User Tools

Site Tools


What goes on Wikipedia and what goes on the MAGA-KAG Survival Prepper Wiki

See also Conservative Wikis like Infogalactic - Conservapedia - Metapedia, and avoid the Leftist Propagandapedia called Wikipedia

NOTICE: This Wiki is a fork of content from 3 main sources: the libertarian InfoGalactic, Conservapedia and the conservative nationalist

See also Alternative to Wikipedia and Commandments of this Wiki

See what InfoGalactic has to say about Wikipedia

There is extensive documentation about “everything” on Wikipedia's various “projects”. They have good quality pages in many cases.

Please do not arbitrarily copy content between the wikis.

Please strongly limit your linking to Wikipedia.

You can summarize content from Wikipedia (or the other way around), but the two wikis have very different audiences. Better to directly cite sources and do short (limited to 800 words) fair use quotations of material from renowned survival books, permaculture books, firearms books, health books, etc. authors or other subject matter experts. As James Wesley Rawles over at has suggested 800 words seems to be a reasonable and commonplace except/quoting amount for Fair Use.

Wikipedia (LeftistAgendaPedia) is a politically left leaning online wiki-based encyclopedia1) project written and edited by an ad hoc assemblage of mostly anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the Register (UK),2)3) teenagers and unemployed persons.4) Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at Conservapedia, are overwhelmingly liberal, young males5) — a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.

Wikipedia was founded by atheist libertarian objectivist Jimmy Wales and atheist philosophy professor Larry Sanger. The website was born out of expert-written project Nupedia as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's “spiritual leader.”6)

What goes on Wikipedia and what goes on this Wiki

See Commandments

There is extensive documentation about “everything” on Wikipedia's various “projects”. They have good quality pages in many cases.

Please do not arbitrarily copy content between the wikis. Please strongly limit your linking to Wikipedia.

You can summarize content from Wikipedia (or the other way around), but the two wikis have very different audiences. Better to directly cite sources and do short (limited to 800 words) fair use quotations of material from renowned survival books, permaculture books, firearms books, health books, etc. authors or other subject matter experts. As James Wesley Rawles over at has suggested 800 words seems to be a reasonable and commonplace except/quoting amount for Fair Use.

Wikipedia (


) is an internet website founded by Jimmy Wales that claims to be an encyclopedia, i.e. a site that can be edited and added to by any contributors, but in fact it is a tightly-controlled clique enterprise run by a small number of users who tend to be far-left, neo-Marxist, atheist, male, white homosexuals and transsexuals (trannies or transgender) who often use their power to publish unreliable pseudo-history, dubious science, and polemic for the LGBT ideology (Gay Agenda) along with inaccurate and in some cases slanderous attacks on living persons. These attacks are published anonymously and there is no way that the victims can bring any legal action against the authors or the founder Jimmy Wales. They defy the libel laws.

The Communist cabal of editors prevents anybody with a different point of view from contributing, commenting, entering into the discussion pages or even registering a notice that the accuracy or objectivity of a certain page is disputed.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, because a proper encyclopedia commissions articles by acknowledged academic experts, requires them to be based on a wide range of reputable sources, and has them peer-reviewed before publication. Wikipedia does none of those things. It requires no educational qualifications from its contributors and makes only a feeble pretense of academic expertise or objectivity.

Wikipedia claims to have an official policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV), but this can only be regarded as a joke. 7)

Educated people do not regard Wikipedia as a reliable or reputable source. Among feminists it is nick-named “Dikipedia” because of its strong anti-feminist and misogynistic bias.

Its editors are known to be very hostile and intolerant towards unregistered users who edit its pages, reverting the edits for no reason whatsoever.

Its websites are supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia is ranked among the ten most popular websites,8)

To make the problem worse, Wikipedia's material is copied mechanically and reproduced on a growing number of other websites - reckoned to be 290 - which thus duplicate and proliferate its errors and its extreme bias.

Many schools and colleges ban their students from using Wikipedia as a source, as the teachers know that its content is not to be trusted.

Online entrepreneurs Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, who have been described as “social justice warriors” by their political allies, launched Wikipedia on January 15, 2001. Sanger9) As of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.10)11)




Other collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before Wikipedia, but none were so successful.12)

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. Nupedia was founded on March 9, 2000 under the ownership of Bomis, a web portal company. Its main figures were the Bomis

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was licensed initially under its own Nupedia Open Content License, switching to the GNU Free Documentation License before Wikipedia's founding at the urging of Richard Stallman.13) On January 10, 2001, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a “feeder” project for Nupedia.14)

File:How Wikipedia contributes to free knowledge.webm

Launch and early growth

Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at,<ref name=“WikipediaHome” /> and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.15)

Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. By August 8, 2001, Wikipedia had over 8,000 articles.16) On September 25, 2001, Wikipedia had over 13,000 articles.17) By the end of 2001 it had grown to approximately 20,000 articles and 18 language editions. It had reached 26 language editions by late 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the final days of 2004.18) 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 even the 1408 Yongle Encyclopedia, which had held the record for almost 600&nbsp;years.19) These moves encouraged Wales to announce that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and to change Wikipedia's domain from to Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800.21) A team at the Palo Alto Research Center attributed this slowing of growth to the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change.22)<!– Hidden whilst 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 “low-hanging fruit“—topics that clearly merit an article—have already been created and built up extensively.23)24)25)

In November 2009, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid (Spain) found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.26)27) The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.28) Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study.29) Two years later, Wales acknowledged the presence of a slight decline, noting a decrease from “a little more than 36,000 writers” in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011.30) In July 2012, the Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also in decline.31) In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated “Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis. In 2013, MIT's Technology Review revealed that since 2007, the site has lost a third of the volunteer editors who update and correct the online encyclopedia's millions of pages and those still there have focused increasingly on minutiae.”32)

on January 18, 2012]]

File:Wikipedia Edit 2014.webm

<!– Appropriateness debated in Talk:Wikipedia#Promotional video –>

Recent milestones

In January 2007, Wikipedia entered for the first time the top-ten list of the most popular websites in the United States, according to comScore Networks. With 42.9 million unique visitors, Wikipedia was ranked number 9, surpassing the New York Times (#10) and Apple (#11). This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when the rank was number 33, with Wikipedia receiving around 18.3 million unique visitors.33)

, Wikipedia has rank 634) among websites in terms of popularity according to Alexa Internet. In 2014, it received 8 billion pageviews every month.35) On February 9, 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia has 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month, “according to the ratings firm comScore.”36)

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 blacking out its pages for 24 hours.37) More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced Wikipedia content.38)39)

Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that accumulated improvements piecemeal through ”stigmergic accumulation”.40)41)

On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for The Economic Times indicated that not only had Wikipedia growth flattened but that it has “lost nearly 10 per cent of its page-views last year. That's a decline of about 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by 12 per cent, those of German version slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per cent.”42) Varma added that, “While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's Knowledge Graphs project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users.”43)44) It started almost entirely open—anyone could create articles, and any Wikipedia article could be edited by any reader, even those who did not have a Wikipedia account. Modifications to all articles would be published immediately. As a result, any article could contain inaccuracies, errors, ideological bias and nonsensical or irrelevant text - which in fact they still do.


Over time, the English Wikipedia and some other Wikipedias gradually have restricted modifications. For example, in the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only approved users may create a new article.45) On the English Wikipedia and some others, some particularly controversial, sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages are now “protected” to some degree.46) A frequently vandalized article can be semi-protected, meaning that only certain editors, mainly those with left-wing political views, are able to modify it.47) A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make changes.48)

In practice, only a handful of elite editors are allowed to submit modifications. Anything else is regarded as vandalism and automatically erased.

