url=https://features.slashdot.org/story/05/04/18/164213/the-early-history-of-nupedia-and-wikipedia-a-memoir |website = Slashdot |publisher = Dice |date = April 18, 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Kostakis |first1 = Vasilis |title = Identifying and understanding the problems of Wikipedia's peer governance: The case of inclusionists versus deletionists |issue = 3 |url=https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2613/2479 |journal = First Monday |volume = 15 |date = March 2010}}</ref> An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor, nor by the subject of the article.<ref>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|Ownership of articles}}</ref> === Administrators === Editors in good standing in the community can request extra [[Wikipedia:User access levels|user rights]], granting them the technical ability to perform certain special actions. In particular, editors can choose to run for "[[administrators (Wikipedia)|adminship]]",<ref>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Administrators}}</ref><ref name="David_Mehegan"/> which includes the ability to delete pages or prevent them from being changed in cases of severe vandalism or editorial disputes. Administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to implement restrictions intended to prevent disruptive editors from making unproductive edits.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct |title = Wikipedia:Administrators |access-date = July 12, 2009 |date = October 3, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_Review/Reflect |title = Wikipedia:RfA_Review/Reflect |access-date = September 24, 2009 |date = January 22, 2017}}</ref> By 2012, fewer editors were becoming administrators compared to Wikipedia's earlier years, in part because the process of vetting potential administrators had become more rigorous.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829 |title = 3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins |last = Meyer |first = Robinson |website = [[The Atlantic]] |date = July 16, 2012 |access-date = September 2, 2012}}</ref> === Dispute resolution === Over time, Wikipedia has developed a semiformal dispute resolution process. To determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at appropriate community forums,<ref group=note>See for example the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard]] or [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard|Neutral Point of View Noticeboard]], created to address content falling under their respective areas.</ref> seek outside input through third opinion requests, or initiate a more general community discussion known as a "request for comment". Wikipedia encourages local resolutions of conflicts, which Jemielniak argues is quite unique in organization studies, though there has been some recent interest in [[Consensus decision-making|consensus building]] in the field. [[Joseph M. Reagle Jr.|Joseph Reagle]] and [[Sue Gardner]] argue that the approaches to consensus building are similar to those used by [[Quakers]].<ref name="Jemielniak" />{{Rp|page=62}} A difference from Quaker meetings is the absence of a [[facilitator]] in the presence of disagreement, a role played by the clerk in Quaker meetings.<ref name="Jemielniak" />{{Rp|page=83}} ==== Arbitration Committee ==== {{main|Arbitration Committee}} The Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute resolution process. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how an article should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on the specific view that should be adopted. Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted,<ref name="emory disputes handled 1" /> functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate. Therefore, the committee does not dictate the<!-- The committee may (directly) rule that a content change is inappropriate, but may NOT (directly) rule that certain content is inappropriate. --> content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new content violates Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content is considered biased). Its remedies<!-- Although caution is no remedy, this is the language used in the reference. This could be quoted or changed. --> include cautions and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43%), subject matters (23%), or Wikipedia (16%).{{when|reason=As of when?|date=July 2021}} Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of impersonation and [[anti-social behavior]]. When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus<!-- This needs to be clarified. Anti-consensus behavior appears to be defined mostly as "edit warring". --> or in violation of editing policies, remedies tend to be limited to warnings.<ref>{{cite journal |title = Wikitruth through Wikiorder |ssrn = 1354424 |journal = [[Emory Law Journal]] |volume = 59 |issue = 1 |year = 2009 |pages = 151–210 |first1 = David A. |last1 = Hoffman |first2 = Salil K.|last2 = Mehra}}</ref> == Community == {{main|Wikipedia community}} [[File:Wikimania - the Wikimentary.webm|thumb|start=00:04|thumbtime=00:16|Video of [[Wikimania#2005|Wikimania 2005]]—an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], was held in [[Frankfurt am Main]], Germany, August 4–8.]] Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated "talk" page. These form the primary communication channel for editors to discuss, coordinate and debate.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/wikipedia_coordination_final.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070205111038/https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/wikipedia_coordination_final.pdf |archive-date=5 February 2007 |first1 = Fernanda B. |last1 = Viégas |first2 = Martin M. |last2 = Wattenberg |first3 = Jesse |last3 = Kriss |first4 = Frank |last4 = van Ham |title = Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia |publisher = Visual Communication Lab, [[IBM Research]] |date = January 3, 2007 |access-date = June 27, 2008 |author2-link = Martin M. Wattenberg |author-link = Fernanda B. Viégas}}</ref> [[File:Editing Hoxne Hoard at the British Museum.ogv|thumb|right|Wikipedians and [[British Museum]] curators collaborate on the article [[Hoxne Hoard]] in June 2010]] Wikipedia's community has been described as [[cult]]like,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2005/dec/15/wikipedia.web20 |title = Log on and join in, but beware the web cults |first = Charles |last = Arthur |date = December 15, 2005 |work = [[The Guardian]] |location = London |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> although not always with entirely negative connotations.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/03/wikipedia/index.html |title = Wikipedia: The know-it-all Web site |first = Kristie |last = Lu Stout |publisher = CNN |date = August 4, 2003 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> Its preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of [[credential]]s, has been referred to as "[[anti-elitism]]".<ref>{{cite web |title = Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism |url = https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 |website = [[Kuro5hin]], Op–Ed |first = Larry |last = Sanger |date = December 31, 2004 |quote = There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups [...] that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you [...] demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship", attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. [...] The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem [...] which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist, it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise are tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.) |author-link = Larry Sanger |access-date = March 26, 2021 |archive-date = November 1, 2021 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20211101011352/http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 |url-status = dead }}</ref> Wikipedians sometimes award one another "virtual barnstars" for good work. These personalized tokens of appreciation reveal a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation work.<ref>{{cite book|title = Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in Wikipedia through barnstars | first1 = Travis Kriplean | last1 = Kriplean | first2 = Ivan | last2 = Beschastnikh |last3 = McDonald |first3 = David W. |name-list-style = vanc |publisher = Proceedings of the ACM |year = 2008 |doi = 10.1145/1460563.1460573 |page = 47 |isbn = 978-1605580074 |chapter = Articulations of wikiwork| s2cid = 7164949 }} {{subscription required|s}}</ref><!-- This is already covered in "Wikipedia community" and might be superfluous here. --> Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.<ref name="user identification" /> As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked there.<ref>{{cite book |chapter= Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie |title=CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems |publisher = Viktoria Institute |first = Aniket |last = Kittur |year = 2007 |citeseerx = 10.1.1.212.8218}}</ref> Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization".<ref name="blodget">{{cite news |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway |title = Who The Hell Writes Wikipedia, Anyway? |first = Henry |last = Blodget |work = Business Insider |date = January 3, 2009}}</ref> In 2008, a ''Slate'' magazine article reported that: "According to researchers in Palo Alto, one percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.slate.com/id/2184487 |title = The Wisdom of the Chaperones |date = February 22, 2008 |first = Chris |last = Wilson |work = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |access-date = August 13, 2014}}</ref> This method of evaluating contributions was later disputed by [[Aaron Swartz]], who noted that several articles he sampled had large portions of their content (measured by number of characters) contributed by users with low edit counts.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia |title = Raw Thought: Who Writes Wikipedia? |first = Aaron |last = Swartz |date = September 4, 2006 |access-date = February 23, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140803134036/https://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia |archive-date = August 3, 2014 |df = mdy-all}}</ref> <!-- Obsolete chart image needs to be updated as current definition of active users is over 125,000 [[File:ActiveWikipedians.PNG|thumb|356x356px|Historical chart of the number of Wikipedians considered as active by the Wikimedia Foundation]] --> {{anchor|Decline in participation since 2007}} The English Wikipedia has {{srlink|Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}}} articles, {{srlink|Special:ListUsers|{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}}} registered editors, and {{srlink|Special:ActiveUsers|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}}} active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made one or more edits in the past 30 days. Editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk page comments, may implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to a sometimes convoluted dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references".<ref name="labor squeeze on WP 1" /> Editors who do not log in are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,<ref name="labor squeeze on WP 1">{{cite journal |title = Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its Consequences |journal = Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law |author = Goldman, Eric |volume = 8}}</ref> as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation",<ref name="legal edu and WP 1">{{cite journal |title = Wikipedia and the Future of Legal Education |author = Noveck, Beth Simone |journal = Journal of Legal Education |volume = 57}}</ref> but the contribution histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their [[IP address]]es cannot be attributed to a particular editor with certainty. === Studies === A 2007 study by researchers from [[Dartmouth College]] found that "anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia ... are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site".<ref name="sciam good samaritans 1">{{cite news |url=https://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=good-samaritans-are-on-the-money |title = Wikipedia "Good Samaritans" Are on the Money |work = Scientific American |date = October 19, 2007 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "[I]t turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users{{nbsp}}... 524 people{{nbsp}}... And in fact, the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits."<ref name="blodget" /> However, ''[[Business Insider]]'' editor and journalist [[Henry Blodget]] showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most Wikipedia content (measured by the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled edit) is created by "outsiders", while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders".<ref name="blodget" /> A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others,<ref name="liebertonline view on WP users 1">{{cite journal | last1 = Amichai-Hamburger | first1 = Yair | last2 = Lamdan | first2 = Naama | last3 = Madiel | first3 = Rinat | last4 = Hayat | first4 = Tsahi | year = 2008| title = Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members | journal = CyberPsychology & Behavior | volume = 11 | issue = 6| pages = 679–681 | doi = 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225 | pmid = 18954273 }}</ref><ref name="newscientist view on WP users 1">{{cite web |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126883.900-wikipedians-are-closed-and-disagreeable.html |title = Wikipedians are 'closed' and 'disagreeable' |website = New Scientist |access-date = July 13, 2010}} {{subscription required|s}}</ref> although a later commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness and that the differences with the control group and the samples were small.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201303/the-misunderstood-personality-profile-wikipedia-members |title = The Misunderstood Personality Profile of Wikipedia Members |website = psychologytoday.com |access-date = June 5, 2016}}</ref> According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".<ref name="newscientist WP boom to bust 1">{{cite web |last = Giles |first = Jim |title = After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust? |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17554-after-the-boom-is-wikipedia-heading-for-bust.html |website = New Scientist |date = August 4, 2009}}</ref> === Diversity === Several studies have shown that most Wikipedia contributors are male. Notably, the results of a Wikimedia Foundation survey in 2008 showed that only 13 percent of Wikipedia editors were female.<ref>{{cite news |last = Cohen |first = Noam |author-link=Noam Cohen |title = Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=0 |work = The New York Times |access-date = October 28, 2013}}</ref> Because of this, universities throughout the United States tried to encourage women to become Wikipedia contributors. Similarly, many of these universities, including [[Yale University|Yale]] and [[Brown University|Brown]], gave college credit to students who create or edit an article relating to women in science or technology.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ocad-to-storm-wikipedia-this-fall-1.1412807 |title = OCAD to 'Storm Wikipedia' this fall |work = CBC News |date = August 27, 2013 |access-date = August 21, 2014}}</ref> [[Andrew Lih]], a professor and scientist, wrote in ''[[The New York Times]]'' that the reason he thought the number of male contributors outnumbered the number of females so greatly was because identifying as a woman may expose oneself to "ugly, intimidating behavior".<ref>Dimitra Kessenides (December 26, 2017). [[Bloomberg News]] Weekly, "Is Wikipedia 'Woke'". p. 73.</ref> Data has shown that Africans are underrepresented among Wikipedia editors.<ref name="memeb">{{cite web|url=https://memeburn.com/2018/06/wikipedia-wikimania-africa-numbers/|title=The startling numbers behind Africa's Wikipedia knowledge gaps|date=June 21, 2018|website=memeburn.com}}</ref> == Language editions == {{main|List of Wikipedias}} {{Pie chart | caption = '''Distribution of the {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total|N}} articles in different language editions (as of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}})'''<ref name="meta.wikimedia">[[:m:List of Wikipedias#1+ articles|List of Wikipedias—Meta]]</ref> | other = yes | label1 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|1}} | value1 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|1}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color1 = #666666 | label2 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|2}} | value2 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|2}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color2 = #E69F00 | label3 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|3}} | value3 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|3}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color3 = #56B4E9 | label4 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|4}} | value4 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|4}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color4 = #009E73 | label5 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|5}} | value5 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|5}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color5 = #F0E442 | label6 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|6}} | value6 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|6}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color6 = #0072B2 | label7 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|7}} | value7 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|7}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color7 = #D55E00 | label8 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|8}} | value8 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|8}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color8 = #CC79A7 | label9 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|9}} | value9 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|9}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color9 = #33CC99 | label10 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|10}} | value10 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|10}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color10 = #333333 | label11 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|11}} | value11 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|11}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color11 = #9A459A | label12 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|12}} | value12 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|12}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color12 = #A60D14 | label13 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|13}} | value13 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|13}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color13 = #FF82AA | label14 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|14}} | value14 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|14}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color14 = #167432 | label15 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|15}} | value15 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|15}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color15 = #FFA500 | label16 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|16}} | value16 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|16}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color16 = #483D8B | label17 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|17}} | value17 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|17}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}} | color17 = #00FFFF }} [[File:Most popular edition of Wikipedia by country.svg|thumb|right|Most popular edition of Wikipedia by country in January 2021.]] [[File:Wikipedia page views by language over time.png|thumb|Most viewed editions of Wikipedia over time.]] [[File:Wikipedia editors by language over time.png|thumb|Most edited editions of Wikipedia over time.]] There are currently {{NUMBEROF|languages|Wikipedia}} language editions of Wikipedia (also called ''language versions'', or simply ''Wikipedias''). As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, the six largest, in order of article count, are the {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|1}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|2}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|3}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|4}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|5}}, and {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|6}} Wikipedias.<ref name="WP list of WPs by article 1">{{cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#All_Wikipedias_ordered_by_number_of_articles|title=Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias|publisher=English Wikipedia|access-date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</ref> The {{ordinal to word|{{Wikipedia rank by size|ceb}}}} and {{ordinal to word|{{Wikipedia rank by size|sv}}}}-largest Wikipedias owe their position to the article-creating [[Internet bot|bot]] [[Lsjbot]], which {{as of|2013|lc=y}} had created about half the articles on the [[Swedish Wikipedia]], and most of the articles in the [[Cebuano Wikipedia|Cebuano]] and [[Waray Wikipedia]]s. The latter are both languages of the Philippines. In addition to the top six, twelve other Wikipedias have more than a million articles each ({{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|7}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|8}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|9}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|10}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|11}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|12}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|13}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|14}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|15}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|16}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|17}} and {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|18}}), seven more have over 500,000 articles ({{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|19}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|20}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|21}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|22}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|23}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|24}} and {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|25}}), 44 more have over 100,000, and 82 more have over 10,000.<ref name="ListOfWikipedias" /><ref name="WP list of WPs by article 1" /> The largest, the English Wikipedia, has over {{#expr: 0.1*floor({{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}/100000)}} million articles. {{As of|2021|01|post=,}} the English Wikipedia receives 48% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages. The top 10 editions represent approximately 85% of the total traffic.