Review of changes

Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikipedia provides certain tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. The “History” page of each article links to each revision.<ref group=notes> Articles with libelous content, criminal threats, or copyright infringements are common throughout Wikipedia.))49)

In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in a wiki create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favor “creative construction” over “creative destruction”.50)


Any edit that changes content in a way that annoys the ruling cabal of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. Vandalism can also include advertising language and other types of spam.51)) Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information to an article, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the underlying code of an article, or use images disruptively.52)53) After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as “a flawed and irresponsible research tool”.54)

Another example of vandalism occurred on the Wikipedia page for Mario voice actor Charles Martinet in late 2016 and early 2017 respectively, when a user by the name of The1337gamer deleted Martinet's filmography listed on his page; when an unregistered user attempted to restore Martinet's filmography, The1337gamer revoked all of this user's edits, and resorted to insults and personal threats. Even though there was no vandalism involved from the unregistered user but rather a registered member of the site, Martinet's Wikipedia article is now semi-protected indefinitely (as of May 2017) without warning by a left-wing administrator by the name of “EdJohnston”.

Wikipedia's moderators are also known for sending abuse, including profanity and death threats, towards unregistered users who “vandalise” the site's pages.

<span id="Rules_and_laws_governing_content">Policies and laws</span>{{anchor|Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior}}

:See also:

Content in Wikipedia is supposedly subject to the laws (in particular, copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located. But unless you are a very rich citizen of the state of Virginia with a few million dollars to spend on litigation, there is no way to make Wikipedia answerable to the law. In practice, it is a law unto itself.

Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the

and in numerous

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.55) Editors can

by 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.56) A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",57) 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.58) This can at times lead to the removal of information that is valid.59) Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.60) This is known as neutral point of view (NPOV). <!– This section is correct but IMO superfluously obvious, except for the part on verifiability. Chealer 2014 –>

These rules cause Wikipedia to be hamstrung multiple weaknesses. In particular, its criterion for inclusion is not “truth”, but “verifiability.” Material which is false, but “verifiable” according to Wikipedia criteria, can appear in Wikipedia according to its rules. Information which is true, but not “verifiable”, is excluded. So, for example, if publicly available evidence in a criminal case suggests that the convicted person is innocent, Wikipedia's treatment is only allowed to reflect that information if the evidence appears in “reliable secondary sources.” If that hasn't happened, Wikipedia considers inclusion of the evidence that the “criminal” is innocent to be wrong. The material can and will be reverted.


Wikipedia is totally undemocratic. An article is considered to be owned by its creator and is tightly controlled with no appeal by any other person. Anybody with a different point of view is excluded from altering, commenting on or even registering an opinion on whether the article is fair. Such attempts are met with an immediate ban on the person's IP address.


Editors and administrators do not require any level of education but have to belong to a tiny cabal of white, male, middle class, neo-Marxist, atheist, homosexuals and transsexuals with a fundamentally misogynistic attitude. It is noticeable that they favor the U.S. Democrats over the Republicans.

Dispute resolution

There is no dispute resolution in Wikipedia. Anyone who attempts to comment on or to query its inaccuracies or slanders finds their comment deleted and their IP address banned so they are excluded from writing anything on the entire site. The deletion process begins within seconds of an outside, non-member of the cabal, attempting to place a correction or comment on any article or discussion page. Their correction or comment is erased even before they can save it. Some believe this is done by a robotic means.

Arbitration Committee

There is no arbitration process in Wikipedia and any material placed there by its tiny cabal of authors is immutable, regardless of whether other people believe it to be false or libelous.


File:Wikimania - the Wikimentary.webm

– an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, was held in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from August 4 to 8.]]

Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated “Talk” page. These are rigorously controlled and censored by its tiny cabal of editors. Comments they don't like are simply erased and the person making them silenced by banning their IP address. Outsiders are not allowed to be “users” therefore do not have any “talk page”. Anybody with a different point of view or a higher level of education is dismissed as a “troll” and excluded.

Wikipedia's community has been described as cult-like, which is a notable under-statement.61)62) .63)

Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors have any education or credentials in the subjects they attempt to write about nor do they have to provide identification. All that is required is a slavish adherence to the ideology and tenets of the cabal running it. Even established editors who put one foot wrong e.g. by misgendering a transsexual in an edit summary (not the article itself) get banned by the ruling cabal immediately without appeal. 64) Jimmy Wales once argued that only “a community&nbsp;… 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”.65) In 2008, a Slate magazine article reported that: “According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits.”66) 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.67) <!– Obsolete chart image needs to be updated as current definition of active users is over 125,000


The English Wikipedia has numberofarticles articles, numberofusers registered editors, and numberofactiveusers active editors. An editor is considered active if they make one or more edits in said month.

Editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk pages, 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”. Editors who do not log in are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,68) 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”,69) but the contribution histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their IP addresses cannot be attributed to a particular editor with certainty.

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”.70) Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that “(I)t turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users… 524 people… And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits.”71)72) although a later commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness, that the differences with the control group were small as were the samples.73) According to a 2009 study, there is “evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content”.74)


File:WMF Strategic Plan Survey.svg

One study found that the contributor base to Wikipedia “was barely 13% women; the average age of a contributor was in the mid-20s”.75) A 2011 study by researchers from the University of Minnesota found that females comprised 16.1% of the 38,497 editors who started editing Wikipedia during 2009.76) In a January 2011 New York Times article, Noam Cohen observed that just 13% of Wikipedia's contributors are female according to a 2008 Wikimedia Foundation survey.77) Sue Gardner, a former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, hoped to see female contributions increase to twenty-five percent by 2015.78)

In response, various universities have hosted edit-a-thons to encourage more women to participate in the Wikipedia community. In fall 2013, 15 colleges and universities, including Yale, Brown, and Pennsylvania State, offered college credit for students to “write feminist thinking” about technology into Wikipedia.79)

In August 2014, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales said in a BBC interview the Wikimedia Foundation's was “…really doubling down our efforts…” to reach 25% of female editors (originally targeted by 2015), since the Foundation had “totally failed” so far. Wales said “a lot of things need to happen.. a lot of outreach, a lot of software changes”.80) The largest, the English Wikipedia, has over

/100000)}} million articles.

, according to Alexa, the English subdomain (; English Wikipedia) receives approximately 58% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages (Japanese: 9%; Spanish: 6%; Russian: 5%; German: 5%).81)

articles in different language editions (as of


<!–| value10 =










)}}–> }}

Since Wikipedia is based on the 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 edition). These differences may lead to some conflicts over spelling differences (e.g. colour versus color)83) or points of view.84)

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 licensed freely may be used under a claim of fair use.85)86)87)

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”.88) 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 of its projects (Wikipedia and others).89) For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia,90) and it maintains a list of articles every Wikipedia should have.91) The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, and mathematics. As for the rest, 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 only be available in English, even when they meet notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects.

File:User - demography.svg

Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions, in part because fully automated translation of articles is disallowed.92) Articles available in more than one language may offer “interwiki links”, which link to the counterpart articles in other editions.