<ref>{{cite AV media |author=A455bcd9 |date=February 8, 2021 |title=Wikipedia page views by language over time |format=PNG |url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_page_views_by_language_over_time.png |access-date=June 25, 2021}}</ref> {{Largest Wikipedias/graph}} [[File:TurkishWikipedia block pageviews february-may2017.png|thumb|right|A graph for pageviews of [[Turkish Wikipedia]] shows a large drop of roughly 80% immediately after the [[block of Wikipedia in Turkey]] was imposed in 2017.]] Since Wikipedia is based on the [[World Wide Web|Web]] and therefore worldwide, contributors to the same language edition may use different dialects or may come from different countries (as is the case for the [[English Wikipedia|English edition]]). These differences may lead to some conflicts over [[American and British English spelling differences|spelling differences]] (e.g. ''colour'' versus ''[[color]]'')<ref name="WP spelling MOS 1">{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling |title = Spelling |website = Manual of Style |publisher = Wikipedia |access-date = May 19, 2007 |date = September 26, 2018}}</ref> or points of view.<ref name="WP countering bias 1">{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias |title = Countering systemic bias |access-date = May 19, 2007 |date = July 15, 2018}}</ref> Though the various language editions are held to global policies such as "neutral point of view", they diverge on some points of policy and practice, most notably on whether images that are not [[free content|licensed freely]] may be used under a claim of [[fair use]].<ref name="WP meta fair use 1">{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fair_use |title = Fair use |publisher = Meta-Wiki |access-date = July 14, 2007}}</ref><ref name="WP meta WP images 1">{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Images_on_Wikipedia |title = Images on Wikipedia |access-date = July 14, 2007}}</ref><ref name="IBM visual WP 1">{{cite journal |url=https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/viegas_hicss_visual_wikipedia.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061024012919/https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/viegas_hicss_visual_wikipedia.pdf |archive-date=24 October 2006 |first = Fernanda B. |last = Viégas |title = The Visual Side of Wikipedia |journal = Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research |date = January 3, 2007 |access-date = October 30, 2007}}</ref> Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".<ref name="WP Wales free multi-lingual encyclopedia">[[Jimmy Wales]], [[:mailarchive:wikipedia-l/2005-March/020469.html|"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"]], March 8, 2005, <Wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org></ref> Though each language edition functions more or less independently, some efforts are made to supervise them all. They are coordinated in part by Meta-Wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki devoted to maintaining all its projects (Wikipedia and others).<ref name="WP metawiki maintenance 1">{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org |title = Meta-Wiki |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = March 24, 2009}}</ref> For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia,<ref name="WP meta stats 1">{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Statistics |title = Meta-Wiki Statistics |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = March 24, 2008}}</ref> and it maintains a list of articles every Wikipedia should have.<ref name="WP meta articles on all sites 1">{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have |title = List of articles every Wikipedia should have |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = March 24, 2008}}</ref> The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, and mathematics. It is not rare for articles strongly related to a particular language not to have counterparts in another edition. For example, articles about small towns in the United States might be available only in English, even when they meet the notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects. [[File:User - demography.svg|thumb|left|upright=2.27|Estimation of contributions shares from different regions in the world to different Wikipedia editions<ref name="PLoS One 2012" />]] Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions, in part because those editions do not allow fully automated translation of articles. Articles available in more than one language may offer "interwiki links", which link to the counterpart articles in other editions.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Massa |first1=Paolo |last2=Scrinzi |first2=Federico |date=2013-01-04 |title=Manypedia: Comparing language points of view of Wikipedia communities |url=https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3939 |journal=First Monday |volume=18 |language=en |doi=10.5210/fm.v18i1.3939 |issn=1396-0466}}</ref> A study published by ''[[PLOS One]]'' in 2012 also estimated the share of contributions to different editions of Wikipedia from different regions of the world. It reported that the proportion of the edits made from North America was 51% for the [[English Wikipedia]], and 25% for the [[simple English Wikipedia]].<ref name="PLoS One 2012">{{cite journal |last1 = Yasseri |first1 = Taha |last2 = Sumi |first2 = Robert |last3 = Kertész |first3 = János |author-link3 = János Kertész |title = Circadian Patterns of Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A Demographic Analysis |journal = [[PLOS One]] |date = January 17, 2012 |volume = 7 |issue = 1 |pages = e30091 |doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0030091 |pmid = 22272279 |pmc = 3260192 |arxiv = 1109.1746 |bibcode = 2012PLoSO...730091Y|doi-access = free }}</ref> === English Wikipedia editor numbers === [[File:Editors English Wikipedia History.png|thumb|Number of editors on the English Wikipedia over time.]] On March 1, 2014, ''[[The Economist]]'', in an article titled "The Future of Wikipedia", cited a trend analysis concerning data published by the Wikimedia Foundation stating that "[t]he number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years."<ref name="economist1">{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/news/international/21597959-popular-online-encyclopedia-must-work-out-what-next-wikipeaks |title = The future of Wikipedia: WikiPeaks? |newspaper = The Economist |date = March 1, 2014 |access-date = March 11, 2014}}</ref> The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was cited by ''The Economist'' as substantially in contrast to statistics for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia). ''The Economist'' reported that the number of contributors with an average of five or more edits per month was relatively constant since 2008 for Wikipedia in other languages at approximately 42,000 editors within narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. The number of active editors in English Wikipedia, by sharp comparison, was cited as peaking in 2007 at approximately 50,000 and dropping to 30,000 by the start of 2014. In contrast, the trend analysis published in ''The Economist'' presents Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) as successful in retaining their active editors on a renewable and sustained basis, with their numbers remaining relatively constant at approximately 42,000.<ref name="economist1" /> No comment was made concerning which of the differentiated edit policy standards from Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) would provide a possible alternative to English Wikipedia for effectively ameliorating substantial editor attrition rates on the English-language Wikipedia.<ref>Andrew Lih. ''Wikipedia''. Alternative edit policies at Wikipedia in other languages.</ref> == Reception == {{see also|Academic studies about Wikipedia|Criticism of Wikipedia}} {{update section|date=March 2018}} Various Wikipedians have [[criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive regulation|criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation]], which includes more than fifty policies and nearly 150,000 words {{as of|2014|lc=y|post=.}}<ref name="bureaucracy">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/wikipedia_s_bureaucracy_problem_and_how_to_fix_it.html |title = The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia |last = Jemielniak |first = Dariusz |magazine = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date = June 22, 2014 |access-date = August 18, 2014}}</ref><ref name="Jemielniak">{{cite book |first=Dariusz |last=Jemielniak |author-link=Dariusz Jemielniak |title=Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia |publisher=[[Stanford University Press]] |year=2014 |isbn=978-0804791205 |location=Stanford, CA}}</ref> Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits [[systemic bias]]. In 2010, columnist and journalist [[Edwin Black]] described Wikipedia as being a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".<ref name=EdwinBlack>{{cite news |first=Edwin |last=Black |author-link=Edwin Black |date=April 19, 2010 |work=[[History News Network]] |publisher=[[Columbian College of Arts and Sciences]] |title=Wikipedia—The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge |url=https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160909210831/https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437 |archive-date=September 9, 2016 |access-date=October 21, 2014}}</ref> Articles in ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'' and ''[[The Journal of Academic Librarianship]]'' have criticized Wikipedia's "Undue Weight" policy, concluding that the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather focus on all the major viewpoints on the subject, give less attention to minor ones, and creates omissions that can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Messer-Krusse |first1=Timothy |title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia |url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-undue-weight-of-truth-on-wikipedia/ |work=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |date=February 12, 2012 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161218162359/https://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ |archive-date=December 18, 2016 |access-date=March 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Colón Aguirre |first1=Mónica |last2=Fleming-May |first2=Rachel A. |title="You Just Type in What You Are Looking For": Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia |journal=[[The Journal of Academic Librarianship]] |date=November 2012 |volume=38 |issue=6 |page=392 |doi=10.1016/j.acalib.2012.09.013 |url=https://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |issn=0099-1333 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160419031904/https://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf |archive-date=April 19, 2016 |access-date=March 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Wikipedia experience sparks national debate |url=https://www.bgsu.edu/news/2012/02/wikipedia-experience-sparks-national-debate.html |access-date=March 27, 2014 |work=BGSU News |publisher=[[Bowling Green State University]] |date=February 27, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827120800/https://www.bgsu.edu/news/2012/02/wikipedia-experience-sparks-national-debate.html |archive-date=August 27, 2016}}</ref> Journalists [[Oliver Kamm]] and [[Edwin Black]] alleged (in 2010 and 2011 respectively) that articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic.<ref name=EdwinBlack /><ref name=okw>{{cite news |last1=Kamm |first1=Oliver |author1-link=Oliver Kamm |title=Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds |url=https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece |work=[[The Times]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110814104256/https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece |archive-date=August 14, 2011 |date=August 16, 2007}}</ref> A 2008 article in ''[[Education Next]]'' Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is subject to manipulation and [[spin (propaganda)|spin]].<ref name=Petrilli>{{cite journal |last1=Petrilli |first1=Michael J. |title=Wikipedia or Wickedpedia? |journal=Education Next |date=Spring 2008 |volume=8 |issue=2 |url=https://www.educationnext.org/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/ |access-date=October 22, 2014 |publisher=[[Hoover Institution]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161121024654/https://educationnext.org/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/ |archive-date=November 21, 2016 |department=What Next}}</ref> In 2020, Omer Benjakob and Stephen Harrison noted that "Media coverage of Wikipedia has radically shifted over the past two decades: once cast as an intellectual frivolity, it is now lauded as the 'last bastion of shared reality' online."<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Benjakob|first1=Omer|last2=Harrison|first2=Stephen|date=2020-10-13|chapter=From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades|chapter-url=https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4956/chapter/1879815/From-Anarchy-to-Wikiality-Glaring-Bias-to-Good-Cop|title=Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution|publisher=[[MIT Press]]|language=en|doi=10.7551/mitpress/12366.003.0005|isbn=978-0262360593|doi-access=free}}</ref> In 2022, [[John Stossel]] opined that Wikipedia, a site he financially supported at one time, appears to have gradually taken a significant turn in bias to the political left, specifically on political topics.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.johnstossel.com/wikipedia-bias/ | title=Wikipedia Bias | date=April 27, 2022 }}</ref> In 2006, the ''Wikipedia Watch'' criticism website listed dozens of examples of [[plagiarism]] in the English Wikipedia.<ref name="wwplagiarism" /> === Accuracy of content === {{main|Reliability of Wikipedia}} {{External media | width = 230px | align = right | audio1 = [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-great-book-of-knowledge-part-1-1.2497560 The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1], ''Ideas with [[Paul Kennedy (host)|Paul Kennedy]]'', [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]], January 15, 2014}} Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' are written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844 |title = Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up |magazine = Wired |date = December 15, 2005 |access-date = August 8, 2015 |agency = Associated Press}}</ref> However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and ''Encyclopædia 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."<ref name="GilesJ2005Internet" /> Joseph 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."<ref name="Reagle, pp. 165–166">Reagle, pp. 165–166.</ref> Others raised similar critiques.<ref name="Orlowski2005">{{cite news|last1=Orlowski|first1=Andrew|date=December 16, 2005|title=Wikipedia science 31% more cronky than Britannica's Excellent for Klingon science, though|work=[[The Register]]|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/|access-date=February 25, 2019}}</ref> The findings by ''Nature'' were disputed by ''Encyclopædia Britannica'',<ref name="corporate.britannica.com" /><ref name="nature.com britannica response 1">{{cite web |url=https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060325124447/https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf |archive-date=25 March 2006 |title = Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response |access-date = July 13, 2010}}</ref> and in response, ''Nature'' gave a rebuttal of the points raised by ''Britannica''.<ref name="nature.com">{{cite web |website = Nature |url=https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html |title = Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica |date = March 30, 2006 |access-date = February 25, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515025717/https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html|archive-date=May 15, 2017}}</ref> 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 interval]]s), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small [[sample size determination|sample size]], 42 or 4{{nbsp}}× 10<sup>1</sup> articles compared, vs >10<sup>5</sup> and >10<sup>6</sup> set sizes for ''Britannica'' and the English Wikipedia, respectively).<ref>See author acknowledged comments in response to the citation of the ''Nature'' study, at ''PLoS ONE'', 2014, "Citation of fundamentally flawed ''Nature'' quality 'study' ", In response to T. Yasseri et al. (2012) Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia, Published June 20, 2012, {{doi|10.1371/journal.pone.0038869}}, see {{cite web |url=https://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root%3D80078 |title = Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia |access-date = July 22, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160116210930/https://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=80078 |archive-date = January 16, 2016 |df = mdy-all}}, accessed July 21, 2014.</ref> 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.<ref name="WP general disclaimer 1">{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer |title = Wikipedia:General disclaimer |publisher = English Wikipedia |access-date = April 22, 2008 |date = September 18, 2018}}</ref> Concerns have been raised by ''PC World'' in 2009 regarding the lack of [[accountability]] that results from users' anonymity,<ref name="WikipediaWatch" /> the insertion of false information,<ref name="pcworld WP blunders 1">{{cite web |last = Raphel |first = JR |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html |title = The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders |website = [[PC World]] |access-date = September 2, 2009 |date = August 26, 2009}}</ref> [[vandalism on Wikipedia|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 as well as relevant information being 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.<ref name="tnr experts vigilant in correcting WP 1">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=82eb5d70-13bd-4086-9ec0-cb0e9e8411b3 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080318103017/https://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=82eb5d70-13bd-4086-9ec0-cb0e9e8411b3 |archive-date = March 18, 2008 |title = Cooked Books |first = Tyler |last = Cowen |magazine = The New Republic |date = March 14, 2008 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> [[Amy Bruckman]] has argued that, due to the number of reviewers, "the content of a popular Wikipedia page is actually the most reliable form of information ever created".<ref name="PC 2021">{{cite news |last1=Stuart |first1=S.C. |title=Wikipedia: The Most Reliable Source on the Internet? |url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-the-most-reliable-source-on-the-internet |access-date=27 June 2021 |work=[[PCMag]] |date=3 June 2021 |language=en}}</ref> Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.<ref name="TNY reliability issues 1">{{cite news |first = Stacy |last = Schiff |date = July 31, 2006 |title = Know It All |magazine = [[The New Yorker]] |author-link = Stacy Schiff}}</ref> Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.<ref name="AcademiaAndWikipedia" /> Editors of traditional [[reference work]]s such as the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' have questioned the project's [[utility]] and status as an encyclopedia.<ref name="McHenry_2004" /> Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] has claimed that Wikipedia has largely avoided the problem of "fake news" because the Wikipedia community regularly debates the quality of sources in articles.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606393983/wikipedia-founder-says-internet-users-are-adrift-in-the-fake-news-era|title=Wikipedia Founder Says Internet Users Are Adrift In The 'Fake News' Era|work=NPR.org|access-date=May 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625213220/https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606393983/wikipedia-founder-says-internet-users-are-adrift-in-the-fake-news-era|archive-date=June 25, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> {{External media | width = 210px | align = right | video1 = [https://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881 Inside Wikipedia – Attack of the PR Industry], [[Deutsche Welle]], 7:13 mins<ref name="dw">{{cite web |title = Inside Wikipedia – Attack of the PR Industry |publisher = [[Deutsche Welle]] |date = June 30, 2014 |url = https://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881 |access-date = July 2, 2014 |archive-date = July 1, 2014 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140701152647/http://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881 |url-status = dead }}</ref>}} Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for [[Internet troll]]s, [[spamming|spammer]]s, and various forms of paid advocacy seen as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable online encyclopedia.<ref name="Torsten_Kleinz" /><ref name="citizendium WP trolling issues 1">{{cite web |title = Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version) |url=https://www.citizendium.org/essay.html |website = Citizendium |access-date = October 10, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061011230402/https://www.citizendium.org/essay.html |archive-date = October 11, 2006}}</ref> In response to [[conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia|paid advocacy editing]] and undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article in ''The Wall Street Journal'', to have strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing |url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/06/16/wikipedia-strengthens-rules-against-undisclosed-editing/ |author = Elder, Jeff |newspaper = [[The Wall Street Journal]] |date = June 16, 2014}}</ref> The article stated that: "Beginning Monday [from the date of the article, June 16, 2014], 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.{{'"}}<ref name="ReferenceA" /><ref name="DeathByWikipedia" /><ref name="cnet politicians and WP 1">{{cite web |url = https://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6032713-7.html |title = Politicians notice Wikipedia |website = CNET |author = Kane, Margaret |date = January 30, 2006 |access-date = January 28, 2007 |archive-date = July 30, 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090730044856/http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6032713-7.html |url-status = dead }}</ref><ref name="msnbc MS cash for WP edits 1">{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/16775981 |title = Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit |work = NBC News |author = Bergstein, Brian |author-link = Brian Bergstein |date = January 23, 2007 |access-date = February 1, 2007}}</ref><ref name="Seeing Corporate Fingerprints" /> These issues, among others, had been parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by [[Stephen Colbert]] on ''[[The Colbert Report]]''.<ref name="wikiality" /> 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".<ref name="Nutshell in-depth resources">{{cite book|title=Legal Research in a Nutshell|last=Cohen|first=Morris|author2=Olson, Kent|publisher=Thomson Reuters|year=2010|isbn=978-0314264084|edition=10th|location=St. Paul, MN|pages=[https://archive.org/details/legalre_coh_2010_00_0532/page/32 32–34]|url=https://archive.org/details/legalre_coh_2010_00_0532}}</ref> === Discouragement in education === {{update section|date=December 2020}} Most university [[lecturer]]s discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in [[academia|academic work]], preferring [[primary source]]s;<ref name="WideWorldOfWikipedia" /> some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.<ref name="insidehighered against WP 1">{{cite journal |last1 = Waters |first1 = N.L. |title = Why you can't cite Wikipedia in my class |doi = 10.1145/1284621.1284635 |journal = Communications of the ACM |volume = 50 |issue = 9 |page = 15 |year = 2007 |citeseerx = 10.1.1.380.4996|s2cid = 11757060 }}</ref><ref name="insidehighered wiki no cite">{{cite web |first = Scott |last = Jaschik |title = A Stand Against Wikipedia |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki |website = Inside Higher Ed |date = January 26, 2007 |access-date = January 27, 2007}}</ref> Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.