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.93) The Wikimedia Foundation hopes to increase the number of editors in the Global South to thirty-seven percent by 2015.94)

On March 1, 2014, The Economist in an article titled “The Future of Wikipedia” cited a trend analysis concerning data published by Wikimedia stating that: “The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years.”95) 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 of 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 attrition rates for editors in English Wikipedia, by sharp comparison, were cited as peaking in 2007 at approximately 50,000 editors which has dropped to 30,000 editors as of the start of 2014. At the quoted trend rate, the number of active editors in English Wikipedia has lost approximately 20,000 editors to attrition since 2007, and the documented trend rate indicates the loss of another 20,000 editors by 2021, down to 10,000 active editors on English Wikipedia by 2021 if left unabated.96)

Critical reception

Several Wikipedians have criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation, which includes over 50 policies and nearly 150,000 words


Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias. Columnist and journalist Edwin Black criticizes Wikipedia for being a mixture of “truth, half truth, and some falsehoods”.99) 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 only present

, creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.100)101)102)

Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black noted how articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an “ax to grind” on the topic.103)) An article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin.104)

In 2006, the Wikipedia Watch criticism website listed dozens of examples of plagiarism in the English Wikipedia.105) Conversely, Wikipedia is often cited for factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and 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.”106) The findings by Nature were disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,107) and in response, Nature gave a rebuttal of the points raised by Britannica.108) In addition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others have examined the sample size and selection method used in the Nature effort, and suggested a “flawed study design” (in Nature

s manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported confidence intervals), and a lack of study “statistical power” (i.e., owing to small sample size, 42 or 4 x 101 articles compared, vs >105 and >106 set sizes for Britannica and the English Wikipedia, respectively).109)

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.110) Concerns have been raised by PC World in 2009 regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,111) vandalism, and similar problems.

Economist Tyler Cowen wrote: “If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the median refereed journal article on economics was more likely to be true, after a not so long think I would opt for Wikipedia.” He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal articles and relevant information is omitted from news reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found on Internet sites, and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them.112)

Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.113) Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.114) }} Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, and various forms of paid advocacy seen as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable online encyclopedia.115) In response to paid advocacy editing and undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article by Jeff Elder in The Wall Street Journal on June 16, 2014 to have strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.116) The article stated that: “Beginning Monday (from date of article), changes in Wikipedia's terms of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement. Katherine Maher, the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's chief communications officer, said the changes address a sentiment among volunteer editors that, 'we're not an advertising service; we're an encyclopedia.'”117)118)119)120) Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citeable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.121))

In February 2007, an article in The Harvard Crimson newspaper reported that a few of the professors at Harvard University include Wikipedia in their syllabi, but that there is a split in their perception of using Wikipedia.122) In June 2007, former president of the American Library Association Michael Gorman condemned Wikipedia, along with Google,123)

Medical information

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.”124) Beck continued to detail in this article new programs of Dr. Amin Azzam at the University of San Francisco to offer medical school courses to medical students for learning to edit and improve Wikipedia articles on health-related issues, as well as internal quality control programs within Wikipedia organized by Dr. James Heilman to improve a group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance up to Wikipedia's highest standard of peer review evaluated articles using its Featured Article and Good Article peer review evaluation standards.125) Beck added that: “Wikipedia has its own peer review process before articles can be classified as 'good' or 'featured.' Heilman, who has participated in that process before, says 'less than 1 percent' of Wikipedia's medical articles have passed.126) For instance, when contributors rewrite small portions of an entry rather than making full-length revisions, high- and low-quality content may be intermingled within an entry. Roy Rosenzweig, a history professor, stated that American National Biography Online outperformed Wikipedia in terms of its “clear and engaging prose”, which, he said, was an important aspect of good historical writing.127) A study of articles on cancer was undertaken in 2010 by Yaacov Lawrence of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University limited to those Wikipedia articles which could be found in the Physician Data Query and excluding Wikipedia articles written at the “start” class or the “stub” class level. Lawrence found the articles accurate but not very readable, and thought that “Wikipedia's lack of readability (to non-college readers) may reflect its varied origins and haphazard editing”.128) The Economist argued that better-written articles tend to be more reliable: “inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete information”.129)

Coverage of topics and systemic bias

Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has terabytes of disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed encyclopedia.130) 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).131)132) Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic because Wikipedia is not censored. The policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of images of Muhammad in the English edition of its Muhammad article, citing this policy. The presence of politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in Wikipedia has led to the censorship of Wikipedia by national authorities in China,133) and the United Kingdom,134) among other countries.


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:135)

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.136)

Coverage of topics and selection bias

Research conducted by the Oxford Internet Institute has shown that the geographic distribution of article topics is highly uneven. Africa is most underrepresented.137) An editorial in The Guardian cites that Women porn stars are better covered than women writers as a further example.138)

A “selection bias” may arise when more words per article are devoted to one public figure than a rival public figure. Editors may dispute suspected biases and discuss controversial articles, sometimes at great length.

Systemic bias

Wikipedia's number of approved contributors has shrunk steadily until in 2018 it is run by a handful of male, white, middle-class, mainly American or British neo-Marxist, atheist homosexuals and transsexuals obsessed with promoting the LGBT ideology worldwide. While some of them have qualifications in IT or social science, they are notably deficient in other areas, and there is still no requirement for any qualifications before contributing.

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 noted that the unevenness of coverage wass a reflection of the demography of the editors, which predominantly consists of young males with high education levels in the developed world (cf. previously).139) 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 policy creep on the downward trend in the number of editors.140) It may more specifically follow the biases of Internet culture, inclining to being young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases of its own may include over-emphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events.141)142) 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.143) to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), which issues a stop list to Internet service providers. IWF, a non-profit, non-government-affiliated organization, later criticized the inclusion of the picture as “distasteful”.144)

In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on Wikimedia Commons contained child pornography, and were in violation of US federal obscenity law.145) Sanger later clarified that the images, which were related to pedophilia and one about lolicon, were not of real children, but said that they constituted “obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children”, under the PROTECT Act of 2003.146) Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation,147) Critics, including Wikipediocracy, noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.148)


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.149)<ref group=notes>See "Libel" by David McHam for the legal distinction)) It is a battle between the right to be anonymous in cyberspace and the right to be anonymous in real life (”meatspace“). A particular problem occurs in the case of an individual who is relatively unimportant and for whom there exists a Wikipedia page against her or his wishes.

In January 2006, a German court ordered the German Wikipedia shut down within Germany because it stated the full name of Boris Floricic, aka “Tron”, a deceased hacker. On February 9, 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned, with the court rejecting the notion that Tron's right to privacy or that of his parents was being violated.150)

Wikipedia has a ”

“ that uses the OTRS system to handle queries without having to reveal the identities of the involved parties. This is used, for example, in confirming the permission for using individual images and other media in the project.151)


Wikipedia has been described as harboring a battleground culture of sexism and harassment.152)153) A toxic culture and tolerance of violent and abusive language are also reasons put forth for the gender gap in Wikipedia editors.154)


A group of Wikipedia editors may form a WikiProject to focus their work on a specific topic area, using its associated discussion page to coordinate changes across multiple articles.155)<!– Might need to be expanded. –>

Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia movement affiliates

File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg


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.156) 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.157)

In May 2014, Wikimedia Foundation named Lila Tretikov as its new executive director, taking over for Sue Gardner.158) 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.”159)160) The same Wall Street Journal article reported these directions of development according to an interview with spokesman Jay Walsh of Wikimedia who “said Tretikov would address that issue (paid advocacy) as a priority. 'We are really pushing toward more transparency… We are reinforcing that paid advocacy is not welcome.' Initiatives to involve greater diversity of contributors, better mobile support of Wikipedia, new geo-location tools to find local content more easily, and more tools for users in the second and third world are also priorities, Walsh said.”161) The software incorporates programming features such as a macro language, variables, a transclusion system for templates, and URL redirection. MediaWiki is licensed under the GNU General Public License and it is used by all Wikimedia projects, as well as many other wiki projects. Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker.

Several MediaWiki extensions are installed162) to extend the functionality of the MediaWiki software.

In April 2005, a Lucene extension163)164) was added to MediaWiki's built-in search and Wikipedia switched from MySQL to Lucene for searching. The site currently uses Lucene Search 2.1,165) which is written in Java and based on Lucene library 2.3.166)

In July 2013, after extensive beta testing, a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) extension, VisualEditor, was opened to public use.167)168)169)170) It was met with much rejection and criticism, and was described as “slow and buggy”.171) The feature was turned off afterward.