<ref name="AWorkInProgress" /> Wales once (2006 or earlier) said he receives about ten [[email]]s 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.<ref name="Jimmy Wales don't cite WP 1">"Jimmy Wales", ''Biography Resource Center Online''. (Gale, 2006.)</ref> In February 2007, an article in ''[[The Harvard Crimson]]'' newspaper reported that a few of the professors at [[Harvard University]] were including Wikipedia articles in their [[syllabus|syllabi]], although without realizing the articles might change.<ref name="thecrimson wiki debate">{{cite news |last1=Child |first1=Maxwell L. |title=Professors Split on Wiki Debate |url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517305 |work=[[The Harvard Crimson]] |date=February 26, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081220125910/https://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517305 |archive-date=December 20, 2008 |location=Cambridge, MA}}</ref> In June 2007, former president of the [[American Library Association]] [[Michael Gorman (librarian)|Michael Gorman]] condemned Wikipedia, along with [[Google]], 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".<ref name="stothart" /> In contrast, academic writing{{clarify|date=December 2020}} in Wikipedia has evolved in recent years and has been found to increase student interest, personal connection to the product, creativity in material processing, and international collaboration in the learning process.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.quest-cdecjournal.it/focus.php?id=403|title=Wikishtetl: Commemorating Jewish Communities that Perished in the Holocaust through the Wikipedia Platform :: Quest CDEC journal|website=www.quest-cdecjournal.it|date=July 31, 2018|access-date=January 15, 2020}}</ref> ==== Medical information ==== {{see also|Health information on Wikipedia}} On March 5, 2014, Julie Beck writing for ''The Atlantic'' magazine in an article titled "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia", stated that "Fifty percent of physicians look up conditions on the (Wikipedia) site, and some are editing articles themselves to improve the quality of available information."<ref name="Julie Beck 2014">Julie Beck. "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia". ''The Atlantic'', March 5, 2014.</ref> Beck continued to detail in this article new programs of [[Amin Azzam]] at the [[University of San Francisco]] to offer medical school courses to medical students for learning to edit and improve [[health information on Wikipedia|Wikipedia articles on health-related issues]], as well as internal quality control programs within Wikipedia organized by [[James Heilman]] to improve a group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance up to Wikipedia's highest standard of articles using its Featured Article and Good Article peer-review evaluation process.<ref name="Julie Beck 2014" /> In a May 7, 2014, follow-up article in ''The Atlantic'' titled "Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?", Julie Beck quotes WikiProject Medicine's James Heilman as stating: "Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality reference."<ref name="theatlantic.com">{{cite magazine |last = Beck |first = Julie |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/can-wikipedia-ever-be-a-definitive-medical-text/361822/ |title = Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text? |magazine = The Atlantic |date = May 7, 2014 |access-date = June 14, 2014}}</ref> 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 one percent' of Wikipedia's medical articles have passed."<ref name="theatlantic.com" /> === Coverage of topics and systemic bias === {{see also|Notability in the English Wikipedia|Criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage}} {{update|[[:d:Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia]]|date=March 2017}} 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 [[byte#Multiple-byte units|terabyte]]s of disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed encyclopedia.<ref name="WP advantages over trad media 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:PAPER}}</ref> 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 in Wikipedia|deletionism and inclusionism]]).<ref name="Economist disagreements not uncommon">{{cite news |title = The battle for Wikipedia's soul |url=https://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354 |newspaper = The Economist |date = March 6, 2008 |access-date = March 7, 2008 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref><ref name="telegraph WP torn apart 1">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart |first = Ian |last = Douglas |work = The Daily Telegraph |location = London |date = November 10, 2007 |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3354752/Wikipedia-an-online-encyclopedia-torn-apart.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3354752/Wikipedia-an-online-encyclopedia-torn-apart.html |archive-date=2022-01-10 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date = November 23, 2010}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic. The "Wikipedia is not censored" policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of [[online petition on Wikipedia Muhammad article|images of Muhammad]] in the [[English Wikipedia|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<ref name="Taylor" /> and Pakistan,<ref name="washington post state censorship 1">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052005073.html |title = Pakistan blocks YouTube a day after shutdown of Facebook over Muhammad issue |first = Karin |last = Bruilliard |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = May 21, 2010 |access-date = October 24, 2011}}</ref> amongst other countries. [[File:Wikipedia content by subject.png|thumb|upright=2.27|Pie chart of Wikipedia content by subject {{as of|2008|1|lc=y}}<ref name=Kittur2009 />]] 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:<ref name="Kittur2009" /> * Culture and 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 Applied Science: 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 number 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.<ref name="NYT subjects and articles">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/theater/editing-wikipedia-at-the-new-york-public-library-for-the-performing-arts.html |title = Wikipedia's Deep Dive Into a Library Collection |last = Petrusich |first = Amanda |work = The New York Times |date = October 20, 2011 |access-date = October 28, 2011}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Lam |first1 = Shyong (Tony) K.|first2 = Anuradha |last2 = Uduwage |first3 = Zhenhua |last3 = Dong |first4 = Shilad |last4 = Sen |first5 = David R. |last5 = Musicant |first6 = Loren |last6 = Terveen |first7 = John |last7 = Riedl |title = WP: Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance |journal = WikiSym 2011 |date = October 3–5, 2011 |page = 4 |url=https://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf}}</ref> ==== Coverage of topics and selection bias ==== Research conducted by Mark Graham of the [[Oxford Internet Institute]] in 2009 indicated that the geographic distribution of article topics is highly uneven. Africa is the most underrepresented.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Graham |first1=Mark |title=Mapping the Geographies of Wikipedia Content |url=https://zerogeography.net/post/144973716228/mapping-the-geographies-of-wikipedia-content |website=Zerogeography |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161002051150/https://zerogeography.net/post/144973716228/mapping-the-geographies-of-wikipedia-content |archive-date=October 2, 2016}}</ref> Across 30 language editions of Wikipedia, historical articles and sections are generally Eurocentric and focused on recent events.<ref>{{cite book |last = Strohmaier |first = Markus |date = March 6, 2017 |title = Multilingual historical narratives on Wikipedia |chapter = KAT50 Society, Culture |doi = 10.7802/1411 |quote = Wikipedia narratives about national histories (i) are skewed towards more recent events (recency bias) and (ii) are distributed unevenly across the continents with significant focus on the history of European countries (Eurocentric bias). |publisher = GESIS Data Archive}}</ref> An editorial in ''[[The Guardian]]'' in 2014 claimed that more effort went into providing references for [[list of pornographic performers by decade|a list of female porn actors]] than a [[list of women writers]].<ref name=GuardianAugust2014>{{cite news |title=The Guardian view on Wikipedia: evolving truth |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/07/guardian-view-wikipedia-evolving-truth |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=August 7, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161112212758/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/07/guardian-view-wikipedia-evolving-truth |archive-date=November 12, 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> Data has also shown that Africa-related material often faces omission; a knowledge gap that a July 2018 Wikimedia conference in [[Cape Town]] sought to address.<ref name="memeb"/> ==== Systemic biases ==== When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, [[systemic bias]] may arise, due to the demographic backgrounds of the editors. In 2011, Wales claimed that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, citing for example "biographies of famous women through history and issues surrounding early childcare".<ref name="wiki-women">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia seeks women to balance its 'geeky' editors |first = Kevin |last = Rawlinson |newspaper = The Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-seeks-women-to-balance-its-geeky-editors-2333605.html |date = August 8, 2011 |access-date = April 5, 2012}}</ref> The October 22, 2013, essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's ''Technology Review'' titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and [[criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive regulation|policy creep]] on the [[#English Wikipedia editor numbers|downward trend in the number of editors]].<ref name="Simonite-2013" /> Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally,{{vague|date=August 2019}} for example favoring certain nationalities, ethnicities or majority religions.<ref name="Quilter">{{cite web |url=https://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=laura_quilter |title = Systemic Bias in Wikipedia: What It Looks Like, and How to Deal with It |author = Quilter, Laura |publisher = University of Massachusetts–Amherst |date = October 24, 2012 |access-date = November 26, 2012}}</ref> It may more specifically follow the biases of [[Internet culture]], inclining to be young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases, intrinsically, may include an overemphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events.<ref name="Quilter" />{{better source needed|date=June 2022}}<!--cited source is a PowerPoint Presentation, with no evidence of having been peer reviewed or accepted at a conference--> [[Taha Yasseri]] of the [[University of Oxford]], in 2013, studied the statistical trends of systemic bias at Wikipedia introduced by editing conflicts and their resolution.<ref>{{cite magazine |date=July 17, 2013 |title=Edit Wars Reveal The 10 Most Controversial Topics on Wikipedia |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/07/17/177320/edit-wars-reveal-the-10-most-controversial-topics-on-wikipedia/ |magazine=[[MIT Technology Review]] |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]}}</ref><ref name="autogenerated3">{{cite book |ssrn = 2269392 |editor1=Fichman, P. |editor2=Hara, N. |publisher=Scarecrow Press |year=2014 |arxiv = 1305.5566 |last1 = Yasseri |first1 = Taha |last2 = Spoerri |first2 = Anselm |last3 = Graham |first3 = Mark |last4 = Kertész |first4 = János|title= The Most Controversial Topics in Wikipedia: A Multilingual and Geographical Analysis |doi= 10.2139/SSRN.2269392 |s2cid = 12133330 |author1-link=Taha Yasseri |author4-link=János Kertész}}</ref> His research examined the [[counterproductive work behavior]] of edit warring. Yasseri contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of counterproductive behavior at Wikipedia and relied instead on the [[statistical measurement]] of detecting "reverting/reverted pairs" or "mutually reverting edit pairs". Such a "mutually reverting edit pair" is defined where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to revert the first editor in the "mutually reverting edit pairs". The results were tabulated for several language versions of Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia's three largest conflict rates belonged to the articles [[George W. Bush]], [[anarchism]], and [[Muhammad]].<ref name="autogenerated3" /> By comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the [[Oxford]] study were for the articles covering [[Croatia]], [[Scientology]], and [[9/11 conspiracy theories]].<ref name="autogenerated3"/> Researchers from [[Washington University]] developed a statistical model to measure systematic bias in the behavior of Wikipedia's users regarding controversial topics. The authors focused on behavioral changes of the encyclopedia's administrators after assuming the post, writing that systematic bias occurred after the fact.<ref> {{cite conference |url=https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2505566 |title = Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: How Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion |last1 = Das |first1 = Sanmay |last2 = Allen |first2 = Lavoie |last3 = Malik |first3 = Magdon-Ismail |date = November 1, 2013 |publisher = ACM |book-title = CIKM '13 Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management |pages = 1097–1106 |location = San Francisco |doi = 10.1145/2505515.2505566 |isbn = 978-1450322638}} </ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Das |first1 = Sanmay |last2 = Allen |first2 = Lavoie |last3 = Malik |first3 = Magdon-Ismail |title = Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: How Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion |journal = ACM Transactions on the Web |volume = 10 |issue = 4 |pages = 24 |date = December 24, 2016 |doi = 10.1145/3001937|s2cid = 12585047 }} </ref> === Explicit content === {{see also|Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia|Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons}} {{for|the government censorship of Wikipedia|Censorship of Wikipedia}} {{self reference|For Wikipedia's policy concerning censorship, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored]]}} Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information about graphic content. Articles depicting what some critics have called objectionable content (such as [[feces]], [[cadaver]], [[human penis]], [[vulva]], and [[nudity]]) contain graphic pictures and detailed information easily available to anyone with access to the internet, including children. The site also includes [[sexual content]] such as images and videos of [[masturbation]] and [[ejaculation]], illustrations of [[zoophilia]], and photos from [[hardcore pornography|hardcore pornographic]] films in its articles. It also has non-sexual [[child nudity|photographs of nude children]]. The Wikipedia article about ''[[Virgin Killer]]—''a 1976 album from the [[music of Germany|German]] [[rock music|rock]] [[rock band|band]] [[Scorpions (band)|Scorpions]]—features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked [[preadolescence#Prepubescence, puberty, and age range|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 provider]]s in the United Kingdom after the [[Internet Watch Foundation]] (IWF) decided the album cover was a potentially illegal indecent image and added the article's URL to a "blacklist" it supplies to British internet service providers.<ref name="Register ISP censorship">{{cite news |title = Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover |first = Cade |last = Metz |work = [[The Register]] |date = December 7, 2008 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia |access-date = May 10, 2009}}</ref> 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 [[United States obscenity law|US federal obscenity law]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh |title = Wikipedia rejects child porn accusation |date = April 29, 2010 |work = The Sydney Morning Herald |access-date = May 14, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170902180523/https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh |archive-date = September 2, 2017 |url-status=live |df = mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="Inquirer child abuse allegations">{{cite news |last = Farrell |first = Nick |title = Wikipedia denies child abuse allegations: Co-founder grassed the outfit to the FBI |newspaper = The Inquirer |date = April 29, 2010 |url=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1603521/wikipedia-denies-child-abuse-allegations |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100501174521/https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1603521/wikipedia-denies-child-abuse-allegations |url-status = unfit |archive-date = May 1, 2010 |access-date = October 9, 2010}}</ref> 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 [[child pornography laws in the United States#Section 1466A|PROTECT Act of 2003]].<ref name="The Register-April" /> That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are [[obscenity#United States obscenity law|obscene under American law]].<ref name="The Register-April" /> Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.<ref name="TET child porn accusations">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia blasts co-founder's accusations of child porn on website |date = April 29, 2010 |work = The Economic Times |location = India |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/internet/Wikipedia-blasts-co-founders-accusations-of-child-porn-on-website/articleshow/5871943.cms |access-date = April 29, 2010}}</ref> [[Wikimedia Foundation]] spokesman Jay Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation,<ref name="AFP" /> saying that Wikipedia did not have "material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it."<ref name="AFP" /> 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".<ref name="BBC News Wales cedes rights">{{cite news |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm |title = Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights |work = BBC News |date = May 10, 2010 |access-date = May 19, 2010}}</ref> Critics, including [[Wikipediocracy]], noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.<ref name="XBIZ">{{cite news |url = https://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017 |work = XBIZ.com |date = September 17, 2013 |first = Lila |last = Gray |title = Wikipedia Gives Porn a Break |access-date = November 10, 2013 |archive-date = June 16, 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170616073432/http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017 |url-status = dead }}</ref> === Privacy === One [[privacy]] concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "[[public figure]]" in the eyes of the law.<ref>{{cite book |last1=McStay |first1=Andrew |title=Privacy and Philosophy: New Media and Affective Protocol |date=2014 |publisher=[[Peter Lang (publisher)|Peter Lang]] |isbn=978-1454191636 |doi=10.3726/978-1-4539-1336-9 |series=Digital Formation |volume=86}}</ref><ref group=note>See [https://web.archive.org/web/20101130081035/https://texaspress.com/index.php/publications/law-media/731-law-a-the-media-in-texas--libel-cases "Libel"] by David McHam for the legal distinction.</ref> 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 a relatively unimportant individual 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 [[Tron (hacker)|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.<ref name="heise Tron public issue 1">{{cite news |last1=Kleinz |first1=Torsten |title=Gericht weist einstweilige Verfügung gegen Wikimedia Deutschland ab [Update] |url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Gericht-weist-einstweilige-Verfuegung-gegen-Wikimedia-Deutschland-ab-Update-173587.html |work=Heise Online |publisher=[[Heinz Heise]] |date=September 2, 2006 |language=de |trans-title=Court rejects preliminary injunction against Wikimedia Germany [Update] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120913054949/https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Gericht-weist-einstweilige-Verfuegung-gegen-Wikimedia-Deutschland-ab-Update-173587.html |archive-date=September 13, 2012}}</ref> Wikipedia has a "{{visible anchor|Volunteer Response Team}}" that uses Znuny, a [[free and open-source software]] fork of [[OTRS]]<ref>[[meta:Volunteer Response Team|Meta-wiki on Volunteer Response Team]]</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title = IT Service Management Software |url=https://www.otrs.com/en/ |publisher = OTRS.com |access-date = June 9, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131030215341/https://www.otrs.com/en/ |archive-date = October 30, 2013 |df = mdy-all}}</ref> === Sexism === {{main|Gender bias on Wikipedia}} Wikipedia was described in 2015 as harboring a battleground culture of [[sexism]] and [[harassment]].<ref name="Paling">{{cite web |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ |title = Wikipedia's Hostility to Women |last = Paling |first = Emma |date = October 21, 2015 |website = The Atlantic |access-date = October 24, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Auerbach |first1 = David |title = Encyclopedia Frown |url=https://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html |journal = Slate |access-date = October 24, 2015 |date = December 11, 2014}}</ref> The perceived toxic attitudes and tolerance of violent and abusive language were reasons put forth in 2013 for the gender gap in Wikipedia editorship.<ref name="CSM-misogyny">{{cite journal |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2013/0801/In-UK-rising-chorus-of-outrage-over-online-misogyny |title = In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny |journal = Christian Science Monitor |date = August 2013}}</ref> [[Edit-a-thon]]s have been held to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kueppers|first1=Courtney|last2=Journal-Constitution|first2=The Atlanta|title=High Museum to host virtual Wikipedia edit-a-thon to boost entries about women|url=https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/high-museum-host-virtual-wikipedia-edit-thon-boost-entries-about-women/TxxMEMGWHqFfaNMpV8y9DN/|access-date=October 24, 2020|newspaper=The Atlanta Journal-Constitution|language=en}}</ref> A comprehensive 2008 survey, published in 2016, found significant gender differences in: confidence in expertise, discomfort with editing, and response to critical feedback. "Women reported less confidence in their expertise, expressed greater discomfort with editing (which typically involves conflict), and reported more negative responses to critical feedback compared to men."<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Julia B. Bear & Benjamin Collier |title=Where are the Women in Wikipedia ? – Understanding the Different Psychological Experiences of Men and Women in Wikipedia |journal=Sex Roles |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer Science]] |date=4 January 2016|volume=74 |issue=5–6 |pages=254–265 |doi=10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y |s2cid=146452625 }}</ref> == Operation == === Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia movement affiliates === {{main|Wikimedia Foundation}} [[File:Katherine Maher.jpg|thumb|[[Katherine Maher]] became the third executive director of Wikimedia in 2016, succeeding [[Lila Tretikov]], who had taken over from [[Sue Gardner]] in 2014.