Automated editing

Computer programs called bots have been used widely 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.172)173)174) One controversial contributor massively creating articles with his bot was reported to create up to ten thousand articles on the Swedish Wikipedia on certain days.175) There are also some bots designed to automatically warn editors making common editing errors (such as unmatched quotes or unmatched parenthesis).176)<!–and prevent the creation of links to particular websites. Bots also find and revert changes by suspicious new accounts, enforce bans against shared IP addresses or the use of sockpuppets by a banned person operating from an alternate IP address.(unsourced/unverifiable)–> Edits misidentified by a bot as the work of a banned editor can be restored by other editors. An anti-vandal bot tries to detect and revert vandalism quickly and automatically.177) Bots on Wikipedia must be approved prior to activation.178)

According to Andrew Lih, the current expansion of Wikipedia to millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the use of such bots.179)

Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality


A ”WikiProject“ is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area (for example, women's history), a specific location or a specific kind of task (for example, checking newly created pages). The English Wikipedia currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects and activity varies.180)

In 2007, in preparation for producing a print version, the English Wikipedia introduced an assessment scale of the quality of articles.181) Articles are rated by Wikiprojects. The range of quality classes begins with “Stub” (very short pages), followed by “Start”, “C” and “B” (in increasing order of quality). Community peer review is needed for the article to enter one of the highest quality classes: either “A”, ”good article“ or the highest, ”featured article“. Of the about 4.4 million articles and lists assessed as of March 2015, a little more than 5000 (0.12%) are featured articles, and a little less than 2000 (0.04%) are featured lists. One featured article per day, as selected by editors, appears on the main page of Wikipedia.182)183)

The articles can also be rated as per “importance” as judged by a Wikiproject. Currently, there are 5 importance categories: “low”, “mid”, “high”, “top”, and ”???“ for unclassified/unsure level. For a particular article, different Wikiprojects may assign different importance levels.

The Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team has developed a table (shown below) that displays data of all rated articles by quality and importance, on the English Wikipedia. If an article or list receives different ratings by two or more Wikiprojects, then the highest rating is used in the table, pie-charts, and bar-chart. The software regularly auto-updates the data.

Researcher Giacomo Poderi found that articles tend to reach featured status via the intensive work of a few editors.184) A 2010 study found unevenness in quality among featured articles and concluded that the community process is ineffective in assessing the quality of articles.185)



page requests are first passed to a front-end layer of Squid caching servers.187)

Further statistics, based on a publicly available 3-month Wikipedia access trace, are available.188) Requests that cannot be served from the Squid cache are sent to load-balancing servers running the Linux Virtual Server software, which in turn pass them to one of the Apache web servers for page rendering from the database. The web servers deliver pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the language editions of Wikipedia. To increase speed further, rendered pages are cached in a distributed memory cache until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses.

Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of Linux servers (mainly Ubuntu).189)190)

, there were 300 in Florida and 44 in Amsterdam.191)192)


Internal research and operational development

In accordance with growing amounts of incoming donations exceeding seven digits in 2013 as recently reported,193) 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.194) Two of the recent projects of such internal research and development have been the creation of a Visual Editor and a largely under-utilized “Thank” tab which were developed for the purpose of ameliorating issues of editor attrition, which have met with limited success.195) 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.196) 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.197) The “five forces” are centered around the issue of “competitive rivalry” within the encyclopedia industry where Wikipedia is seen as having redefined by its “radical innovation” the parameters of effectiveness applied to conventional encyclopedia publication. This is the first force of Porter's five forces analysis.198) The second force is the “threat of new entrants” with competitive services and products possibly arising on the internet or the web. As a “first mover”, Wikipedia has largely eluded the emergence of a fast second to challenge its radical innovation and its standing as the central provider of the services which it offers through the World Wide Web.199) Porter's third force is the “threat of substitute products” and it is too early to identify Google's “Knowledge Graphs” as an effective competitor given the current dependence of “Knowledge Graphs” upon Wikipedia's free access to its open-source services.200) It covers news and events from the site, as well as major events from other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikimedia Commons. Similar publications are the German-language ''Kurier'', and the Portuguese-language ''Correio da Wikipédia''. Other past and present community news publications on English Wikipedia include the “Wikiworld” web comic, the ''Wikipedia Weekly'' podcast, and newsletters of specific WikiProjects like ''The Bugle'' from WikiProject Military History and the monthly newsletter from The Guild of Copy Editors. There are also a number of publications from the Wikimedia Foundation and multilingual publications such as the Wikimedia Blog and This Month in Education.

Access to content

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.201) 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.202) 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

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 2009.203)204)205)

The handling of media files (e.g. image files) varies across language editions. Some language editions, such as the English Wikipedia, include non-free image files under fair use doctrine, while the others have opted not to, in part because of the lack of fair use doctrines in their home countries (e.g. in Japanese copyright law). Media files covered by free content licenses (e.g. Creative Commons' CC BY-SA) are shared across language editions via Wikimedia Commons repository, a project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia's accommodation of varying international copyright laws regarding images has led some to observe that its photographic coverage of topics lags behind the quality of the encyclopedic text.206)

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.207)208)

{{anchor|Reusing_Wikipedia.27s_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 of the Wikipedia website.

  • Websites – Thousands of ”mirror sites“ exist that republish content from Wikipedia: two prominent ones, that also include content from other reference sources, are and Another example is Wapedia, which began to display Wikipedia content in a mobile-device-friendly format before Wikipedia itself did.
  • Mobile apps – A variety of mobile apps provide access to Wikipedia on hand-held devices, including both Android and iOS devices (see Wikipedia apps). (See also Mobile access.)
  • Search engines – Some web search engines make special use of Wikipedia content when displaying search results: examples include Bing (via technology gained from Powerset)209)210) The Polish-language version contains nearly 240,000 articles.211) There are German- and Spanish-language versions as well.212)213) Also, “Wikipedia for Schools”, the Wikipedia series of CDs / DVDs produced by Wikipedians and SOS Children, is a free, hand-checked, non-commercial selection from Wikipedia targeted around the UK National Curriculum and intended to be useful for much of the English-speaking world.214)215) Since 2009, tens of thousands of 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 Mauritian subsidiaries of the German publisher VDM.216) 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%.((“slis WP reference desk 1”>))

    ==== Mobile access


    Wikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit content using any standard web browser through a fixed Internet connection. Although Wikipedia content has been accessible through the mobile web since July 2013, The New York Times on February 9, 2014 quoted Erik Moller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, stating that the transition of internet traffic from desktops to mobile devices was significant and a cause for concern and worry.((“small screen” /> The The New York Times article reported the comparison statistics for mobile edits stating that, “Only 20 percent of the readership of the English-language Wikipedia comes via mobile devices, a figure substantially lower than the percentage of mobile traffic for other media sites, many of which approach 50 percent. And the shift to mobile editing has lagged even more.”((“small screen” /> The New York Times reports that Mr. Moller 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.((“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.((Brad Stone, “How Google's Android chief, Sundar Pichai, became the most powerful man in mobile”, June 30 – July 6, 2014, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, pp. 47-51.)) 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.217) The latest version for iOS was released on April 3, 2013 to similar reviews.218)

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, an official website for wireless devices. In 2009 a newer mobile service was officially released,219) located at, which caters to more advanced mobile devices such as the iPhone, Android-based devices or WebOS-based devices. Several other methods of mobile access to Wikipedia have emerged. Many devices and applications optimise or enhance the display of Wikipedia content for mobile devices, while some also incorporate additional features such as use of Wikipedia metadata (See

), such as geoinformation.220)221)