|alt=Katherine Maher in 2016. She is seen with light skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. She is seen wearing a black shirt.]] 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 foundation relies on public contributions and grants to fund its mission.<ref name="financialstatements">{{cite web |url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/ac/FINAL_10_11From_KPMG.pdf |title = Wikimedia Foundation – Financial Statements – June 30, 2011 and 2010 |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = June 5, 2016}}</ref> The foundation's 2013 IRS Form 990 shows revenue of $39.7 million and expenses of almost $29 million, with assets of $37.2 million and liabilities of about $2.3 million.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/5c/Form_990_-_FY_12-13_-_Public.pdf |title = Wikimedia Foundation IRS Form 990 |access-date = October 14, 2014}}</ref> In May 2014, Wikimedia Foundation named [[Lila Tretikov]] as its second executive director, taking over for Sue Gardner.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/WMF_announces_new_ED_Lila_Tretikov |title = Press releases/WMF announces new ED Lila Tretikov |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |date = May 31, 2018|access-date = June 14, 2014}}</ref> The ''Wall Street Journal'' reported on May 1, 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."<ref name="Jeff Elder 2014">Jeff Elder, ''The Wall Street Journal'', May 1, 2014, "Wikipedia's New Chief: From Soviet Union to World's Sixth-Largest Site".</ref><ref name="nytimes.com">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/business/media/open-source-software-specialist-selected-as-executive-director-of-wikipedia.html?_r=0 |title = Media: Open-Source Software Specialist Selected as Executive Director of Wikipedia |first = Noam |last = Cohen |author-link=Noam Cohen |date = May 1, 2014 |work = The New York Times}}</ref> 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 ([[conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia|paid advocacy]]) as a priority. 'We are really pushing toward more transparency{{nbsp}}... 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.<ref name="Jeff Elder 2014" /> Following the departure of Tretikov from Wikipedia due to issues concerning the use of the "superprotection" feature which some language versions of Wikipedia have adopted, Katherine Maher became the third executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation in June 2016.<ref>Dimitra Kessenides. Bloomberg News Weekly. December 26, 2016. "Is Wikipedia 'Woke'".</ref> Maher has stated that one of her priorities would be the issue of editor harassment endemic to Wikipedia as identified by the Wikipedia board in December. Maher stated regarding the harassment issue that: "It establishes a sense within the community that this is a priority{{nbsp}}... (and that correction requires that) it has to be more than words."<ref>Dimitra Kessenides. Bloomberg News Weekly. December 26, 2016, p. 74. "Is Wikipedia 'Woke'".</ref> Wikipedia is also supported by many organizations and groups that are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation but independently-run, called [[Wikimedia movement affiliates]]. These include [[list of Wikimedia chapters|Wikimedia chapters]] (which are national or sub-national organizations, such as Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimédia France), thematic organizations (such as Amical Wikimedia for the [[Catalan language]] community), and user groups. These affiliates participate in the promotion, development, and funding of Wikipedia. === Software operations and support === {{see also|MediaWiki}} The operation of Wikipedia depends on [[MediaWiki]], a custom-made, [[free software|free]] and [[open-source software|open source]] [[wiki software]] platform written in [[PHP]] and built upon the [[MySQL]] database system.<ref name="nedworks database system">{{cite web |url=https://www.nedworks.org/~mark/presentations/san/Wikimedia%20architecture.pdf |title = Wikimedia Architecture |first = Mark |last = Bergsma |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = June 27, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090303204708/https://www.nedworks.org/~mark/presentations/san/Wikimedia%20architecture.pdf |archive-date = March 3, 2009}}</ref> The software incorporates programming features such as a [[macro (computer science)|macro language]], [[variable (programming)|variable]]s, a [[transclusion]] system for [[web template system|template]]s, and [[URL redirection]]. MediaWiki is licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]] (GPL) 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 [[PhpWiki|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 [[exponential growth|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<ref name="WP extensions installed">{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version |title = Version: Installed extensions |date = September 28, 2018 |access-date=August 18, 2014}}</ref> to extend the functionality of the MediaWiki software. In April 2005, a [[Lucene]] extension<ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Lucene_search |title = Lucene search: Internal search function returns to service |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |first = Michael |last = Snow |access-date = February 26, 2009 |date = December 29, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-April/016297.html |title = [Wikitech-l] Lucene search |first = Brion |last = Vibber |access-date = February 26, 2009}}</ref> was added to MediaWiki's built-in search and Wikipedia switched from [[MySQL]] to Lucene for searching. Lucene was later replaced by CirrusSearch which is based on [[Elasticsearch]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Extension:CirrusSearch – MediaWiki|url=https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CirrusSearch|access-date=2021-04-10|website=MediaWiki.org|language=en}}</ref> In July 2013, after extensive beta testing, a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) extension, [[VisualEditor]], was opened to public use.<ref name="thenextwebve">{{cite news |newspaper = TNW | Insider |url=https://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/07/02/wikimedia-rolls-out-its-wysiwyg-visual-editor-for-logged-in-users-accessing-wikipedia-articles-in-english/ |title = Wikimedia rolls out WYSIWYG visual editor for logged-in users accessing Wikipedia articles in English |first = Emil |last = Protalinski |date = July 2, 2013 |access-date = July 6, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/10196578/Wikipedia-introduces-new-features-to-entice-editors.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/10196578/Wikipedia-introduces-new-features-to-entice-editors.html |archive-date=2022-01-10 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |newspaper = The Daily Telegraph |title = Wikipedia introduces new features to entice editors |author = Curtis, Sophie |date = July 23, 2013 |access-date = August 18, 2013}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref name="TheEconomistVE">{{cite news |newspaper = [[The Economist]] |url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/12/changes-wikipedia |title = Changes at Wikipedia: Seeing things |author = L. M. |date = December 13, 2011 |access-date = July 28, 2013}}</ref><ref name="softpedia-best">{{cite web |website = [[Softpedia]] |url=https://news.softpedia.com/news/Wikipedia-s-New-VisualEditor-Is-the-Best-Update-in-Years-and-You-Can-Make-It-Better-365072.shtml |title = Wikipedia's New VisualEditor Is the Best Update in Years and You Can Make It Better |first = Lucian |last = Parfeni |date = July 2, 2013 |access-date = July 30, 2013}}</ref> It was met with much rejection and criticism, and was described as "slow and buggy".<ref name="Orlowski, Andrew">{{cite web |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/01/wikipedians_reject_wysiwyg_editor/ |title = Wikipedians say no to Jimmy's 'buggy' WYSIWYG editor |author = Orlowski, Andrew |date = August 1, 2013 |website = The Register |access-date = August 18, 2013}}</ref> The feature was changed from opt-out to opt-in afterward. === Automated editing === {{main|Wikipedia bots}} Computer programs called [[Internet bot|bot]]s have often been used to perform simple and repetitive tasks, such as correcting common misspellings and stylistic issues, or to start articles such as geography entries in a standard format from statistical data.<ref>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Bots|Wikipedia Bot Information}}</ref><ref name="meetbots">{{cite news |title = Meet the 'bots' that edit Wikipedia |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18892510 |first = Daniel |last = Nasaw |work = BBC News |date = July 24, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last = Halliday |first = Josh |author2 = Arthur, Charles |title = Boot up: The Wikipedia vandalism police, Apple analysts, and more |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2012/jul/26/boot-up-wikipedia-apple |newspaper = [[The Guardian]] |date = July 26, 2012 |access-date = September 5, 2012}}</ref> One controversial contributor, {{ill|Sverker Johansson|sv}}, creating articles with his [[Lsjbot|bot]] was reported to create up to 10,000 articles on the Swedish Wikipedia on certain days.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://online.wsj.com/articles/for-this-author-10-000-wikipedia-articles-is-a-good-days-work-1405305001|title=For This Author, 10,000 Wikipedia Articles Is a Good Day's Work|last=Jervell|first=Ellen Emmerentze|date=July 13, 2014|work=The Wall Street Journal|access-date=August 18, 2014}}</ref> Additionally, there are bots designed to automatically notify editors when they make common editing errors (such as unmatched quotes or unmatched parentheses).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-23/Abuse_Filter |title = Wikipedia signpost: Abuse Filter is enabled |publisher = English Wikipedia |date = March 23, 2009 |access-date = July 13, 2010}}</ref><!-- And prevent the creation of links to particular websites. Bots also find and revert changes by suspicious new accounts, enforce bans against shared [[IP address]]es or the use of [[sockpuppet (Internet)|sockpuppet]]s by a banned person operating from an alternate IP address.(unsourced/unverifiable) --> Edits falsely identified by bots as the work of a banned editor can be restored by other editors. An anti-vandal bot is programmed to detect and revert vandalism quickly.<ref name="meetbots" /> Bots are able to indicate edits from particular accounts or IP address ranges, as occurred at the time of the shooting down of the [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17|MH17 jet]] incident in July 2014 when it was reported that edits were made via IPs controlled by the Russian government.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201407211855-0023944 |title = MH17 Wikipedia entry edited from Russian government IP address |publisher = Al Jazeera |access-date = July 22, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161116002928/https://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201407211855-0023944 |archive-date = November 16, 2016 |df = mdy |date = July 21, 2014}}</ref> Bots on Wikipedia must be approved before activation.<ref>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Bot policy|Wikipedia's policy on bots}}</ref> According to [[Andrew Lih]], the current expansion of Wikipedia to millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the use of such bots.<ref>Andrew Lih (2009). ''[[The Wikipedia Revolution]]'', chapter ''Then came the Bots'', pp. 99–106.</ref> === Hardware operations and support === {{see also|Wikimedia Foundation#Hardware}} Wikipedia receives between 25,000 and 60,000-page requests per second, depending on the time of the day.<ref name="WP tools requests per day">[https://web.archive.org/web/20081028185204/https://toolserver.org/~leon/stats/reqstats/reqstats-monthly.png "Monthly request statistics"], Wikimedia. Retrieved October 31, 2008.</ref>{{update inline|date=July 2019}} {{As of|2021|post=,}} page requests are first passed to a front-end layer of [[Varnish (software)|Varnish]] caching servers and back-end layer caching is done by [[Apache Traffic Server]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Varnish|title=Varnish – Wikitech|website=wikitech.wikimedia.org|access-date=May 12, 2019}}</ref> Further statistics, based on a publicly available 3-month Wikipedia access trace, are available.<ref name="globule access trace">{{cite web |url = https://www.globule.org/publi/WWADH_comnet2009.html |title = Wikipedia Workload Analysis for Decentralized Hosting |author = Guido Urdaneta, Guillaume Pierre and Maarten van Steen |publisher = Elsevier Computer Networks 53 (11), pp. 1830–1845, June 2009 |access-date = June 5, 2016 |archive-date = May 6, 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160506075037/http://www.globule.org/publi/WWADH_comnet2009.html |url-status = dead }}</ref> Requests that cannot be served from the Varnish 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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-01-12 |title=Front-End Performance Checklist 2021 (PDF, Apple Pages, MS Word) |url=https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2021/01/front-end-performance-2021-free-pdf-checklist/ |access-date=2022-04-26 |website=Smashing Magazine |language=en}}</ref> [[File:Wikipedia webrequest flow 2020.png|alt=Diagram showing flow of data between Wikipedia's servers.|thumb|Overview of system architecture {{as of|2020|04|lc=on}}]] Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated [[Computer cluster|clusters]] of [[Linux]] servers with [[Debian]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Debian – Wikitech|url=https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Debian|access-date=2021-04-09|website=wikitech.wikimedia.org|language=en}}</ref> {{As of|2009|12|post=,}} there were 300 in Florida and 44 in [[Amsterdam]].<ref name="servers" /> By January 22, 2013, Wikipedia had migrated its primary data center to an [[Equinix]] facility in [[Ashburn, Virginia]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-center-in-ashburn-virginia/ |title = Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia |first = Guillaume |last = Palmier |date = January 19, 2013 |publisher = WMF |access-date = June 5, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/01/14/its-official-equinix-ashburn-is-wikimedias-home/ |title = It's Official: Ashburn is Wikipedia's New Home |first = Jason |last = Verge |publisher = Data Center Knowledge |access-date = June 5, 2016 |date = January 14, 2013}}</ref> In 2017, Wikipedia installed a caching cluster in an Equinix facility in [[Singapore]], the first of its kind in Asia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T156028|title=⚓ T156028 Name Asia Cache DC site|website=Wikimedia Phabricator|access-date=May 12, 2019}}</ref> === Internal research and operational development === Following growing amounts of incoming donations exceeding seven digits in 2013 as recently reported,<ref name="Simonite-2013" /> the Foundation has reached a threshold of assets which qualify its consideration under the principles of [[industrial organization]] economics to indicate the need for the re-investment of donations into the internal research and development of the Foundation.<ref name=autogenerated5>{{cite book |last1=Scherer |first1=Frederic M. |author1-link=Frederic M. Scherer |title=Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance |date=2009 |publisher=Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, [[University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign]] |orig-date=1970 |ssrn=1496716}}</ref> 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 to ameliorate issues of editor attrition, which have met with limited success.<ref name="Simonite-2013" /><ref name="Orlowski, Andrew" /> 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.<ref name="Patents, Citations pp 89-153">''Patents, Citations, and Innovations'', by Adam B. Jaffe, Manuel Trajtenberg, pp. 89–153.</ref> At the 2013 level of contributions for Wikimedia presently documented as 45 million dollars, the computed budget level recommended by Jaffe and Caballero for reinvestment into internal research and development is between 1.8 million and 11.3 million dollars annually.<ref name="Patents, Citations pp 89-153" /> In 2016, the level of contributions were reported by'' Bloomberg News'' as being at $77 million annually, updating the Jaffe estimates for the higher level of support to between $3.08 million and $19.2 million annually.<ref name="Patents, Citations pp 89-153" /> === Internal news publications === 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.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 |title = A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side |first = Noam |last = Cohen |author-link=Noam Cohen |work = The New York Times |date = March 5, 2007 |access-date = October 18, 2008}}</ref> It covers news and events from the site, as well as major events from other [[Wikimedia project]]s, such as [[Wikimedia Commons]]. Similar publications are the German-language ''Kurier'', and the Portuguese-language ''Correio da Wikipédia''. Other past and present community news publications on English Wikipedia include the ''Wikiworld'' webcomic, 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 several publications from the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and multilingual publications such as Wikimedia Diff and ''This Month in Education''. === The Wikipedia Library === {{for|information for Wikipedia editors|Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library|selfref=yes}} The Wikipedia Library is a resource for Wikipedia editors which provides free access to a wide range of [[Electronic publishing|digital publications]], so that they can consult and cite these while editing the encyclopedia.<ref name="orlowitz">{{cite journal |last1=Orlowitz |first1=Jake |title=The Wikipedia Library : the biggest encyclopedia needs a digital library and we are building it |journal=JLIS.it |date=2018 |volume=9 |issue=3 |doi=10.4403/jlis.it-12505 |access-date=}}</ref><ref name=bna>{{cite news |last1=The British Newspaper Archive |title=Working with Wikipedia to bring history facts to light |url=https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2014/07/18/working-with-wikipedia-to-bring-history-facts-to-light/ |access-date=26 October 2021 |work=blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk |date=18 July 2014}}</ref> Over 60 publishers have partnered with The Wikipedia Library to provide access to their resources: when [[ICE Publishing]] joined in 2020, a spokesman said "By enabling free access to our content for Wikipedia editors, we hope to further the research community's resources – creating and updating Wikipedia entries on civil engineering which are read by thousands of monthly readers."<ref name="hall">{{cite web |last1=Hall |first1=Sam |title=ICE Publishing partners with The Wikipedia Library |url=https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/ice-news/106-wikipedia-library |website=ICE Virtual LIbrary |access-date=26 October 2021 |language=en |date=24 January 2020}}</ref> == Access to content == === Content licensing === When the project was started in 2001, all text in Wikipedia was covered by the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] (GFDL), a [[copyleft]] license permitting the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work.<ref name="WP copyright and commerciality 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:Copyrights}}</ref> The GFDL was created for software manuals that come with [[free software]] programs licensed under the GPL. This made it a poor choice for a general reference work: for example, the GFDL requires the reprints of materials from Wikipedia to come with a full copy of the GFDL text. In December 2002, the [[Creative Commons license]] was released: it was specifically designed for creative works in general, not just for software manuals. The license gained popularity among bloggers and others distributing creative works on the Web. The Wikipedia project sought the switch to the Creative Commons.<ref name="WPF switch to CC">{{cite web |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update |title = Resolution:License update |year = 2007 |first = Walter |last = Vermeir |publisher = Wikizine |access-date = December 4, 2007}}</ref> Because the two licenses, GFDL and Creative Commons, were incompatible, in November 2008, following the request of the project, the [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF) released a new version of the GFDL designed specifically to allow Wikipedia to {{srlink|Wikipedia:Licensing update|relicense its content to CC BY-SA}} by August 1, 2009. (A new version of the 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.<ref name="voteresult" /><ref name="MW licensing QA">{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers |title = Licensing update/Questions and Answers |website = Wikimedia Meta |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = February 15, 2009}}</ref><ref name="MW licensing timeline 1">{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline |title = Licensing_update/Timeline |website = Wikimedia Meta |publisher = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = April 5, 2009}}</ref><ref name="WP blog license migration">{{cite web |url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2009/05/21/wikimedia-community-approves-license-migration |title = Wikimedia community approves license migration |website = Wikimedia Foundation |access-date = May 21, 2009}}</ref> 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 [[copyright law of Japan|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.<ref name="NYT photos on WP">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html |title = Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos |date = July 19, 2009 |last = Cohen |first = Noam |author-link=Noam Cohen |work = [[The New York Times]] |access-date = March 9, 2013}}</ref> 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.<ref name="reuters French defamation case">{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSL0280486220071102 |title = Wikipedia cleared in French defamation case |work = Reuters |date = November 2, 2007 |access-date = November 2, 2007}}</ref><ref name="ars tech WP dumb suing case">{{cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080502-dumb-idea-suing-wikipedia-for-calling-you-dumb.html |title = Dumb idea: suing Wikipedia for calling you "dumb" |first = Nate |last = Anderson |website = Ars Technica |date = May 2, 2008 |access-date = May 4, 2008}}</ref> === {{anchor|Reusing Wikipedia's content}}Methods of access === 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 the Wikipedia website. * '''Websites''': Thousands of "[[mirror site]]s" 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 [[mobile device|hand-held device]]s, including both [[Android (operating system)|Android]] and [[iOS]] devices (see [[Wikipedia App|Wikipedia apps]]). (see also [[#Mobile access|Mobile access]].) * '''Search engines''': Some web [[search engine]]s make special use of Wikipedia content when displaying search results: examples include [[Microsoft Bing]] (via technology gained from [[Powerset (company)|Powerset]])<ref name="bing WP research and referencing" /> and [[DuckDuckGo]]. * '''Compact discs, DVDs''': Collections of Wikipedia articles have been published on [[optical disc]]s. An English version, 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, contained about 2,000 articles.<ref name="wikipediaondvd authorized 1">[https://www.wikipediaondvd.com/ "Wikipedia on DVD"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130603205800/https://www.wikipediaondvd.com/ |date=June 3, 2013}} Linterweb. Retrieved June 1, 2007. "Linterweb is authorized to make a commercial use of the Wikipedia trademark restricted to the selling of the Encyclopedia CDs and DVDs".