Wikipedia Zero is an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to expand the reach of the encyclopedia to the developing countries.222)

Andrew Lih and Andrew Brown both maintain editing Wikipedia with smart phones is difficult and this discourages new potential contributors. Several years running the number of Wikipedia editors has been falling and Tom Simonite of MIT Technology Review claims the bureaucratic structure and rules are a factor in this. Simonite alleges some Wikipedians use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and those editors have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. 223) Lih alleges there is serious disagreement among existing contributors 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.224)225)



Wikipedia is extremely popular. In February 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites, stating “With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month […] Wikipedia trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors.”226)

According to “Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011”, the average age of Wikipedia readers is 36, with a rough parity between genders. Almost half of Wikipedia readers visit the site more than five times a month, and a similar number of readers specifically look for Wikipedia in search engine results. About 47% of Wikipedia readers do not realize that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization.227)

Cultural significance

<!– 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. –>

in Słubice, Poland]] Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases.228) 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.229) The encyclopedia's assertions are increasingly used as a source by organizations such as the US federal courts and the World Intellectual Property Organization230)231)232)233)

In 2006, ''Time'' magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation (along with YouTube, Reddit, MySpace, and Facebook234) which argued that, with increased usage and awareness, the number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the word is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar (Google, Facebook, YouTube) that they no longer need explanation.

On September 28, 2007, Italian politician Franco Grillini raised a parliamentary question with the minister of cultural resources and activities about the necessity of freedom of panorama. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Wikipedia, “the seventh most consulted website”, to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues.235)

File:Wikipedia, an introduction - Erasmus Prize 2015.webm


receiving the Quadriga A Mission of Enlightenment award]]

On September 16, 2007, The Washington Post reported that Wikipedia had become a focal point in the 2008 US election campaign, saying: “Type a candidate's name into Google, and among the first results is a Wikipedia page, making those entries arguably as important as any ad in defining a candidate. Already, the presidential entries are being edited, dissected and debated countless times each day.”236) 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.237)

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.238)


Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004.239) 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.240) Wikipedia was also nominated for a “Best Practices” Webby award.

In 2007, readers of voted Wikipedia as the fourth-highest brand ranking, receiving 15% of the votes in answer to the question “Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?”241)

In September 2008, Wikipedia received Quadriga A Mission of Enlightenment award of Werkstatt Deutschland along with Boris Tadić, Eckart Höfling, and Peter Gabriel. The award was presented to Wales by David Weinberger.242)

In 2015, Wikipedia was awarded both the annual Erasmus Prize, which recognizes exceptional contributions to culture, society or social sciences,243) and the Spanish Princess of Asturias Award on International Cooperation.244) 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.245) The night of the ceremony, members of the Wikimedia Foundation held a meeting with Wikipedians from all parts of Spain, including the local Asturian community.


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”.246) as well as the 2010 The Onion article ”'L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874 Times Today“.247)

In an episode of the television comedy ''The Office'' U.S., which aired in April 2007, an incompetent office manager (Michael Scott) is shown relying on a hypothetical Wikipedia article for information on negotiation tactics in order to assist him in negotiating lesser pay for an employee.248) The tactics he used failed, as a joke about the unreliability of Wikipedia and what anyone can do to change its contents. 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.249)

My Number One Doctor“, a 2007 episode of the television show Scrubs, played on the perception that Wikipedia is an unreliable reference tool with a scene in which Dr. Perry Cox reacts to a patient who says that a Wikipedia article indicates that the raw food diet reverses the effects of bone cancer by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article also wrote the ''Battlestar Galactica'' episode guide.250)

In 2008, the comedic website CollegeHumor produced a video sketch named “Professor Wikipedia”, in which the fictitious Professor Wikipedia instructs a class with a medley of unverifiable and occasionally absurd statements.251)

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.”252)

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.253)

In 2010, comedian Daniel Tosh encouraged viewers of his show, Tosh.0, to visit the show's Wikipedia article and edit it at will. On a later episode, he commented on the edits to the article, most of them offensive, which had been made by the audience and had prompted the article to be locked from editing.254)255)

On August 23, 2013, the New Yorker website published a cartoon with this caption: “Dammit, Manning, have you considered the pronoun war that this is going to start on your Wikipedia page?”256)

In December 2015, John Julius Norwich stated, in a letter published in The Times newspaper, that as an 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.257)258)

Sister projects – Wikimedia

Wikipedia has also 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 2002,259)260)261) 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.”262) Others dispute the notion that Wikipedia, or similar efforts, will entirely displace traditional publications. For instance, Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine, wrote in Nature that the ”wisdom of crowds“ approach of Wikipedia will not displace top scientific journals, with their rigorous peer review process.263)

Scientific use

In computational linguistics, information retrieval and natural language processing, Wikipedia has seen widespread use as a corpus for linguistic research. In particular, it commonly serves as a target knowledge base for the entity linking problem, which is then called “wikification”,264) and to the related problem of word sense disambiguation.265) Methods similar to wikification can in turn be used to find “missing” links in Wikipedia.266)

In 2015, French researchers Dr 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.267)268)269) They used PageRank “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).”270)








278) <!– 279) –> 280)







287) <!–unused: 288)

289) –> 290)










































332) <!– 333)–>












346) }}


Further reading

Academic studies


  • (See book review by Baker, as listed hereafter.)

  • (Substantial criticisms of Wikipedia and other web 2.0 projects.)

    • Listen to:
      • The NPR interview with A. Keen, Weekend Edition Saturday, June 16, 2007.

  • Sheizaf Rafaeli & Yaron Ariel (2008). “Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia.” In

Learning resources

Other media coverage

Wikipedia Collaborative projects Creative Commons-licensed websites Free encyclopedias Internet properties established in 2001 Multilingual websites Internet encyclopedias Open content projects Social information processing Virtual communities Wikimedia projects Wikis 2001 establishments in the United States American websites Articles containing video clips

This part below is from Conservapedia:

Recent loss of influence

In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.347) At the same time, Business Insider indicated Quora was “Wikipedia's worst nightmare”.348) In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.349) If one seeks a comparison point, it may be rejoined that Conservapedia has not been properly studied. See the the Novemember 13th 2012 edit for this article.

Unreliability of Wikipedia

Wikipedia relies on self-selected “editors” to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by “well-educated, well-informed content experts.”350) Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But, as below (“Arbitrary Standards”), editors can delete, without collaboration, any entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors.

In 2008, the American Journalism Review declared concerning Wikipedia:

Despite its official “neutrality policy,” Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In an article entitled “Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,” journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia “is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known.”351) Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.352) In December of 2010, Christian apologist JP Holding called Wikipedia “the abomination that causes misinformation”.353)

Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: “In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws. Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional encyclopedias. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain “inaccuracies”, leading the “Daily Mail” to dub it “Iffy-pedia”.354) The lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. Many in the academy insist that it is unreliable source for research and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original source material, and with the use of hyperlinks and search engines, it has become the most widely used intermediary reference tool on the Internet.

According to the style manual for the Associated Press, the largest news agency in the United States, Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, but the hyperlinks in articles may be helpful as sources.

Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and silly topics ranging from an explanation for “duh”355)) to singles by obscure rock bands356)) to arcane British nobility.357)) There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.358) After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,359) and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.360) Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there were more than 3.8 million content pages.361) As of September 2013, there are more than 4.3 million “content” pages, many of which lack educational value. On important topics, the information is often misleading due to the unchecked, systematic liberal bias that dominates Wikipedia. __TOC__


Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.362)) In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,363) and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.364)

Leftist bias

See also: Leftist roots of Wikipedia

See also: Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in the proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own NPOV policy when it allows contributors to “delete well-referenced information” merely because it comes from a scientist who holds a minority view. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use ”undue weight“ like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this Zogby poll:

While 97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a “conservative bias”. Democrats, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the media was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right – and 17% said the bias favored the left.365)

David Swindle writes at FrontPage Magazine:

philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.366)

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>“Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore​. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?”367)</blockquote>

Purported "Tertiary" Source and Arbitrary Standards

Wikipedia purports to be a “tertiary” source, relying on edited work from reputable sources. The policy is meant to build on the work of qualified editors of secondary sources. Some accuse Wikipedia, therefore, of relying on hearsay, and discouraging the application of logic and new development of new insights. The result is a agglomeration of reheated “consensus” with little or no intellectual merit of its own; in particular, it is impossible to challenge orthodoxy, received wisdom or commonly held misconceptions through the Wikipedia system, no matter how factually incorrect those orthodoxies might be.

Supporters of Wikipedia would claim that relying on secondary sources encourages reliability and objectivity. However, there are cases of Wikipedia applying it's standards arbitrarily. For example, the case of Wikipedia editor “Yeoberry” (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about “Icons” on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a “tertiary” source and so he needed to find reliable secondary sources. On April 4, 2013, Yeoberry again added largely the same material, this time citing a newly published academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal. The information was again removed, with editors, at least some of whom religiously affiliated with the organization supporting icons, claiming the editor had a “COI” (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with “edit warring.” When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely.

Wikipedia articles, especially on controversial or political and religious topics, are often guarded by editors who have an interest in slanting the content of the article, may have no formal education on the topic, and can find a so-called reason for suppressing the information they want to suppress. Editors can claim the source is unreliable (as they interpret that); that information gives “UNDUE” weight to the topic the information is about; peer-reviewed, academic articles written by scholars can be removed by editors if, in the opinion of an editor, the view expressed is “Fringe” or if the contributor has a “COI” (conflict of interest) if he's the author of the secondary source or has an advanced education or other interest in the topic; etc. Editors with advanced education in a topic, citing sources from peer-reviewed journals, can have their contributions deleted and their participation prohibited if a few other editors, without such qualification but with enough knowledge of the Wikipedia jargon, decide to suppress him or her.

Originally, encyclopedias were written by scholars, either by one or a few whose knowledge is considered “encyclopedic” (i.e. very broad) or each article is written by an expert in the field. But in Wikipedia, expertise in a given field can disqualify one from contributing in that field resulting in Wikipedia being accused of being a ”idiocracy“.

Wikipedia on bestiality

See also: Wikipedia on bestiality and Atheism and bestiality

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by atheists and entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and the agnostic philosophy professor Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001.368)

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on zoophilia/bestiality has an entire section on “arguments for zoophilia” plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on “arguments against zoophilia”. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a ”Zoophilia and the law" article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.369)

See also: Atheism and bestiality and Evolutionary belief and bestiality


Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in venture capital. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.370)371)

The Register said:372) :Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of “an encyclopedia anyone can edit” with the more utilitarian goal of “a website anyone would want to read”. With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

For the past few years, Wikipedia has added banners begging for money from its viewers. The site claims to be in need of more funding, but in fact it is “awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.”373)

Scandals and decline
Graph courtesy [ Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission. />

The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, “The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history…. Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press.”374)

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, “life and death,” Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, “OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!” ://

Further evidence of the decline in Wikipedia is that the number of editors who voted in the 2012 Arbitration Committee elections has dropped to 858.375) For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.

False claim about Brent Bozell

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:376)

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading “Criticism,” it stated that I had attacked him, “claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so.” …

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but “convenient” or “profitable” for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS “News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its “History” section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: “Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.” (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website has a long list of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only “Essjay” online and described on his user profile “as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,” was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead says “Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.”377)

Rewriting its own history

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.378) But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:379)

:“When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.”

:“I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,” he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, “Wikipedia.”380)

:“I am not bent out of shape about it,” he wrote. “The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.”

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales “has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005.”381)

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

Seigenthaler scandal

In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., contacted Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.382) An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May, :“John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven,” and “John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter.”

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is “accountable” and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.383) Accountability activist Daniel Brandt, a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.384)

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of USA Today from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.385)

CNN interview

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on CNN. An exchange between CNN moderator Kyra Phillips and Wales went like this:

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told Editor & Publisher magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, “I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,” and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, “we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.”

Seigenthaler told the audience “with accountability comes credibility” and expressed fear that, “I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.”386)

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the New York Times changed U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay's Wikipedia biographical entry from “a prominent member of the Republican Party” to “Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.”387)388)

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the The Tennessean after the November 30 USA Today piece appeared,

Accountability and Section 230

''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'' />

Upon his retirement from USA Today, Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about First Amendment rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.” Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted Jimbo Wales told Brian Lamb in a C-Span interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,

In the case of Zeran v. AOL, Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.389)390)

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.391)

Essjay given oversight

:See Main article: The Essjay scandal

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, “I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, Jimmy Wales; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.392) Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, “The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,” and quoted some comments, “We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p…k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.”393)

Others said, “Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,” and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, Biographies of Living Persons, conflict of interest restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: “Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.”394)

skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]] Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered “the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,”395) catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.396)

The scandal was originally billed as a “hoax”, then “controversy,” then downgraded to “incident,” and now re-upgraded to “controversy,” evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on “Seigenthaler controversy” contains disinformation, making the claim, “After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.” No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal–the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called “sockpuppet accounts.” Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by BusinessWeek magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”397) In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's “Seigenthaler controversy” also states, “The Foundation added a new level of “oversight” features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,”398) one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.399)

Brandt / Berlet feud

:See Main article: The Daniel Brandt controversy An ugly far-left sectarian dispute400) reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as “a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,401) Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed Chip Berlet from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty.” Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President Franklin Roosevelt to the Teheran conference, was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”402) by Donald Southerland in Oliver Stone's film, JFK. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an “accountability activist”403)404) and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,

Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, “I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something.”405) This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (BLP),406) would use a source she did not consider credible.

Biographies of living persons

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the Seigenthaler scandal, but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.407) Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

Editor & Publisher magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales responded to questions from Editor & Publisher in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,

Wales comments added undue weight408) (WP:UNDUE) to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Chip Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia “expert.”

File:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!''

Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its Brandt the Boogeyman entry,

The Wordbomb Saga

] One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in The Register,409) centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com410) that a mainstream financial journalist Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.411) Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock412) and its CEO Patrick Byrne,413) ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of Naked Short Selling.

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence414) suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,415) but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.416) Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),417) the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.418)

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of Jimbo Wales, administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.

by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and corruption on Wall Street and in the Wikipedia cabal. :// ]] Bagley was repeatedly disparaged419) by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.420) Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog showed “moral depravity”421) for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting422) that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68423) questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,424) “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study425) undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation426)427) that Jimbo Wales, alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the financial meltdown of 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.428) Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.429)

Michael Moore

United For Peace and Justice :// ]] The website, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to Sicko, published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both Sicko and the editor's user page.:// Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of Michael Moore's official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. :// The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder Jimbo Wales allegedly is “absolute and non-negotiable.”:// The ArbCom chairman further stated, “Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.” :// When asked, “How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?”, the ArbCom chairman responded, “Not at all.” :// The editor whom was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as “a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.”://

Sinbad hoax

On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: “He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.” This hoax was widely reported in the media430).