</ref><ref name="wikipediaondvd commercially available 1">[https://www.wikipediaondvd.com/site.php?temp=buy "Wikipedia 0.5 Available on a CD-ROM"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130503073535/https://www.wikipediaondvd.com/site.php?temp=buy |date=May 3, 2013}} ''Wikipedia on DVD''. Linterweb. "The DVD or CD-ROM version 0.5 was commercially available for purchase." Retrieved June 1, 2007.</ref> The Polish-language version contains nearly 240,000 articles.<ref name="WM polish WP on dvd">{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polska_Wikipedia_na_DVD_%28z_Helionem%29/en |title = Polish Wikipedia on DVD |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> There are German- and Spanish-language versions as well.<ref name="WP german on dvd 1">{{cite web |url=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DVD |title = Wikipedia:DVD |access-date = December 26, 2008 |date = July 31, 2018}}</ref><ref name="python.org CDPedia Argentina 1">{{cite web |url=https://python.org.ar/pyar/Proyectos/CDPedia |title=CDPedia (Python Argentina) |access-date=July 7, 2011 |archive-date=July 2, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110702023520/http://python.org.ar/pyar/Proyectos/CDPedia |url-status=dead }}</ref> Also, "Wikipedia for Schools", the Wikipedia series of CDs / DVDs produced by Wikipedians and [[SOS Children's Villages UK|SOS Children]], is a free, hand-checked, non-commercial selection from Wikipedia targeted around the [[National Curriculum (UK)|UK National Curriculum]] and intended to be useful for much of the English-speaking world.<ref name="WP CD selection 1" /> The project is available online; an equivalent print encyclopedia would require roughly 20 volumes. * '''Printed books''': There are efforts to put a select subset of Wikipedia's articles into printed book form.<ref name="WP into books 1">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia turned into book |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5549589/Wikipedia-turned-into-book.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090801202703/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5549589/Wikipedia-turned-into-book.html |work = The Daily Telegraph |location = London |date = June 16, 2009 |access-date = September 8, 2009 |archive-date = August 1, 2009 |url-status=dead |df = mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="WP schools selection 1">{{cite web |url=https://schools-wikipedia.org |title = Wikipedia Selection for Schools |access-date = July 14, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120804093730/https://schools-wikipedia.org/ |archive-date = August 4, 2012 |url-status=dead |df = mdy-all}}</ref> Since 2009, tens of thousands of [[print on demand|print-on-demand]] books that reproduced English, German, Russian and French Wikipedia articles have been produced by the American company [[Books LLC]] and by three [[Mauritius|Mauritian]] subsidiaries of the German publisher [[VDM Publishing|VDM]].<ref name="FAZ" /> * '''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 Web|semantic]] format, [[Resource Description Framework|RDF]]. {{As of|2021|4|post=,}} it has 93,337,731 items. Obtaining the full contents of Wikipedia for reuse presents challenges, since direct cloning via a [[web crawler]] is discouraged.<ref name="WP DB usage policy 1" /> Wikipedia publishes [[Wikipedia:Database download|"dumps"]] of its contents, but these are text-only; {{as of|2007|lc=y}} there was no dump available of Wikipedia's images.<ref name="WP image data dumps 1">[[meta:Data dumps#Downloading Images|Data dumps: Downloading Images]], [[Meta-Wiki]]</ref> [[meta:Wikimedia Enterprise|Wikimedia Enterprise]] is a for-profit solution to this. 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 percent.<ref name="slis WP reference desk 1">{{cite web |url=https://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=2064 |title = Wikipedia Reference Desk |access-date = September 9, 2014}}</ref> ==== Mobile access{{anchor|Wikipedia mobile access|Wikipedia mobile}} ==== {{see also|Help:Mobile access}} [[File:Wikipedia on Mobile screenshot 2019.png|thumb|The mobile version of the English Wikipedia's main page, from August 3, 2019]] Wikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit content using any standard [[web browser]] through a fixed [[Internet access|Internet connection]]. Although Wikipedia content has been accessible through the [[mobile web]] since July 2013, ''The New York Times'' on February 9, 2014, quoted [[Erik Möller]], deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, stating that the transition of internet traffic from desktops to mobile devices was significant and a cause for concern and worry.<ref name="small screen" /> The article in ''The New York Times'' reported the comparison statistics for mobile edits stating that, "Only 20 percent of the readership of the English-language 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."<ref name="small screen" /> ''The New York Times'' reports that Möller has assigned "a team of 10 software developers focused on mobile", out of a total of approximately 200 employees working at the Wikimedia Foundation. One principal concern cited by ''The New York Times'' for the "worry" is for Wikipedia to effectively address attrition issues with the number of editors which the online encyclopedia attracts to edit and maintain its content in a mobile access environment.<ref name="small screen" /> ''[[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.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Stone |first1=Brad |date=June 27, 2014 |title=How Google's Android chief, Sundar Pichai, became the most powerful man in mobile |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-24/googles-sundar-pichai-king-of-android-master-of-mobile-profile |url-access=subscription |magazine=[[Bloomberg BusinessWeek]] |location=New York City |issue=June 30{{snd}}July 6, 2014 |pages=47–51}}</ref> 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.<ref name="nytimes.com" /> The Android app for Wikipedia was released on July 23, 2014, to generally positive reviews, scoring over four of a possible five in a poll of approximately 200,000 users downloading from Google.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia&hl=en |title = Wikipedia – Android Apps on Google Play |website = Play.Google.com |access-date = August 21, 2014}}</ref> The version for iOS was released on April 3, 2013, to similar reviews.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wikipedia-mobile/id324715238?mt=8 |title = Wikipedia Mobile on the App Store on iTunes |website = iTunes.Apple.com |date = August 4, 2014 |access-date = August 21, 2014}}</ref> Later versions have also been released. 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,<ref name="WM mobile added 1">{{cite web |title = Wikimedia Mobile is Officially Launched |website = Wikimedia Technical Blog |url = https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/06/wikimedia-mobile-launch |date = June 30, 2009 |access-date = July 22, 2009 |archive-date = July 9, 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090709213341/http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/06/wikimedia-mobile-launch/ |url-status = dead }}</ref> located at en.m.wikipedia.org, which caters to more advanced mobile devices such as the [[iPhone]], [[Android (operating system)|Android]]-based devices or [[WebOS]]-based devices. Several other methods of mobile access to Wikipedia have emerged. Many devices and applications optimize or enhance the display of Wikipedia content for mobile devices, while some also incorporate additional features such as use of Wikipedia [[metadata]], such as [[geographic data and information|geoinformation]].<ref name="androgeoid.com LPOI WP 1">{{cite web |url = https://androgeoid.com/2011/04/local-points-of-interest-in-wikipedia |title = Local Points Of Interest In Wikipedia |date = May 15, 2011 |access-date = May 15, 2011 |archive-date = June 1, 2011 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110601092809/http://androgeoid.com/2011/04/local-points-of-interest-in-wikipedia/ |url-status = dead }}</ref><ref name="ilounge iphone gems WP">{{cite web |url=https://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/15802 |title = iPhone Gems: Wikipedia Apps |date = November 30, 2008 |access-date = July 22, 2008}}</ref> [[Wikipedia Zero]] was an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to expand the reach of the encyclopedia to the developing countries.<ref>{{cite web |last = Ellis |first = Justin |url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2013/01/wikipedia-plans-to-expand-mobile-access-around-the-globe-with-new-funding |title = Wikipedia plans to expand mobile access around the globe with new funding |publisher = Nieman Journalism Lab |website = NiemanLab |date = January 17, 2013 |access-date = April 22, 2013}}</ref> It was discontinued in February 2018.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2018/02/16/partnerships-new-approach/|title=Building for the future of Wikimedia with a new approach to partnerships – Wikimedia Diff|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|date=February 16, 2018|access-date=May 12, 2019}}</ref> [[Andrew Lih]] and [[Andrew Brown (writer)|Andrew Brown]] both maintain editing Wikipedia with [[smartphone]]s is difficult and this discourages new potential contributors. The number of Wikipedia editors has been declining after several years and Tom Simonite of ''[[MIT Technology Review]]'' claims the bureaucratic structure and rules are a factor in this. Simonite alleges some [[Wikipedian]]s use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and those editors have a vested interest in keeping the [[status quo]].<ref name="Simonite-2013" /> Lih alleges there is a serious disagreement among existing contributors on how to resolve this. Lih fears for Wikipedia's long-term future while Brown fears problems with Wikipedia will remain and rival encyclopedias will not replace it.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html |title = Can Wikipedia Survive? |first = Andrew |last = Lih |date = June 20, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia |title = Wikipedia editors are a dying breed. The reason? Mobile |first = Andrew |last = Brown |journal = The Guardian |date = June 25, 2015}}</ref> === Chinese access === Access to the [[Chinese Wikipedia]] [[Internet censorship in China|has been blocked]] in [[mainland China]] since May 2015.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Skipper|first=Ben|date=7 December 2015|title=China's government has blocked Wikipedia in its entirety again|work=International Business Times UK|url=https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinas-government-has-blocked-wikipedia-its-entirety-again-1532138|url-status=live|access-date=2018-05-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180503111142/https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinas-government-has-blocked-wikipedia-its-entirety-again-1532138|archive-date=3 May 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Fox-Brewster|first=Thomas|date=22 May 2015|title=Wikipedia Disturbed Over Fresh China Censorship|work=Forbes|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/05/22/wikipedia-disturbed-over-fresh-china-censorship/#377839ae112a|url-status=live|access-date=2018-05-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180503043534/https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/05/22/wikipedia-disturbed-over-fresh-china-censorship/#377839ae112a|archive-date=3 May 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=20 May 2015|title=Chinese Wikipedia Blocked by Great Firewall|url=https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/05/chinese-wikipedia-blocked-by-great-firewall/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504212406/https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/05/chinese-wikipedia-blocked-by-great-firewall/|archive-date=4 May 2017|access-date=4 May 2017|publisher=China Digital Times (CDT)}}</ref> This was done after Wikipedia started to use [[HTTPS]] encryption, which made selective censorship more difficult.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Wikimedia Foundation Turns On HTTPS By Default Across All Sites, Including Wikipedia|url=https://social.techcrunch.com/2015/06/12/the-wikimedia-foundation-turns-on-https-by-default-across-all-sites-including-wikipedia/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200824001601/https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/12/the-wikimedia-foundation-turns-on-https-by-default-across-all-sites-including-wikipedia/|archive-date=24 August 2020|access-date=2020-06-03|website=TechCrunch|language=en-US}}</ref> In 2017, [[Quartz (publication)|''Quartz'']] reported that the Chinese government had begun creating an unofficial version of Wikipedia. However, unlike Wikipedia, the website's contents would only be editable by scholars from state-owned Chinese institutions. The article stated it had been approved by the [[State Council of the People's Republic of China]] in 2011.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Huang|first=Echo|title=China is making an official version of Wikipedia|url=https://qz.com/973267/china-is-making-an-official-version-of-wikipedia/|access-date=2021-06-08|website=Quartz|language=en}}</ref> == Cultural impact{{anchor|Impact}} == === Trusted source to combat fake news === In 2017–18, after a barrage of false news reports, both Facebook and YouTube announced they would rely on Wikipedia to help their users evaluate reports and reject false news. [[Noam Cohen]], writing in ''The Washington Post'' states, "YouTube's reliance on Wikipedia to set the record straight builds on the thinking of another fact-challenged platform, the Facebook social network, which announced last year that Wikipedia would help its users root out '[[fake news]]'."<ref name="auto"/> {{As of|2020|11|post=,}} Alexa records the daily pageviews per visitor as 3.03 and the average daily time on site as 3:46 minutes.<ref name="Alexa siteinfo" /> === Readership === In February 2014, ''The New York Times'' reported that Wikipedia was 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."<ref name="small screen" /> However, its ranking dropped to 13th globally by June 2020 due mostly to a rise in popularity of Chinese websites for online shopping.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.alexa.com/topsites |title=The top 500 sites on the web |website=Alexa |access-date=June 13, 2020}}</ref> In addition to [[logistic function|logistic growth]] in the number of its articles,<ref name="modelling" /> Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.<ref name="comscore" /> About 50 percent of search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google,<ref name="hitwisegoogle" /> a good portion of which is related to academic research.<ref name="hitwiseAcademic" /> The number of readers of Wikipedia worldwide reached 365 million at the end of 2009.<ref name="365M">{{cite web |url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/TED2010%2C_Stuart_West_full_presentation_updated_with_January_data.pdf |title = Wikipedia's Evolving Impact: slideshow presentation at TED2010 |first = Stuart |last = West |access-date = October 23, 2015}}</ref> The [[Pew Research Center|Pew]] Internet and American Life project found that one third of US Internet users consulted Wikipedia.<ref name="Wikipedia users" /> In 2011 ''Business Insider'' gave Wikipedia a valuation of $4 billion if it ran advertisements.<ref>{{cite web |author = SAI |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/2011-digital-100#7-wikimedia-foundation-wikipedia-7 |title = The World's Most Valuable Startups |website = Business Insider |date = October 7, 2011 |access-date = June 14, 2014}}</ref> 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 percent of Wikipedia readers do not realize that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Readership_Survey_2011/Results |title = Research: Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011/Results – Meta |publisher = Wikimedia |date = February 6, 2012 |access-date = April 16, 2014}}</ref> ==== COVID-19 pandemic ==== {{main|Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic}} During the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], Wikipedia's coverage of the pandemic received international media attention, and brought an increase in Wikipedia readership overall.<ref>{{cite news|title=Wikipedia breaks five-year record with high traffic in pandemic|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1551521|last=Jahangir|first=Ramsha|date=April 23, 2020|website=DAWN.COM|language=en|access-date=May 4, 2020}}</ref> === Cultural significance === {{redirect|Wikipedia in webcomics|the list of Wikipedia's appearances in webcomics|Wikipedia:Wikipedia in webcomics}} {{main|Wikipedia in culture}} <!-- Every single cultural, media, or Internet reference to Wikipedia does not need to be mentioned here and differentiation between what constitutes a matter of significance and what is run-of-the-mill is important when adding content here. --> [[File:Wikipedia Monument in Słubice - detail.JPG|thumb|''[[Wikipedia Monument]]'' in [[Słubice]], Poland (2014, by [[Mihran Hakobyan]])]] Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases.<ref name="Wikipedia in media" /><ref name="Bourgeois" /><ref name="ssrn.com Wikipedian Justice 1">{{cite journal|ssrn = 1346311 |title = Wikipedian Justice |date = February 19, 2009 |last1 = Sharma |first1 = Raghav|doi = 10.2139/ssrn.1346311 |s2cid = 233749371 }}</ref> 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]]''.<ref name="parl.gc.ca same-sex marriage">{{cite web |url=https://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?billId=1585203&View=10 |publisher=LEGISinfo |title=House Government Bill C-38 (38–1) |access-date=September 9, 2014 |archive-date=November 8, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108095450/http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?billId=1585203&View=10 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The encyclopedia's assertions are increasingly used as a source by organizations such as the US federal courts and the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]]<ref name="WP_court_source" />—though mainly for ''supporting information'' rather than information decisive to a case.<ref name="Courts turn to Wikipedia" /> Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some [[United States Intelligence Community|US intelligence agency]] reports.<ref name="US Intelligence" /> 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 [[Rfam|RNA family]] for publication in Wikipedia.<ref name="Declan" /> Wikipedia has also been used as a source in journalism,<ref name="ajr.org WP in the newsroom">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia in the Newsroom |url=https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461 |date = February–March 2008 |work = American Journalism Review |first = Donna |last = Shaw |access-date = February 11, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120805155909/https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461 |archive-date = August 5, 2012 |url-status = dead }}</ref><ref name="twsY23" /> often without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for [[plagiarism from Wikipedia|plagiarizing from Wikipedia]].<ref name="shizuoka plagiarized WP 1">{{cite news |title = Shizuoka newspaper plagiarized Wikipedia article |work = Japan News Review |date = July 5, 2007 |url=https://www.japannewsreview.com/society/chubu/20070705page_id=364 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140312013353/https://www.japannewsreview.com/society/chubu/20070705page_id%3D364 |archive-date = March 12, 2014 |df = mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="WA Express-News staffer resigns">{{cite web |url=https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA010307.02A.richter.132c153.html |title = Express-News staffer resigns after plagiarism in column is discovered |access-date = January 31, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015045010/https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA010307.02A.richter.132c153.html |archive-date = October 15, 2007}}, ''[[San Antonio Express-News]]'', January 9, 2007.</ref><ref name="starbulletin.com Inquiry prompts dismissal">{{cite web |url=https://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/01/13/news/story03.html |title = Inquiry prompts reporter's dismissal |website = Honolulu Star-Bulletin |first = Frank |last = Bridgewater |access-date = September 9, 2014}}</ref> In 2006, [[Time (magazine)|''Time'' magazine]] recognized Wikipedia's participation (along with [[YouTube]], [[Reddit]], [[MySpace]], and [[Facebook]])<ref name="Time2006" /> 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]]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007tc6x |title = Radio 4 documentary, BBC |access-date = April 24, 2016 |date = 2007 |archive-date = September 4, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904080952/https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007tc6x |url-status = dead }}</ref> 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 group of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar ([[Google]], [[Facebook]], [[YouTube]]) that they no longer need explanation. On September 28, 2007, [[Italy|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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.grillini.it/show.php?4885 |title = Comunicato Stampa. On. Franco Grillini. Wikipedia. Interrogazione a Rutelli. Con "diritto di panorama" promuovere arte e architettura contemporanea italiana. Rivedere con urgenza legge copyright |date = October 12, 2007 |language = it |trans-title = Press release. Honorable Franco Grillini. Wikipedia. Interview with Rutelli about the "right to view" promoting contemporary art and architecture of Italy. Review with urgency copyright law |access-date = December 26, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090330141810/https://www.grillini.it/show.php?4885 |archive-date = March 30, 2009}}</ref> [[File:Wikipedia, an introduction - Erasmus Prize 2015.webm|thumb|upright=1|thumbtime=00:36.00|Wikipedia, an introduction – [[Erasmus Prize]] 2015]] [[File:Quadriga-verleihung-rr-02.jpg|thumb|upright=1|[[Jimmy Wales]] accepts the 2008 [[Quadriga (award)|Quadriga]] ''A Mission of Enlightenment'' award on behalf of Wikipedia]] On September 16, 2007, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported that Wikipedia had become a focal point in the [[2008 United States presidential election|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."<ref name="WP.com WP election usage">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699_pf.html |title = On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet |author = Jose Antonio Vargas |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = September 17, 2007 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2232893820071022?sp=true |title = Wikipedia page the latest status symbol |first = Jennifer |last = Ablan |work = Reuters |date = October 22, 2007 |access-date = October 24, 2007}}</ref> 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.<ref name="LER students write for WP 1">{{cite journal |title = Engaging with the World: Students of Comparative Law Write for Wikipedia |journal = Legal Education Review |volume = 19 |issue = 1 and 2 |year = 2009 |pages = 83–98 |author = Witzleb, Normann}}</ref> A working group led by [[Peter Stone (professor)|Peter Stone]] (formed as a part of the [[Stanford]]-based project [[One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence]]) in its report called Wikipedia "the best-known example of crowdsourcing{{nbsp}}... that far exceeds traditionally-compiled information sources, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, in scale and depth."