Robert Clark Young revenge edits

From 2006 to 2013, Robert Clark Young, an author who had only published one novel to mixed reviews, edited Wikipedia extensively with 13,000 edits under username “Qworty.” He engaged in aggressive behavior making revenge edits to biographical articles of his rival authors and other people against whom he held grudges. He also puffed up his own Wikipedia autobiography, and repeatedly denied that he was connected to Young. He also created other single purpose accounts to further his campaign.431)432) Only after his true identity was revealed in a article,433) was Young banned434) and efforts made to reverse his vindictive edits. In essence, he would remove favorable items from the biographies of his enemies or nominate them for deletion. The article concluded, <blockquote>But Qworty’s example tells us that even when people call attention to a rogue editor, even when that editor’s temper tantrums come to the attention of the founder of Wikipedia, it’s quite possible that no action will be taken.</blockquote>

Rutgers-Ivy League hoax

A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys.”435)

Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a “bloody disgrace”.436)437)438)439)

GFDL License Issue

Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles440) without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by the user to those of the GFDL license.441)442)

However, beginning June 15, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation began transitioning content on Wikipedia to be dual licensed under both the GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.443)


The press have reported on incidents of cyberbullying on Wikipedia.444)445)446) An editor threatened an Asian student at the Glen A. Wilson High School in 2008,447)

Trademarks and domain names

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) uses the licensing of its trademarks as a tool to control local chapters. Although each local chapter is in theory an autonomous organization, each chapter signs an contract with the WMF as a condition for using its trademarks. The WMF also tried to stake out control over many domain names that contain the word “wiki” including ”wikileaks“. WikiLeaks and Wikipedia have no affiliation with each other. (“Wiki” describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)448)449) Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including and as a “protective brand measure” in 2007.450) Wikia started to transfer those domain names to wikileaks on June 14, 2007, but the transfer was never completed, and Wikia held those domain names when the “Wikileaks scandal broke.451)

Song excerpt

Unbiased editor recruitment

Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. It is to an extent, its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the “24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change” conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.

Wikipedia editor Sarah Stierch was the volunteer moderator of the Gender Gap email list where she departed from discussing Wikipedia to freely share her negative experiences with men in her life. In fall 2011, she was hired by the WMF as a Community Fellow to work on creating a “Teahouse” for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project452) explained, “If you click through to the Teahouse, it’s clearly aiming to broaden female participation - just look at the pastel background and references to tea.” Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, “Because so much time and energy needed to be spend during the pilot on setting up and maintaining the space, we weren't able to focus as much as we'd have liked on gender-targeted strategies for recruiting female guests and hosts. There are clearly more experiments that need to be run in order to better integrate the space with other gender gap efforts and WikiWomen's calls to actions.”

See also
Further reading
External links

Wikis Featured articles Encyclopedias Wikipedia Wikimedia Foundation Wiki Administration Information Resources Liberal Liberal media

Survival Prepper Wiki Administration Information Resources Wikis Liberal Liberal media