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report/section-i-what-artificial-intelligence/ai-research-trends |title = AI Research Trends |author = <!-- Staff writer(s); no by-line. --> |website = One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) |publisher = Stanford University |access-date = September 3, 2016 }}</ref> In a 2017 opinion piece for ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'', [[Hossein Derakhshan]] describes Wikipedia as "one of the last remaining pillars of the [[openness|open]] and [[decentralization#Centralization and redecentralization of the Internet|decentralized web]]" and contrasted its existence as a text-based source of knowledge with [[social media]] and [[social networking service]]s, the latter having "since colonized the web for television's values". For Derakhshan, Wikipedia's goal as an encyclopedia represents the [[Age of Enlightenment]] tradition of [[rationality]] triumphing over emotions, a trend which he considers "endangered" due to the "gradual shift from a [[typography|typographic]] culture to a photographic one, which in turn mean[s] a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment". Rather than "{{lang|la|[[sapere aude]]}}" ({{literal translation|'dare to know'|lk=on}}), social networks have led to a culture of "[d]are not to care to know". This is while Wikipedia faces "a more concerning problem" than funding, namely "a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website". Consequently, the challenge for Wikipedia and those who use it is to "save Wikipedia and its promise of a free and open collection of all human knowledge amid the conquest of new and old television—how to collect and preserve knowledge when nobody cares to know."<ref>{{cite news|last=Derakhshan|first=Hossein|author-link=Hossein Derakhshan|date=October 19, 2017|title=How Social Media Endangers Knowledge|url=https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-fate-shows-how-the-web-endangers-knowledge/|url-status=live|department=Business|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|publisher=[[Condé Nast]]|eissn=1078-3148|issn=1059-1028|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181022190537/https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-fate-shows-how-the-web-endangers-knowledge/|archive-date=October 22, 2018|access-date=October 22, 2018}}</ref> ==== Awards ==== [[File:Wikipedia team visiting to Parliament of Oviedo Spain 2015.JPG|thumb|upright=1|Wikipedia team visiting the Parliament of Asturias]] [[File:Spanish Wikipedians meetup.jpg|thumb|upright=1|Wikipedians meeting after the 2015 Asturias awards ceremony]] Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004.<ref name="WP awards for WP 1">[[m:Trophy box|"Trophy box"]], {{srlink|Wikipedia:Meta|Meta-Wiki}} (March 28, 2005).</ref> 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.<ref name="webbyawards WP awards 1">{{cite news |url=https://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/winners-2004.php |title = Webby Awards 2004 |publisher = The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences |year = 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722174246/https://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/winners-2004.php |archive-date = July 22, 2011}}</ref> In 2007, readers of brandchannel.com voted Wikipedia as the fourth-highest brand ranking, receiving 15 percent of the votes in answer to the question "Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?"<ref name="brandchannel.com awards 1">{{cite news |first = Anthony |last = Zumpano |title = Similar Search Results: Google Wins |url=https://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=352 |publisher = Interbrand |date = January 29, 2007 |access-date = January 28, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070220095907/https://brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=352 |archive-date = February 20, 2007}}</ref> In September 2008, Wikipedia received [[Quadriga (award)|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]].<ref name="loomarea.com WP award 1">{{cite web |url=https://loomarea.com/die_quadriga/e/index.php?title=Award_2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080915140714/https://loomarea.com/die_quadriga/e/index.php?title=Award_2008 |url-status=dead |archive-date = September 15, 2008 |title = Die Quadriga – Award 2008 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> In 2015, Wikipedia was awarded both the annual [[Erasmus Prize]], which recognizes exceptional contributions to culture, society or social sciences,<ref name="EP2015">{{cite web |url=https://www.erasmusprijs.org/?lang=en&page=Erasmusprijs |title = Erasmus Prize – Praemium Erasmianum |publisher = Praemium Erasmianum Foundation |access-date = January 15, 2015}}</ref> and the [[Spain|Spanish]] [[Princess of Asturias Award]] on International Cooperation.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fpa.es/es/premios-princesa-de-asturias/premiados/2015-wikipedia.html?especifica=0&idCategoria=0&anio=2015&especifica=0 |title = Premio Princesa de Asturias de Cooperación Internacional 2015 |publisher = Fundación Princesa de Asturias |access-date = June 17, 2015}}</ref> Speaking at the Asturian Parliament in Oviedo, the city that hosts the awards ceremony, [[Jimmy Wales]] praised the work of the [[Asturian language]] Wikipedia users.<ref>{{cite news |title = Los fundadores de Wikipedia destacan la versión en asturiano |url=https://www.lne.es/sociedad-cultura/2015/10/22/fundadores-wikipedia-destacan-version-asturiano/1830529.html |newspaper = La Nueva España |language = es |trans-title = The founders of Wikipedia highlight the Asturian version |access-date = October 20, 2015}}</ref> ==== Satire ==== {{category see also|Parodies of Wikipedia}} 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".<ref name="wikiality" /> Another example can be found in "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence", a July 2006 front-page article in ''[[The Onion]]'',<ref name="onion WP 750 years 1">{{cite web |url=https://www.theonion.com/articles/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of-american-indepen,2007/ |title = Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence |access-date = October 15, 2006 |date = July 26, 2006 |website = [[The Onion]]}}</ref> as well as the 2010 ''The Onion'' article "'L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874 Times Today".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theonion.com/articles/la-law-wikipedia-page-viewed-874-times-today,18521/ |title = 'L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874 Times Today |date = November 24, 2010 |website = [[The Onion]]}}</ref> In an April 2007 episode of the American television comedy [[The Office (American TV series)|''The Office'']], office manager ([[Michael Scott (The Office)|Michael Scott]]) is shown relying on a hypothetical Wikipedia article for information on [[negotiation]] tactics to assist him in negotiating lesser pay for an employee.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.officetally.com/the-office-the-negotiation |title = The Office: The Negotiation, 3.19 |date = April 5, 2007 |access-date = December 27, 2014}}</ref> Viewers of the show tried to add the episode's mention of the page as a section of the actual Wikipedia article on negotiation, but this effort was prevented by other users on the article's talk page.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-04-12-office-wikipedia_N.htm |title = 'Office' fans, inspired by Michael Scott, flock to edit Wikipedia |newspaper=[[USA Today]]|date = April 12, 2007 |access-date = December 12, 2014}}</ref> "[[My Number One Doctor]]", a 2007 episode of the television show ''[[Scrubs (TV series)|Scrubs]]'', played on the perception that Wikipedia is an unreliable reference tool with a scene in which [[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 [[list of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) episodes|''Battlestar Galactica'' episode guide]].<ref name="Bakken one doctor 1">Bakken, Janae. "[[My Number One Doctor]]"; ''[[Scrubs (TV series)|Scrubs]]''; [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]]; December 6, 2007.</ref> In 2008, the comedy 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.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.collegehumor.com/video/3581424/professor-wikipedia |title = Professor Wikipedia |publisher = CollegeHumor |date = November 17, 2009 |access-date = April 19, 2011 |format = Video |archive-date = April 12, 2011 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110412213526/http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3581424/professor-wikipedia |url-status = dead }}</ref> 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."<ref name="dilbert WP funny 1">{{cite web |url=https://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-05-08 |title = Dilbert comic strip for 05/08/2009 from the official Dilbert comic strips archive |publisher = Universal Uclick |date = May 8, 2009 |access-date = March 10, 2013}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/radio/bigipedia/interview/ |title = Interview With Nick Doody and Matt Kirshen |website = [[British Comedy Guide]] |access-date = July 31, 2009 |archive-date = July 31, 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090731150008/http://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/radio/bigipedia/interview |url-status = dead }}</ref> On August 23, 2013, the ''[[The New Yorker|New Yorker]]'' website published a cartoon with this caption: "Dammit, [[Chelsea Manning|Manning]], have you considered the pronoun war that this is going to start on your Wikipedia page?"<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Dammit-Manning-have-you-considered-the-pronoun-war-that-this-is-going-t-Cartoon-Prints_i9813981_.htm |title = Manning/Wikipedia cartoon |access-date = August 26, 2013 |first = Emily |last = Flake |author-link = Emily Flake |date = August 23, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141012052730/https://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Dammit-Manning-have-you-considered-the-pronoun-war-that-this-is-going-t-Cartoon-Prints_i9813981_.htm |archive-date = October 12, 2014 |df = mdy-all}}</ref> The cartoon referred to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning), an American activist, politician, and former United States Army soldier and a [[trans woman]]. In December 2015, [[John Julius Norwich]] stated, in a letter published in ''[[The Times]]'' newspaper, that as a historian he resorted to Wikipedia "at least a dozen times a day", and had never yet caught it out. He described it as "a work of reference as useful as any in existence", with so wide a range that it is almost impossible to find a person, place, or thing that it has left uncovered and that he could never have written his last two books without it.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4639755.ece |title = The obstacles to reforming our prisons |date = December 14, 2015|journal = The Times |access-date = June 5, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=john%20julius%20norwich&p=tto&pf=all&bl=on |title = John Julius Norwich – Search – The Times |website = thetimes.co.uk |access-date = June 5, 2016 }}{{Dead link|date=February 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> === Sister projects{{snd}}Wikimedia === {{main|Wikimedia project}} Wikipedia has spawned several sister projects, which are also wikis run by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. These other [[Wikimedia projects]] include [[Wiktionary]], a dictionary project launched in December 2002,<ref name="WM dictionary 1" /> [[Wikiquote]], a collection of quotations created a week after Wikimedia launched, [[Wikibooks]], a collection of collaboratively written free textbooks and annotated texts, [[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.<ref name="OurProjects" /> 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 === [[File:WikiMedia DC 2013 Annual Meeting 08.JPG|right|thumb|A group of Wikimedians of the [[Wikimedia DC]] chapter at the 2013 DC Wikimedia annual meeting standing in front of the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' ''(back left)'' at the US National Archives]] The most obvious economic effect of Wikipedia has been the death of commercial encyclopedias, especially the printed versions, e.g. ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', which were unable to compete with a product that is essentially free.<ref>{{cite web |last1 = Bosman |first1 = Julie |title = After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses |url=https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com//2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/ |website = The New York Times |access-date = January 26, 2015 |date = March 13, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gizmocrazed.com/2012/03/encyclopedia-britannica-dies-at-the-hands-of-wikipedia-infographic/ |title = ''Encyclopedia Britannica Dies At The Hands Of Wikipedia'', Gizmocrazed.com (with ''statista'' infographic from NYTimes.com) |publisher = Gizmocrazed.com |date = March 20, 2012 |access-date = June 14, 2014}}</ref><ref name="FT impact on traditional media">{{cite news |author = Christopher Caldwell (journalist) |author-link = Christopher Caldwell (journalist) |date = June 14, 2013 |title = A chapter in the Enlightenment closes |url=https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae22314a-d383-11e2-b3ff-00144feab7de.html |newspaper = [[Financial Times|ft.com]] |access-date = June 15, 2013 |quote = Bertelsmann did not resort to euphemism this week when it announced the end of the Brockhaus encyclopedia brand. Brockhaus had been publishing reference books for two centuries when the media group bought it in 2008. [...] The internet has finished off Brockhaus altogether. [...] What Germans like is Wikipedia.}}</ref> [[Nicholas G. Carr|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."<ref name="RType WP traditional media impact 1">{{cite web |title = The amorality of Web 2.0 |url=https://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php |date = October 3, 2005 |website = Rough Type |access-date = July 15, 2006}}</ref> Others dispute the notion that Wikipedia, or similar efforts, will entirely displace traditional publications. For instance, [[Chris Anderson (writer)|Chris Anderson]], the editor-in-chief of ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]]'', wrote in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' that the "[[wisdom of the crowd|wisdom of crowds]]" approach of Wikipedia will not displace top [[scientific journal]]s, with their rigorous [[peer review]] process.<ref name="nature.com crowds wisdom" /> There is also an ongoing debate about the influence of Wikipedia on 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 the University of East Anglia and author of ''The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton'' and ''George Eliot: the Last Victorian''.<ref>{{cite news |first = Alison |last = Flood |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2013/feb/07/traditional-biography-shakespeare-breakfast |title = Alison Flood: ''Should traditional biography be buried alongside Shakespeare's breakfast?'' |journal = The Guardian |date = February 7, 2013|access-date = June 14, 2014}}</ref> === Research use === Wikipedia has been widely used as a [[text corpus|corpus]] for linguistic research in [[computational linguistics]], [[information retrieval]] and [[natural language processing]]. In particular, it commonly serves as a target knowledge base for the [[entity linking]] problem, which is then called "wikification",<ref name="wikify">{{cite conference |url=https://www.cse.unt.edu/~tarau/teaching/NLP/papers/Mihalcea-2007-Wikify-Linking_Documents_to_Encyclopedic.pdf |title=Wikify!: linking documents to encyclopedic knowledge |first1=Mihalcea |last1=Rada |first2=Andras |last2=Csomai |author1-link=Rada Mihalcea |date=November 2007 |conference=ACM [[Conference on Information and Knowledge Management]] |book-title=CIKM '07: Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management |publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160218062051/https://www.cse.unt.edu/~tarau/teaching/NLP/papers/Mihalcea-2007-Wikify-Linking_Documents_to_Encyclopedic.pdf |archive-date=February 18, 2016 |location=Lisbon; New York City|pages=233–242 |isbn=978-1595938039 |doi=10.1145/1321440.1321475 |url-status=live}}</ref> and to the related problem of [[word-sense disambiguation]].<ref name="milne witten WP usage 1">{{cite conference |chapter-url=https://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~ihw/papers/08-DNM-IHW-LearningToLinkWithWikipedia.pdf |chapter=Learning to Link with Wikipedia |first1=David |last1=Milne |first2=Ian H. |last2=Witten |title=Proceeding of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge mining - CIKM '08 |author2-link=Ian H. Witten |date=October 2008 |conference=ACM [[Conference on Information and Knowledge Management]] |book-title=CIKM '08: Proceedings of the seventeenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management |publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]] |location=Napa Valley, CA; New York City |pages=509–518 |isbn=978-1595939913 |doi=10.1145/1458082.1458150|citeseerx=10.1.1.148.3617 }}</ref> Methods similar to wikification can in turn be used to find "missing" links in Wikipedia.<ref name="discovering missing WP links 1">{{cite conference |chapter-url=https://staff.science.uva.nl/~mdr/Publications/Files/linkkdd2005.pdf |chapter=Discovering missing links in Wikipedia |author1=Sisay Fissaha Adafre |author2=Maarten de Rijke |title=Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery - LinkKDD '05 |author2-link=Maarten de Rijke |date=August 2005 |conference=ACM LinkKDD |book-title=LinkKDD '05: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery |publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120717054413/https://staff.science.uva.nl/~mdr/Publications/Files/linkkdd2005.pdf |archive-date=July 17, 2012 |location=Chicago; New York City |pages=90–97 |isbn=978-1595931351 |doi=10.1145/1134271.1134284 |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2015, French researchers José Lages of the [[University of Franche-Comté]] in [[Besançon]] and Dima Shepelyansky of [[Paul Sabatier University]] in [[Toulouse]] published a global university ranking based on Wikipedia scholarly citations.<ref name=mitmining>{{cite news|title = Wikipedia-Mining Algorithm Reveals World's Most Influential Universities: An algorithm's list of the most influential universities contains some surprising entries|url = https://www.technologyreview.com/view/544266/wikipedia-mining-algorithm-reveals-worlds-most-influential-universities/|access-date = December 27, 2015|work = [[MIT Technology Review]]|date = December 7, 2015|archive-date = February 1, 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160201174817/https://www.technologyreview.com/view/544266/wikipedia-mining-algorithm-reveals-worlds-most-influential-universities/|url-status = dead}}</ref><ref name=harvardisonlymarmow>{{cite news |last1 = Marmow Shaw |first1 = Jessica |title = Harvard is only the 3rd most influential university in the world, according to this list |url=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/two-universities-beat-harvard-in-this-surprising-school-ranking-2015-12-09 |access-date = December 27, 2015 |work = [[MarketWatch]] |date = December 10, 2015}}</ref><ref name=wikipediarankingtimesworldunifranche>{{cite news |last1 = Bothwell |first1 = Ellie |title = Wikipedia Ranking of World Universities: the top 100. List ranks institutions by search engine results and Wikipedia appearances |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/wikipedia-ranking-world-universities-top-100 |access-date = December 27, 2015 |work = [[Times Higher Education]] |date = December 15, 2015}}</ref> They used [[PageRank]], [[CheiRank]] and similar algorithms "followed by the number of appearances in the 24 different language editions of Wikipedia (descending order) and the century in which they were founded (ascending order)".<ref name=wikipediarankingtimesworldunifranche /><ref>{{cite journal | title = Wikipedia ranking of world universities | author1 = Lages, J. | author2 = Patt, A. | author3 = Shepelyansky, D. | journal = Eur. Phys. J. B | volume = 89 | number = 69 | year = 2016 | page = 69 | doi = 10.1140/epjb/e2016-60922-0| arxiv = 1511.09021 | bibcode = 2016EPJB...89...69L | s2cid = 1965378 }}</ref> The study was updated in 2019.<ref>{{cite journal | author1 = Coquidé, C. | author2 = Lages, J. | author3 = Shepelyansky, D.L. | title = World influence and interactions of universities from Wikipedia networks. | journal = Eur. Phys. J. B | volume = 92 | number = 3 | year = 2019 | page = 3 | doi = 10.1140/epjb/e2018-90532-7| arxiv = 1809.00332 | bibcode = 2019EPJB...92....3C | s2cid = 52154548 }}</ref> A 2017 [[MIT]] study suggests that words used on Wikipedia articles end up in scientific publications.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Brookshire |first1=Bethany |title=Wikipedia has become a science reference source even though scientists don't cite it |url=https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/wikipedia-science-reference-citations |work=ScienceNews |date=February 5, 2018 |department=SciCurious |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-date=February 10, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180210120955/https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/wikipedia-science-reference-citations}}</ref><ref>{{cite ssrn| first1=Neil C. |last1=Thompson |first2=Douglas |last2=Hanley |title=Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence From a Randomized Control Trial |ssrn=3039505 |date=2017}}</ref> Studies related to Wikipedia have been using [[machine learning]] and [[artificial intelligence]] to support various operations. One of the most important areas—automatic detection of vandalism<ref>{{cite conference |last1=Sarabadani |first1=Amir |last2=Halfaker |first2=Aaron |last3=Taraborelli |first3=Dario |title=Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion - WWW '17 Companion |author2-link=Aaron Halfaker |chapter=Building automated vandalism detection tools for Wikidata |date=April 2017 |conference= International Conference on World Wide Web Companion |book-title=WWW '17 Companion: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion |publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]] |location=Perth; New York City |pages=1647–1654 |isbn=978-1450349147 |doi=10.1145/3041021.3053366 |arxiv=1703.03861}}</ref><ref>{{cite conference |last1=Potthast |first1=Martin |last2=Stein |first2=Benno |last3=Gerling |first3=Robert |title=Advances in Information Retrieval |chapter=Automatic Vandalism Detection in Wikipedia |book-title=Advances in Information Retrieval |date=2008 |volume=4956 |pages=663–668 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-78646-7_75 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |isbn=978-3540786450 |editor1-first=Craig |editor1-last=Macdonald |editor2-first=Iadh |editor2-last=Ounis |editor3-first=Vassilis |editor3-last=Plachouras |editor4-first=Ian |editor4-last=Ruthven |editor5-first=Ryen W. |editor5-last=White |conference=30th [[ECIR]] |location=Glasgow |publisher=Springer|citeseerx=10.1.1.188.1093 }}</ref> and [[data quality]] assessment in Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Asthana |first1=Sumit |last2=Halfaker |first2=Aaron |author2-link=Aaron Halfaker |editor1-last=Lampe |editor1-first=Cliff |editor1-link=Cliff Lampe |title=With Few Eyes, All Hoaxes are Deep |journal=Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction |date=November 2018 |volume=2 |issue=CSCW |doi=10.1145/3274290 |at=21 |publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]] |location=New York City |issn=2573-0142 |doi-access=free}}</ref> In February 2022, [[Civil Service (United Kingdom)|civil servants]] from the UK's [[Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities]] were found to have used Wikipedia for research in the drafting of the [[Levelling up policy of the Boris Johnson government|Levelling Up]] [[Levelling Up White Paper|White Paper]] after journalists at ''[[The Independent]]'' noted that parts of the [[White paper#In government|document]] had been lifted directly from Wikipedia articles on [[Constantinople]] and the [[list of largest cities throughout history]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/levelling-up-plan-copied-wikipedia-michael-gove-b2006757.html|title=Parts of Michael Gove's levelling-up plan 'copied from Wikipedia'|last=Stone|first=Jon|date=3 February 2022|work=[[The Independent]]|access-date=3 February 2022}}</ref> == Related projects == Several 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 more than a 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.<ref name="Domesday Project" /> Several free-content, collaborative encyclopedias were created around the same period as Wikipedia (e.g. [[Everything2]]),<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/21/net.gen.encyclopedias.idg/index.html |title = The next generation of online encyclopedias |last = Frauenfelder |first = Mark |website = CNN.com |date = November 21, 2000 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040814034109/https://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/21/net.gen.encyclopedias.idg/index.html |archive-date = August 14, 2004 |url-status=dead}}</ref> with many later being merged into the project (e.g. [[GNE (encyclopedia)|GNE]]).<ref name="gnu.org">[https://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html The Free Encyclopedia Project] gnu.org ( {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120105013327/http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html |date=January 5, 2012}})</ref> One of the most successful early online encyclopedias incorporating entries by the public was [[h2g2]], which was created by [[Douglas Adams]] in 1999. The h2g2 encyclopedia is relatively lighthearted, focusing on articles which are both witty and informative. Subsequent collaborative [[knowledge base|knowledge]] websites have drawn inspiration from Wikipedia. {{citation needed span|Some, such as [[Susning.nu]], [[Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español|Enciclopedia Libre]], [[Hudong]], and [[Baidu Baike]] likewise employ no formal review process, although some like [[Conservapedia]] are not as open.|date=March 2021}} 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.<ref name="Orlowski18"/><ref name="JayLyman">{{cite news |first = Jay |last = Lyman |url=https://www.crmbuyer.com/story/53137.html |title = Wikipedia Co-Founder Planning New Expert-Authored Site |publisher = LinuxInsider |date = September 20, 2006 |access-date = June 27, 2007}}</ref> == See also == {{main category|Wikipedia}} {{portal|Internet|Wikipedia}} {{div col|colwidth=20em}} * [[Democratization of knowledge]] * [[Interpedia]], an early proposal for a collaborative [[Internet]] encyclopedia * [[List of online encyclopedias]] * [[List of Wikipedia controversies]] * [[Network effect]] * [[Outline of Wikipedia]]{{snd}}guide to the subject of ''Wikipedia'' presented as a [[tree structure]]d list of its subtopics; for an outline of the contents of Wikipedia, see [[Portal:Contents/Outlines]] * [[QRpedia]]{{snd}}multilingual, mobile interface to Wikipedia * [[Wikipedia Review]] * [[Recursion]] {{div col end}} == Notes == {{reflist|group=note}} == References == {{reflist|refs= <ref name="nature.com crowds wisdom">{{cite web |title = Technical solutions: Wisdom of the crowds |url=https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04992.html |website = Nature |access-date = October 10, 2006}}</ref> <ref name=modelling>{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth |title = Wikipedia: Modelling Wikipedia's growth |access-date = December 22, 2007 |date = July 31, 2018}}</ref> <ref name="Alexa siteinfo">{{cite web |title=Wikipedia.org Traffic, Demographics and Competitors |url=https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org |publisher=[[Alexa Internet]] |access-date=October 1, 2019}}</ref> <ref name=comscore>{{cite web |url=https://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=849 |title = 694 Million People Currently Use the Internet Worldwide According To comScore Networks |date = May 4, 2006 |publisher = comScore |access-date = December 16, 2007 |quote = Wikipedia has emerged as a site that continues to increase in popularity, both globally and in the US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080730011713/https://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=849 |archive-date = July 30, 2008}}</ref> <ref name=hitwisegoogle>{{cite web |url=https://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-prescott/2007/02/wikipedia_traffic_sources.html |title = Google Traffic To Wikipedia up 166% Year over Year |publisher = Hitwise |date = February 16, 2007 |access-date = December 22, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071214072031/https://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-prescott/2007/02/wikipedia_traffic_sources.html |archive-date = December 14, 2007 |df = mdy-all}}</ref> <ref name=hitwiseAcademic>{{cite web |url=https://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-prescott/2006/10/wikipedia_and_academic_researc.html |title = Wikipedia and Academic Research |publisher = Hitwise |date = October 17, 2006 |access-date = February 6, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061029213453/https://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-prescott/2006/10/wikipedia_and_academic_researc.html |archive-date = October 29, 2006 |df = mdy-all}}</ref> <ref name="Wikipedia users">{{cite web |first1 = Lee |last1 = Rainie |first2 = Bill |last2 = Tancer |title = Wikipedia users |publisher = Pew Research Center |website = Pew Internet & American Life Project |date = December 15, 2007 |quote = 36% of online American adults consult Wikipedia. It is particularly popular with the well-educated and current college-age students. |url=https://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf |access-date = December 15, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080306031354/https://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf |archive-date = March 6, 2008}}</ref> <ref name="Wikipedia in media">{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_the_media |title = Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media |website = Wikipedia |access-date = December 26, 2008 |date = July 4, 2018}}</ref> <ref name="Bourgeois">{{cite web |url=https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf |title = Bourgeois et al. v. Peters et al. |access-date = February 6, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070203021430/https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf |archive-date = February 3, 2007}}</ref> <ref name="Courts turn to Wikipedia">{{cite news |last = Cohen |first = Noam |author-link=Noam Cohen |date = January 29, 2007 |title = Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively |work = The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> <ref name="US Intelligence">{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/03/the_wikipedia_factor_in_us_int.html |title = The Wikipedia Factor in US Intelligence |first = Steven |last = Aftergood |publisher = Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy |date = March 21, 2007 |access-date = April 14, 2007}}</ref> <ref name="Declan">{{cite journal |last = Butler |first = Declan |date = December 16, 2008 |title = Publish in Wikipedia or perish |journal = Nature News |doi = 10.1038/news.2008.1312}}</ref> <ref name=MiliardWho>{{cite news |url=https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-5129-feature-wikipediots-who-are-these-devoted-even-obsessive-contributors-to-wikipedia.html |first = Mike |last = Miliard |title = Wikipediots: Who Are These Devoted, Even Obsessive Contributors to Wikipedia? |work = [[Salt Lake City Weekly]] |date = March 1, 2008 |access-date = December 18, 2008}}</ref> <ref name=Time2006>{{cite news |date = December 13, 2006 |url=https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,00.html |title = Time's Person of the Year: You |magazine = Time |access-date = December 26, 2008 |first = Lev |last = Grossman}}</ref> <ref name="AcademiaAndWikipedia">{{cite web |first = Danah |last = Boyd |url=https://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060316184224/https://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php |url-status=dead |archive-date = March 16, 2006 |title = Academia and Wikipedia |website = Many 2 Many: A Group [[Blog|Weblog]] on Social Software |publisher = Corante |date = January 4, 2005 |access-date = December 18, 2008 |quote = [The author, Danah Boyd, describes herself as] an expert on social media[,] [...] a doctoral student in the School of Information at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] [,] and a fellow at the [[Harvard University]] [[Berkman Center for Internet & Society]] [at [[Harvard Law School]].]}}</ref> <ref name="MIT_IBM_study">{{cite book|first1 = Fernanda B. |last1 = Viégas |first2 = Martin |last2 = Wattenberg |first3 = Kushal |last3 = Dave |url=https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060125025047/https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf |archive-date = January 25, 2006 |title = Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with History Flow Visualizations |journal = Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) |pages = 575–582 |year = 2004 |doi = 10.1145/985921.985953 |isbn = 978-1581137026 |s2cid = 10351688 |access-date = January 24, 2007}}</ref> <ref name="CreatingDestroyingAndRestoringValue">{{cite journal |first1 = Reid |last1 = Priedhorsky |first2 = Jilin |last2 = Chen |author3 = Shyong (Tony) K. Lam |first4 = Katherine |last4 = Panciera |first5 = Loren |last5 = Terveen |first6 = John |last6 = Riedl |title = Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia |journal = Association for Computing Machinery GROUP '07 Conference Proceedings; GroupLens Research, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota |date = November 4, 2007 |url=https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~reid/papers/group282-priedhorsky.pdf |access-date = October 13, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071025080718/https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~reid/papers/group282-priedhorsky.pdf |archive-date = October 25, 2007 |df = mdy-all|citeseerx = 10.1.1.123.7456 }}</ref> <ref name="stallman1999">{{cite web |url=https://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html |title = The Free Encyclopedia Project |first = Richard M. |last = Stallman |author-link = Richard Stallman |date = June 20, 2007 |publisher = Free Software Foundation |access-date = January 4, 2008}}</ref> <ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite news |url=https://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html |first = Jonathan |last = Sidener |title = Everyone's Encyclopedia |date = December 6, 2004 |work = [[U-T San Diego]] |access-date = October 15, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071011150228/https://signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html |archive-date = October 11, 2007}}</ref> <ref name=Meyers>{{cite news |first = Peter |last = Meyers |title = Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes+Topics%2FSubjects%2FC%2FComputer+Software|work = The New York Times |date = September 20, 2001 |quote = 'I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph,' said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales. |access-date = November 22, 2007}}</ref> <ref name=SangerMemoir>{{cite news |first = Larry |last = Sanger |title = The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir |date = April 18, 2005 |work = Slashdot |url=https://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> <ref name=Sanger>{{cite news |first = Larry |last = Sanger |title = Wikipedia Is Up! |date = January 17, 2001 |url=https://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000684.html |access-date = December 26, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010506042824/https://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000684.html |archive-date = May 6, 2001}}</ref> <ref name=WikipediaHome>{{cite web |url=https://www.wikipedia.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010331173908/https://www.wikipedia.com/ |archive-date = March 31, 2001 |title = Wikipedia: HomePage |access-date = March 31, 2001}}</ref> <ref name="NPOV">"[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], Wikipedia (January 21, 2007).</ref> <ref name="EB_encyclopedia">{{cite encyclopedia |title = Encyclopedias and Dictionaries |encyclopedia = Encyclopædia Britannica |edition = 15th |year = 2007 |volume = 18 |pages = 257–286 |author1 = <!-- Please add first missing authors to populate metadata. -->}}</ref> <ref name=Shirky>{{cite book |first = Clay |last = Shirky |author-link = Clay Shirky |title = Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations |year=2008 |publisher = The Penguin Press via Amazon Online Reader |url=https://archive.org/details/herecomeseverybo0000shir |isbn = 978-1594201530 |page = [https://archive.org/details/herecomeseverybo0000shir/page/273 273] |access-date = December 26, 2008 }}</ref> <ref name=NOR>{{srlink|Wikipedia:No original research|No original research}}. February 13, 2008. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought."</ref> <ref name=autogenerated2>{{srlink|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view}}. February 13, 2008. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias."</ref> <ref name="voteresult">[[meta:Licensing update/Result|Wikimedia]]</ref> <ref name=FAZ>{{cite web |last = Thiel |first = Thomas |title = Wikipedia und Amazon: Der Marketplace soll es richten |website = Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung |publisher = [[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]] |language = de |date = September 27, 2010 |url=https://www.faz.net/s/RubCF3AEB154CE64960822FA5429A182360/Doc~E7A20980B9C0D46E99A9F60BC09506343~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html |access-date = December 6, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101126184904/https://www.faz.net/s/RubCF3AEB154CE64960822FA5429A182360/Doc~E7A20980B9C0D46E99A9F60BC09506343~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html |archive-date = November 26, 2010}}</ref> <ref name="Seigenthaler">{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm |last = Seigenthaler |first = John |title = A False Wikipedia 'biography' |date = November 29, 2005 |work = USA Today |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> <ref name="Torsten_Kleinz">{{cite news |first = Torsten |last = Kleinz |title = World of Knowledge |work = Linux Magazine |quote = The Wikipedia's open structure makes it a target for trolls and vandals who malevolently add incorrect information to articles, get other people tied up in endless discussions, and generally do everything to draw attention to themselves. |date = February 2005 |url=https://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/51/Wikipedia_Encyclopedia.pdf |access-date = July 13, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070925220722/https://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/51/Wikipedia_Encyclopedia.pdf |archive-date = September 25, 2007 |df = mdy-all}}</ref> <ref name="DeathByWikipedia">{{cite news |title = Death by Wikipedia: The Kenneth Lay Chronicles |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800135.html |first = Frank |last = Ahrens |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = July 9, 2006 |access-date = November 1, 2006}}</ref> <ref name="wikiality">{{cite news |title = Wikiality |url=https://www.cc.com/video-clips/z1aahs/the-colbert-report-the-word---wikiality |first = Stephen |last = Colbert |date = July 30, 2006 |access-date = October 8, 2015}}</ref> <ref name="Seeing Corporate Fingerprints">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html |title = Lifting Corporate Fingerprints From the Editing of Wikipedia |first = Katie |last = Hafner |work = The New York Times |date = August 19, 2007 |access-date = December 26, 2008 |page = 1}}</ref> <ref name=Taylor>{{cite news |url=https://in.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idINIndia-32865420080405 |title = China allows access to English Wikipedia |work = Reuters |first = Sophie |last = Taylor |date = April 5, 2008 |access-date = July 29, 2008}}</ref> <ref name=Kittur2009>{{cite conference |url=https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/papers/2009-CHI2009/p1509.pdf |title=What's in Wikipedia?: mapping topics and conflict using socially annotated category structure |first1=Aniket |last1=Kittur |first2=Ed H. |last2=Chi |first3=Bongwon |last3=Shu |author2-link=Ed Chi |date=April 2009 |conference=CHI |book-title=CHI '09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413130503/https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/papers/2009-CHI2009/p1509.pdf |archive-date=April 13, 2016 |location=Boston; New York City |pages=1509–1512 |isbn=978-1605582467 |doi=10.1145/1518701.1518930}}</ref> <!-- Not in use <ref name=Rosenzweig>{{cite journal |first = Roy |last = Rosenzweig |title = Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past |journal = The Journal of American History |volume = 93 |issue = 1 |date = June 2006 |pages = 117–146 |url=https://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/?essayid=42 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100425130754/https://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/?essayid=42 |url-status=dead |archive-date = April 25, 2010 |access-date = August 11, 2006 |doi = 10.2307/4486062 |jstor = 4486062}} (Center for History and New Media.)</ref> Not in use--> <ref name="WikipediaWatch">Public Information Research, Wikipedia Watch</ref> <ref name="McHenry_2004">{{cite news |last1=McHenry |first1=Robert |title=The Faith-Based Encyclopedia |url=https://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html |work=[[TCS Daily|Tech Central Station]] |date=November 15, 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060107210301/https://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html |archive-date=January 7, 2006}}</ref> <ref name="WideWorldOfWikipedia">{{cite news |title = Wide World of Wikipedia |newspaper = The Emory Wheel |url=https://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=17902 |date = April 21, 2006 |access-date = October 17, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071107052908/https://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=17902 |archive-date = November 7, 2007}}</ref> <ref name="AWorkInProgress">{{cite news |first = Burt |last = Helm |title = Wikipedia: 'A Work in Progress' |url=https://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm |work = Bloomberg BusinessWeek |date = December 14, 2005 |access-date = January 29, 2007 |archive-date = April 21, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120421000522/https://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm}}</ref> <ref name="GilesJ2005Internet">{{cite journal |first = Jim |last = Giles |title = Internet encyclopedias go head to head |journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume = 438 |issue = 7070 |pages = 900–901 |date = December 2005 |pmid = 16355180 |doi = 10.1038/438900a |author-link = Jim Giles (reporter) |bibcode = 2005Natur.438..900G|doi-access = free}} {{subscription required}} Note: The study was cited in several news articles; e.g.: * {{cite news |title = Wikipedia survives research test |work = BBC News |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm |date = December 15, 2005 }}</ref> <ref name="corporate.britannica.com">{{cite report |author=Encyclopædia Britannica |author-link=Encyclopædia Britannica |date=March 2006 |title=Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal ''Nature'' |url=https://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160709053629/https://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf |archive-date=July 9, 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> <ref name="stothart">Chloe Stothart. [https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=209408 "Web threatens learning ethos"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121221140310/https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=209408 |date=December 21, 2012}} ''The Times Higher Education Supplement'', 2007, 1799 (June 22), p. 2.</ref> <ref name="wwplagiarism">{{cite web |title = Plagiarism by Wikipedia editors |url=https://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html |publisher = Wikipedia Watch |date = October 27, 2006 |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/5lXiLbptk?url=https://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html |archive-date = November 25, 2009 |url-status=dead |df = mdy-all}}</ref> <ref name="The Register-April">{{cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/sanger_reports_wikimedia_to_the_fbi/ |work = The Register |date = April 9, 2010 |first = Cade |last = Metz |title = Wikifounder reports Wikiparent to FBI over 'child porn' |access-date = April 19, 2010}}</ref> <ref name=AFP>{{cite news |last1 = Agence France-Presse |title = Wikipedia rejects child porn accusation |url=https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh.html |work = The Sydney Morning Herald |date = April 29, 2010}}</ref> <ref name="David_Mehegan">{{cite news |first = David |last = Mehegan |title = Many contributors, common cause |url=https://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/13/many_contributors_common_cause |work = Boston Globe |date = February 13, 2006 |access-date = March 25, 2007}}</ref> <ref name="user identification">{{cite web |title = The Authority of Wikipedia |url=https://www.public.iastate.edu/~goodwin/pubs/goodwinwikipedia.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091122202231/https://www.public.iastate.edu/~goodwin/pubs/goodwinwikipedia.pdf |archive-date = November 22, 2009 |first = Jean |last = Goodwin |year = 2009 |quote = Wikipedia's commitment to anonymity/pseudonymity thus imposes a sort of epistemic agnosticism on its readers |access-date = January 31, 2011}}</ref> <ref name="ListOfWikipedias">{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics |title = Statistics |publisher = [[English Wikipedia]] |access-date = June 21, 2008 |date = October 4, 2018}}</ref> <ref name="servers">{{cite web |url=https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Server_roles |title = Server roles at wikitech.wikimedia.org |access-date = December 8, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116155841/https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Server_roles |archive-date = January 16, 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref> <ref name="WP_court_source">{{cite journal |last = Arias |first = Martha L. |date = January 29, 2007 |url=https://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1668 |title = Wikipedia: The Free Online Encyclopedia and its Use as Court Source |journal = Internet Business Law Services |access-date = December 26, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120520054827/https://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1668 |archive-date = May 20, 2012 |url-status=dead |df = mdy-all}} (The name "''World Intellectual Property Office''" should however read "''World Intellectual Property Organization''" in this source.)</ref> <ref name=twsY23>{{cite news |author = Lexington |title = Classlessness in America: The uses and abuses of an enduring myth |newspaper = The Economist |quote = Socialist Labour Party of America [...] though it can trace its history as far back as 1876, when it was known as the Workingmen's Party, no less an authority than Wikipedia pronounces it "moribund". |date = September 24, 2011 |url=https://www.economist.com/node/21530100 |access-date = September 27, 2011}}</ref> <ref name="Domesday Project">{{cite web |url=https://www.domesday1986.com/ |title = Website discussing the emulator of the Domesday Project User Interface |author = Heart Internet |access-date = September 9, 2014}}</ref> <ref name="OurProjects">[[:foundation:Our projects|"Our projects"]], [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. Retrieved January 24, 2007.</ref> <ref name="Orlowski18">{{cite news |first = Andrew |last = Orlowski |author-link = Andrew Orlowski |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia |title = Wikipedia founder forks Wikipedia, More experts, less fiddling? |work = The Register |date = September 18, 2006 |quote = Larry Sanger describes the Citizendium project as a "progressive or gradual fork", with the major difference that experts have the final say over edits. |access-date = June 27, 2007}}</ref> <ref name="bing WP research and referencing">{{cite web |url=https://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2009/07/27/researching-with-bing-reference.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101023202054/https://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2009/07/27/researching-with-bing-reference.aspx |archive-date=October 23, 2010 |title = Researching With Bing Reference |access-date = September 9, 2014}}</ref> <ref name="WP vandalism manipulation 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:Vandalism|Vandalism}}. ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved November 6, 2012.</ref> <ref name="WP CD selection 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection|Wikipedia CD Selection}}. Retrieved September 8, 2009.</ref> <ref name="WP DB usage policy 1">{{srlink|Wikipedia:Database download|Wikipedia policies}} on data download</ref> <ref name="J Sidener">{{cite news |url=https://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/tech/personaltech/20061009-9999-mz1b9wikiped.html |title = Wikipedia family feud rooted in San Diego |last = Sidener |first = Jonathan |date = October 9, 2006 |work = [[The San Diego Union-Tribune]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111074945/https://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/tech/personaltech/20061009-9999-mz1b9wikiped.html |archive-date = November 11, 2016 |access-date = May 5, 2009}}</ref> <ref name="WM dictionary 1">{{cite web |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_News&diff=prev&oldid=4133 |title = Announcement of Wiktionary's creation |publisher = meta.wikimedia.org |access-date = July 14, 2012}}</ref> <ref name="emory disputes handled 1">{{cite journal |title = Wikitruth through Wikiorder |ssrn = 1354424 |journal = Emory Law Journal |volume = 59 |issue = 1 |year = 2009 |page = 181 |first1 = David A. |last1 = Hoffman |first2 = Salil K.|last2 = Mehra}}</ref> }} == Further reading == === Academic studies === {{main|Academic studies about Wikipedia}} {{refbegin}} * {{cite book|isbn =978-1421415352|last=Leitch|first= Thomas|title=Wikipedia U: Knowledge, authority, and a liberal education in the digital age|year=2014}} * {{cite journal|last=Jensen|first= Richard|title=Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812|journal=The Journal of Military History|volume=76|issue=4 |date=October 2012|pages= 523–556|url=https://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021042738/https://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF |archive-date=21 October 2012}} * {{cite journal |title = Circadian Patterns of Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A Demographic Analysis |first1 = Taha |last1 = Yasseri |year = 2012 |journal = PLOS ONE |volume = 7 |first2 = Robert |last2 = Sumi |first3 = János |last3 = Kertész |issue = 1 |doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0030091 |editor1-last = Szolnoki |editor1-first = Attila |page = e30091 |pmid = 22272279 |pmc = 3260192 |arxiv = 1109.1746 |bibcode = 2012PLoSO...730091Y|doi-access = free }} * {{cite journal |ssrn = 1458162 |title = Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its Consequences |first = Eric |last = Goldman |year = 2010 |journal = Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law |volume = 8}} ([https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/02/catching_up_wit.htm A blog post by the author.]) * {{cite journal |first = Finn |last = Nielsen |url=https://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/nielsen/index.html |title = Scientific Citations in Wikipedia |journal = [[First Monday (journal)|First Monday]] |volume = 12 |issue = 8 |date = August 2007 |access-date = February 22, 2008 |doi = 10.5210/fm.v12i8.1997 |arxiv = 0805.1154 |citeseerx = 10.1.1.246.4536|s2cid = 58893 }} * {{cite journal |last1 = Pfeil |first1 = Ulrike |first2 = Panayiotis |last2 = Zaphiris |author3 = Chee Siang Ang |title = Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of Wikipedia |journal = Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication |year = 2006 |volume = 12 |issue = 1 |page = 88 |url=https://jcmc.indiana.edu./vol12/issue1/pfeil.html |doi = 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00316.x |access-date = December 26, 2008|doi-access = free }} * {{cite book|author1=Priedhorsky|author2=Reid|first3=Jilin|last3=Chen|author4=Shyong (Tony) K. Lam|first5=Katherine|last5=Panciera|author6-link=Loren Terveen|first6=Loren|last6=Terveen|author7-link=John Riedl|first7=John|last7=Riedl|title=Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Conference on supporting group work – Group '07 |doi=10.1145/1316624.1316663|chapter=Creating, destroying, and restoring value in Wikipedia |year=2007 |isbn=978-1595938459 |citeseerx=10.1.1.123.7456|pages=259–268|s2cid=15350808}} * {{cite conference |first = Joseph |last = Reagle |title = Do as I Do: Authorial Leadership in Wikipedia |work = WikiSym '07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis |publisher = ACM |location = Montreal|year = 2007 |url=https://reagle.org/joseph/2007/10/Wikipedia-Authorial-Leadership.pdf |hdl=2047/d20002876 |access-date = December 26, 2008}} * {{cite book | first = Emiel | last = Rijshouwer | date = 2019 | title = Organizing Democracy. Power concentration and self-organization in the evolution of Wikipedia (PhD, Erasmus University Rotterdam) | oclc = 1081174169 | hdl = 1765/113937 | isbn = 978-9402813715}} (Open access) * [[Roy Rosenzweig|Rosenzweig, Roy]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090430201444/https://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42 Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past]. (Originally published in ''[[The Journal of American History]]'' 93.1 (June 2006): 117–146.) * {{cite journal |url=https://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_4/wilkinson/index.html |title = Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia |first1 = Dennis M. |last1 = Wilkinson |first2 = Bernardo A. |last2 = Huberman |journal = First Monday |volume = 12 |issue = 4 |date = April 2007 |access-date = February 22, 2008 |doi = 10.5210/fm.v12i4.1763 |arxiv = cs/0702140 |citeseerx = 10.1.1.342.6933 |bibcode = 2007cs........2140W|hdl = 2027.42/136037 |s2cid = 10484077 }} * {{cite journal |title = The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community |journal = American Behavioral Scientist |first = Aaron |last = Halfaker |author2 = R. Stuart Geiger |first3 = Jonathan T. |last3 = Morgan |first4 = John |last4 = Riedl |doi = 10.1177/0002764212469365 |year = 2012 |volume = 57 |issue = 5 |page = 664|s2cid = 144208941 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Maggio |first1=Lauren A. |last2=Willinsky |first2=John M. |last3=Steinberg |first3=Ryan M. |last4=Mietchen |first4=Daniel |last5=Wass |first5=Joseph L. |last6=Dong |first6=Ting |author2-link=John Willinsky |title=Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia |journal=[[PLOS One]] |date=2017 |volume=12 |issue=12 |pages=e0190046 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0190046 |publisher=[[PLOS]] |pmid=29267345 |pmc=5739466 |bibcode=2017PLoSO..1290046M |doi-access=free}} {{refend}} === Books === {{main|List of books about Wikipedia}} {{refbegin}} * {{cite book|last=Keen|first=Andrew|title=The Cult of the Amateur|publisher=Doubleday/Currency|year=2007|isbn=978-0385520805|author-link=Andrew Keen|title-link=The Cult of the Amateur}} (Substantial criticisms of Wikipedia and other web 2.0 projects.) ** Listen to: *** {{cite news|last=Keen|first=Andrew|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11131872|title=Does the Internet Undermine Culture?|newspaper=NPR.org|publisher=National Public Radio, US|date=June 16, 2007}} The NPR interview with A. Keen, Weekend Edition Saturday, June 16, 2007. * {{cite book|first1=Phoebe|last1=Ayers|first2=Charles|last2=Matthews|first3=Ben|last3=Yates|title=How Wikipedia Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It|publisher=No Starch Press|location=San Francisco|year=2008|isbn=978-1593271763|url=https://archive.org/details/howwikipediawork00ayer_0}} * {{cite book|last=Broughton|first=John|title=Wikipedia – The Missing Manual|publisher=O'Reilly Media|year=2008|isbn=978-0596515164|title-link=Wikipedia – The Missing Manual}} (See book review by Baker, as listed hereafter.) * {{cite book|last=Broughton|first=John|title=Wikipedia Reader's Guide|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780596521745|url-access=registration|publisher=Pogue Press|location=Sebastopol|year=2008|isbn=978-0596521745}} * {{cite book|first1=Sheizaf|last1=Rafaeli|first2=Yaron|last2=Ariel|year=2008|chapter=Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia|editor=Barak, A.|title=Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications|url=https://archive.org/details/psychologicalasp00bara|url-access=limited|pages=[https://archive.org/details/psychologicalasp00bara/page/n261 243]–267|location=Cambridge, UK|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-0521694643|author1-link=Sheizaf Rafaeli}} * {{cite book|last=Dalby|first=Andrew|author-link=Andrew Dalby|title=The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality|publisher=Siduri|year=2009|isbn=978-0956205209|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/worldwikipediaho0000dalb}} * {{cite book|last=Lih|first=Andrew|author-link=Andrew Lih|title=The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia|publisher=Hyperion|location=New York City|year=2009|isbn=978-1401303716|title-link=The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia}} * {{cite book|last=O'Sullivan|first=Dan|title=Wikipedia: a new community of practice?|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=htu8A-m_Y4EC|year=2009|publisher=Ashgate Publishing|isbn=978-0754674337}} * {{cite book|last=Reagle|first=Joseph Michael Jr.|title=Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia|publisher=the [[MIT Press]] |location=Cambridge, MA|year=2010|isbn=978-0262014472|url=https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc|access-date=October 25, 2015}} * {{cite book|first1=Dariusz|last1=Jemielniak|title=Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia|publisher=[[Stanford University Press]]|location=Stanford, CA|year=2014|isbn=978-0804789448|title-link=Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia}} * {{cite book |editor1-last=Reagle |editor1-first=Joseph |editor2-last=Koerner |editor2-first=Jackie |url=https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/wikipedia-20 |title=Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |year=2020 |access-date=October 13, 2020 |isbn=978-0262538176}} {{refend}} === Book review-related articles === {{refbegin}} * [[Nicholson Baker|Baker, Nicholson]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080303001807/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 "The Charms of Wikipedia"]. ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', March 20, 2008. Retrieved December 17, 2008. (Book rev. of ''The Missing Manual'', by John Broughton, as listed previously.) * [[L. Gordon Crovitz|Crovitz, L. Gordon]]. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123897399273491031 "Wikipedia's Old-Fashioned Revolution: The online encyclopedia is fast becoming the best."] (Originally published in [[The Wall Street Journal|''Wall Street Journal'']] online{{snd}}April 6, 2009.) * [[Virginia Postrel|Postrel, Virginia]], [https://psmag.com/social-justice/killed-wikipedia-93777 "Who Killed Wikipedia? : A hardened corps of volunteer editors is the only force protecting Wikipedia. They might also be killing it"], ''[[Pacific Standard]]'' magazine, November/December 2014 issue. {{refend}} === Learning resources === {{refbegin}} * [[v:wikipedia#Learning resources|Wikiversity list of learning resources]]. (Includes related courses, [[Web conferencing|Web-based seminars]], slides, lecture notes, textbooks, quizzes, glossaries, etc.) * [https://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2014/01/15/the-great-book-of-knowledge-part-1/ The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1: A Wiki is a Kind of Bus], ''[[Ideas (radio show)|Ideas, with Paul Kennedy]]'', [[CBC Radio One]], originally broadcast January 15, 2014. The webpage includes a link to the archived audio program (also [https://www.cbc.ca/ideas/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2430203709 found here]). The radio documentary discusses Wikipedia's history, development, and its place within the broader scope of the trend to democratized knowledge. It also includes interviews with several key Wikipedia staff and contributors, including [[Kat Walsh]] and [[Sue Gardner]] (audio, 53:58, Flash required). {{refend}} === Other media coverage === ==== General articles ==== {{see also|List of films about Wikipedia}} {{refbegin}} * {{cite news |last = Balke |first = Jeff |url = https://blogs.chron.com/brokenrecord/2008/03/for_music_fans_wikipedia_myspa.html |title = For Music Fans: Wikipedia; MySpace |work = [[Houston Chronicle]] |agency = Broken Record (blog) |date = March 2008 |access-date = December 17, 2008 |archive-date = December 29, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20081229164945/http://blogs.chron.com/brokenrecord/2008/03/for_music_fans_wikipedia_myspa.html |url-status = dead }} * {{cite news |last=Borland |first=John |date=August 14, 2007 |title=See Who's Editing Wikipedia – Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign |url=https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiki-tracker/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151116134820/https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiki-tracker/ |archive-date=November 16, 2015 |url-status=live |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |access-date=October 23, 2018 }} * {{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html |title = All the News That's Fit to Print Out |first = Jonathan |last = Dee |work = The New York Times Magazine |date = July 1, 2007 |access-date = February 22, 2008 }} * {{cite news |first = Jim |last = Giles |title = Wikipedia 2.0 – Now with Added Trust |url = https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526226.200 |date = September 20, 2007 |work = [[New Scientist]] |access-date = January 14, 2008 }} * {{cite news |first = Mike |last = Miliard |title = Wikipedia Rules |url = https://thephoenix.com/Boston/Life/52864-Wikipedia-rules |work = [[The Phoenix (newspaper)|The Phoenix]] |date = December 2, 2007 |access-date = February 22, 2008 }} * {{cite news |first = Marshall |last = Poe |author-link = Marshall Poe |url = https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia |title = The Hive |work = [[The Atlantic]] Monthly |date = September 1, 2006 |access-date = March 22, 2008 }} * {{cite news |first = Michael S. |last = Rosenwald |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204715.html?hpid=topnews |title = Gatekeeper of D.C.'s entry: Road to city's Wikipedia page goes through a DuPont Circle bedroom |date = October 23, 2009 |newspaper = The Washington Post |access-date = October 22, 2009 }} * {{cite news |first = David |last = Runciman |url = https://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html |title = Like Boiling a Frog |date = May 28, 2009 |work = London Review of Books |access-date = June 3, 2009 |archive-date = May 27, 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090527013530/http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html |url-status = dead }} * {{cite news |first = Chris |last = Taylor |url = https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066904-1,00.html |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050602012551/https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066904-1,00.html |url-status = dead |archive-date = June 2, 2005 |title = It's a Wiki, Wiki World |date = May 29, 2005 |magazine = [[Time (magazine)|Time]] |access-date = February 22, 2008 }} * {{cite news |url = https://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11484062 |title = Technological Quarterly: Brain Scan: The Free-knowledge Fundamentalist |newspaper = [[The Economist]] |date = June 5, 2008 |access-date = June 5, 2008 |quote = Jimmy Wales changed the world with Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What will he do next? }} * [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24613608 "Wikipedia probe into paid-for 'sockpuppet' entries"], BBC News, October 21, 2013. * [https://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ "The Decline of Wikipedia"] {{Webarchive|url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20131023135648/https://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the%2Ddecline%2Dof%2Dwikipedia/ |date=October 23, 2013 }}, ''MIT Technology Review'', October 22, 2013 * [https://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-traced-1-police-plaza "Edits to Wikipedia pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo traced to 1{{nbsp}}Police Plaza"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150313150951/https://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-traced-1-police-plaza |date=March 13, 2015 }} (March 2015), ''[[Media in New York's Capital District|Capital]]'' * [https://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating Angola's Wikipedia Pirates Are Exposing Problems] (March 2016), ''[[Vice (magazine)|Motherboard]]'' * {{cite web |url=https://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-wikipedia |title=Dark Side of Wikipedia |access-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160804110601/https://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-wikipedia |archive-date=August 4, 2016 |url-status=dead }} ''[[Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson]]'', April 17, 2016. <small>(Includes video.)</small> * {{cite web |last1 = Wales |first1 = Jimmy |title = How Wikipedia Works |url = https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/how-wikipedia-works |website = cato.org |publisher = [[Cato Institute]] |date = December 9, 2016 |quote = Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, discusses the site, how it's treated by governments, and how it's fueled by its users. }} {{refend}} ==== Articles re Wikipedia usage patterns ==== * [https://gizmodo.com/wikipedias-yearend-list-shows-what-the-internet-needed-1840690794 Wikipedia's Year-End List Shows What the Internet Needed to Know in 2019]. Alyse Stanley, December 27, 2019, Gizmodo. * [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html "Is Wikipedia Cracking Up?"] ''The Independent'', February 3, 2009. == External links == {{sister project links|collapsible=true|Wikipedia|voy=Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikipedia|d=Q52|s=Category:Wikipedia|n=Category:Wikipedia|m=Wikipedia|mw=Wikipedia|species=no}} * {{official website}} – multilingual portal (contains links to all language editions) (wikipedia.com still redirects here) * {{Curlie|Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/Wikipedia}} * {{Guardian topic}} * [https://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/wikipedia Wikipedia] topic page at ''[[The New York Times]]'' * [https://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_wales_the_birth_of_wikipedia Video of TED talk by Jimmy Wales on the birth of Wikipedia] * {{Twitter|Wikipedia}} {{Wikipedia|state=expanded}} {{Wikipedias}} {{Navboxes |title=Links to related articles |list1= {{Wikimedia Foundation}} {{Wiki topics}} {{Computable knowledge}} {{Princess of Asturias Award for International Cooperation}} }} {{Authority control}} [[Category:Wikipedia| ]] [[Category:2001 establishments in the United States]] [[Category:Advertising-free websites]] [[Category:Articles containing video clips]] [[Category:Creative Commons-licensed websites]] [[Category:Free-content websites]] [[Category:Internet properties established in 2001]] [[Category:Jimmy Wales]] [[Category:Multilingual websites]] [[Category:Online encyclopedias]] [[Category:Social information processing]] [[Category:Wikimedia projects]]
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Georgia LGBTQ History Project Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Georgia LGBTQ History Project Wiki:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Templates used on this page:
Template:'
(
edit
)
Template:'"
(
edit
)
Template:About
(
edit
)
Template:Anchor
(
edit
)
Template:As of
(
edit
)
Template:Authority control
(
edit
)
Template:Better source needed
(
edit
)
Template:Category see also
(
edit
)
Template:Cbignore
(
edit
)
Template:Citation needed span
(
edit
)
Template:Cite AV media
(
edit
)
Template:Cite book
(
edit
)
Template:Cite conference
(
edit
)
Template:Cite journal
(
edit
)
Template:Cite magazine
(
edit
)
Template:Cite mailing list
(
edit
)
Template:Cite news
(
edit
)
Template:Cite ssrn
(
edit
)
Template:Cite web
(
edit
)
Template:Clarify
(
edit
)
Template:Curlie
(
edit
)
Template:Dead link
(
edit
)
Template:Div col
(
edit
)
Template:Div col end
(
edit
)
Template:Doi
(
edit
)
Template:External media
(
edit
)
Template:For
(
edit
)
Template:Further
(
edit
)
Template:Guardian topic
(
edit
)
Template:IPAc-en
(
edit
)
Template:Ill
(
edit
)
Template:Infobox website
(
edit
)
Template:Lang
(
edit
)
Template:Largest Wikipedias/graph
(
edit
)
Template:Literal translation
(
edit
)
Template:Main
(
edit
)
Template:Main category
(
edit
)
Template:Main other
(
edit
)
Template:Multiple image
(
edit
)
Template:NUMBEROF
(
edit
)
Template:Navboxes
(
edit
)
Template:Nbsp
(
edit
)
Template:Official website
(
edit
)
Template:Open access
(
edit
)
Template:Ordinal to word
(
edit
)
Template:Pagetype
(
edit
)
Template:Pie chart
(
edit
)
Template:Portal
(
edit
)
Template:Pp-move-indef
(
edit
)
Template:Pp-vandalism
(
edit
)
Template:Redirect
(
edit
)
Template:Refbegin
(
edit
)
Template:Refend
(
edit
)
Template:Reflist
(
edit
)
Template:Respell
(
edit
)
Template:Rp
(
edit
)
Template:SDcat
(
edit
)
Template:SHORTDESC:Free multilingual online encyclopedia
(
edit
)
Template:See also
(
edit
)
Template:Self reference
(
edit
)
Template:Short description
(
edit
)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck
(
edit
)
Template:Sister project links
(
edit
)
Template:Snd
(
edit
)
Template:Spellnum per MOS
(
edit
)
Template:Srlink
(
edit
)
Template:Subscription required
(
edit
)
Template:TOC limit
(
edit
)
Template:Twitter
(
edit
)
Template:Update
(
edit
)
Template:Update inline
(
edit
)
Template:Update section
(
edit
)
Template:Use American English
(
edit
)
Template:Use mdy dates
(
edit
)
Template:Vague
(
edit
)
Template:Visible anchor
(
edit
)
Template:Webarchive
(
edit
)
Template:When
(
edit
)
Template:Wikipedia
(
edit
)
Template:Wikipedia article graph
(
edit
)
Template:Wikipedia editor graph
(
edit
)
Template:Wikipedia rank by size/WP
(
edit
)
Template:Wikipedias
(
edit
)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information