In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. ://
“Alexa siteinfo” /><!– 7th is an approximation, so sticking to vague phrasing is probably best. –> and unfortunately constitutes the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.((“Tancer” />((“Woodson” />((
“MiliardWho” /> coined its name,((“J Sidener”/> a portmanteau of wiki and encyclo''pedia''. Wikipedia was only in the English language initially, but it quickly became multilingual as it developed similar versions in other languages which differ in content and in editing practices. The English Wikipedia is now one of over 290 Wikipedia editions and holds the largest amount of articles, with more than 5,257,000, having surpassed 5,000,000 articles in November 2015. Wikipedia consists of a grand total of more than 40 million articles in more than 250 different languages throughout all current encyclopedias.((“CBS”>
“small screen” /> In an example of alleged left-wing political bias, the online paywall company Elsevier allows approved Wikipedia editors free access to scientific research papers that it publishes. The editors are expected to cite these research papers in Wikipedia articles. Regular readers of Wikipedia articles would then have to pay Elsevier up to several hundred dollars to read a scientific paper to verify a citation. Elsevier does not grant editors of rival online encyclopedias like Infogalactic or Conservapedia or Metapedia (which have more right-wing editorial viewpoints) the same privilege.((Maddie Stone (Sep 18, 2015) “Is A Giant Academic Publisher Trying To Paywall Wikipedia?” |
“Simba Information: Five Professional Publishing News Events of 2015 Signal Times Are A-Changin'” (Dec 17, 2015)
12) , 24) , 27) , 31) , 33) , 35) , 39) , 45) , 48) , 53) , 61) , 62) , 63) , 66) , 67) , 75) , 76) , 77) , 79) , 93) , 136) , 151) , 152) , 153) , 155) , 157) , 158) , 163) , 164) , 165) , 166) , 168) , 172) , 174) , 175) , 176) , 178) , 180) , 192) , 218) , 222) , 223) , 225) , 227) , 235) , 237) , 244) , 245) , 247) , 248) , 249) , 256) , 260) , 369) , 370) , 375) , 431) , 432) , 433) , 434) , 448) , 449) , 452)
“stallman1999” /> Sanger and Wales founded Wikipedia.((“autogenerated1” />((“Meyers” /> While Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,((“SangerMemoir” />((“Sanger” /> Sanger is credited with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.((“WM foundation of WP 1”>
“nupedia feeder from WP 1”>
“SangerMemoir” /> Wikipedia's policy of “neutral point-of-view”((“NPOV” /> was codified in its first months. Otherwise, there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated independently of Nupedia.((“SangerMemoir” /> Originally, Bomis intended to make Wikipedia a business for profit.((“Seth-Finkelstein”>
“Wikipedia August 08, 2001”>
“Wikipedia September 25, 2001”>
“WP early language stats 1”>
“EB_encyclopedia” /> Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002.((“EL fears and start 1”>
“Shirky” /> Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of articles and of contributors, appears to have peaked around early 2007.((“guardian WP user peak 1”>
“WP growth modelling 1”>
“wikisym slowing growth 1”>
“bostonreview the end of WP 1”>
“stanford WP lack of future growth 1”>Austin Gibbons, David Vetrano, Susan Biancani (2012). Wikipedia: Nowhere to grow
“guardian editors leaving 1”>
“WSJ WP losing editors 1”>Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages, The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2009.
“telegraph Wales WP not losing editors 1”>
“wiki-women” /> In the same interview, Wales also claimed the number of editors was “stable and sustainable”, a claim which was questioned by MIT's Technology Review in a 2013 article titled “The Decline of Wikipedia.”((“Simonite-2013”>
Ward, Katherine. New York Magazine, issue of November 25, 2013, p. 18.
“Alexa siteinfo” />((“Alexa top”>
“small screen”>
“LA Times Jan 19”>
“BBC WP blackout protest 1”>
“sagepub WP and encyclopedic production 1”>
“theatlantic WP actually a reversion 1”>
“” /> When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Security indicated that he suspected much of the page view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, “If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need to click [any further].”((“” /> == Openness == Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principle<ref group=“notes”>The procrastination principle dictates that you should wait for problems to arise before solving them.
zittrain/> regarding the security of its content.((zittrain>
“WP protection policy 1”>
“Torsten_Kleinz” /> Anyone attempting to change them will be excluded promptly and fiercely by the cabal abd their changes erased. Only approved “users” can view the latest changes articles, and only approved “users” may maintain a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of any changes. “New pages patrol” is a process whereby newly created articles are checked for conformity with the cabal's agenda.((New pages patrol
“upenn link spamming 1”>Link spamming Wikipedia for profit (2011
“WP vandalism manipulation 1”/> (1927–2014), subject of the Seigenthaler incident]] Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from wiki articles; the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes.((“MIT_IBM_study” />((“CreatingDestroyingAndRestoringValue” /> However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair.((“Seigenthaler” /> In the Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler in May 2005. Seigenthaler was falsely presented as a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.((“Seigenthaler” /> The article remained uncorrected for four months.((“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 replied that he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced.((“book The World is Flat 1”>
“Seigenthaler” /> This incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of .((
“pcworld who's behind WP”>
“WP some sites stable versions 1” /> === Content policies and guidelines === According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-like.((“WP content policy 1”>. Retrieved April 1, 2010. “Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide.”
“WP notability guide 1”>. 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.”
“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.((“WP Verifiability policy 1”>. February 13, 2008. “Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.”
“IHT WP valid info wrong removable 1”>
“autogenerated2” /> All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article.((“alternet WP unethical editing destroy's credibility 1”>
“user identification” /> As Wikipedia grew, “Who writes Wikipedia?” became one of the questions frequently asked on the project.((
“labor squeeze on WP 1”>
“legal edu and WP 1”>
“sciam good samaritans 1”>
“blodget” /> However, Business Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodget showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most content in Wikipedia (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”.((“blodget” /> A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others,((“liebertonline view on WP users 1”>Yair Amichai–Hamburger, Naama Lamdan, Rinat Madiel, Tsahi Hayat, Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members, CyberPsychology & Behavior, December 1, 2008, 11 (6): 679–681; .
“newscientist view on WP users 1”>
“newscientist WP boom to bust 1”>
“NYT WP contributors gender 1”/> Linda Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women, noted the contrast in these Wikipedia editor statistics with the percentage of women currently completing bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and PhD programs in the United States (all at rates of 50 percent or greater).((“NYT WP male domination 1”>
“BBC”/> == Language editions == There are currently 292 language editions of Wikipedia (also called language versions, or simply Wikipedias). Thirteen of these have over one million articles each (English, Swedish, Cebuano, German, Dutch, French, Russian, Waray-Waray, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Vietnamese and Japanese), three more have over 500,000 articles (Portuguese, Chinese and Ukrainian<!–Catalan - approaching 500,000 soon–>), 42 more have over 100,000 articles, and 75 more have over 10,000&nbsp;articles.((“ListOfWikipedias” />((“WP list of WPs 1”>List of Wikipedias
“Alexa siteinfo” /> As of , the six largest language editions are (in order of article count) the , , , , , and Wikipedias.((“WP list of WPs by article 1”> , }}
“WP spelling MOS 1”>
“WP countering bias 1”>
“WP meta fair use 1”>
“WP meta WP images 1”>
“IBM visual WP 1”>
“WP Wales free multi-lingual encyclopedia”>Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, &lt;[email protected]&gt;
“WP metawiki maintenance 1”>
“WP meta stats 1”>
“WP meta articles on all sites 1”>
“WP auto-translations rules 1”>
“WP global south demographic increase plan 1”>
“economist1” /> Given that the trend analysis published in The Economist presents the number of active editors for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) as remaining relatively constant and successful in sustaining its numbers at approximately 42,000 active editors, the contrast has pointed to the effectiveness of Wikipedia in other languages to retain its active editors on a renewable and sustained basis.((“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.((Andrew Lih. Wikipedia. Alternative edit policies at Wikipedia in other languages.
D. Jemielniak, Common Knowledge, Stanford University Press, 2014.
EdwinBlack>Black, Edwin (April 19, 2010) Wikipedia—The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge, History News Network Retrieved October 21, 2014
Messer-Kruse, Timothy (February 12, 2012) The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved March 27, 2014
Colón-Aguirre, Monica &Fleming-May, Rachel A. (October 11, 2012) “You Just Type in What You Are Looking For”: Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia (page 392) The Journal of Academic Librarianship Retrieved March 27, 2014
Bowling Green News (February 27, 2012) Wikipedia experience sparks national debate Bowling Green State University Retrieved March 27, 2014
Petrilli>J. Petrilli , Michael (SPRING 2008/Vol.8, No.2) Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?, Education Next Retrieved October 22, 2014
“wwplagiarism” /> === Accuracy of content === Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica are carefully and deliberately written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy.((
“GilesJ2005Internet” /> 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.”((Reagle, pp. 165-166.
“” />((“ britannica response 1”>
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, , see ://, accessed July 21, 2014.
“WP general disclaimer 1”>
“WikipediaWatch” /> the insertion of false information,((“pcworld WP blunders 1”>
“tnr experts vigilant in correcting WP 1”>
“TNY reliability issues 1”>
“AcademiaAndWikipedia” /> Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.((“McHenry_2004” />
“Torsten_Kleinz” />((“citizendium WP trolling issues 1”>
“ReferenceA”>June 16, 2014, “Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing”, By Jeff Elder, The Wall Street Journal.
“ReferenceA”/>((“DeathByWikipedia” />((“cnet politicians and WP 1”>
“msnbc MS cash for WP edits 1”>
“Seeing Corporate Fingerprints” /> These issues, among others, had been parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.((“wikiality” /> Most university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;((“WideWorldOfWikipedia” /> some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.((“insidehighered against WP 1”>
“insidehighered wiki no cite”>
“AWorkInProgress” /> Wales once (2006 or earlier) said he receives about ten emails weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia; he told the students they got what they deserved. “For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia”, he said.((“Jimmy Wales don't cite WP 1”>“Jimmy Wales”, Biography Resource Center Online. (Gale, 2006.
“thecrimson wiki debate”>Child, Maxwell L., "Professors Split on Wiki Debate", The Harvard Crimson, Monday, February 26, 2007.
“stothart” /> stating that academics who endorse the use of Wikipedia are “the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything”. A Harvard law textbook, Legal Research in a Nutshell (2011), cites Wikipedia as a “general source” that “can be a real boon” in “coming up to speed in the law governing a situation” and, “while not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more in-depth resources”.((“Nutshell in-depth resources”>
“Julie Beck 2014”>Julie Beck. “Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia”. The Atlantic, March 5, 2014.
“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 Dr. James Heilman as stating: “Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality reference.”((“”>
“” /> === Quality of writing === In 2008, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that the quality of a Wikipedia article would suffer rather than gain from adding more writers when the article lacked appropriate explicit or implicit coordination.((Kittur and Kraut (2008) Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in Wikipedia: quality through coordination. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460572
“Rosenzweig” /> Contrasting Wikipedia's treatment of Abraham Lincoln to that of Civil War historian James McPherson in American National Biography Online, he said that both were essentially accurate and covered the major episodes in Lincoln's life, but praised “McPherson's richer contextualization […] his artful use of quotations to capture Lincoln's voice […] and […] his ability to convey a profound message in a handful of words.” By contrast, he gives an example of Wikipedia's prose that he finds “both verbose and dull”. Rosenzweig also criticized the “waffling—encouraged by the npov policy—[which] means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history”. By example, he quoted the conclusion of Wikipedia's article on William Clarke Quantrill. While generally praising the article, he pointed out its “waffling” conclusion: “Some historians […] remember him as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while others continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero.”((“Rosenzweig” /> Other critics have made similar charges that, even if Wikipedia articles are factually accurate, they are often written in a poor, almost unreadable style. Frequent Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski commented: “Even when a Wikipedia entry is 100 per cent factually correct, and those facts have been carefully chosen, it all too often reads as if it has been translated from one language to another then into to a third, passing an illiterate translator at each stage.”((“theregister Wales WP founder on quality 1”>
“upi accuracy 1”>
“economist incomplete info”>
“WP advantages over trad media 1”>
“Economist disagreements not uncommon”>
“telegraph WP torn apart 1”>
“Taylor” /> Pakistan,((“washington post state censorship 1”>
“BBC child image censored 1”>
“Kittur2009” />
  • Culture and the arts: 30% (210%)
  • Biographies and persons: 15% (97%)
  • Geography and places: 14% (52%)
  • Society and social sciences: 12% (83%)
  • History and events: 11% (143%)
  • Natural and physical sciences: 9% (213%)
  • Technology and the applied sciences: 4% (−6%)
  • Religions and belief systems: 2% (38%)
  • Health: 2% (42%)
  • Mathematics and logic: 1% (146%)
  • Thought and philosophy: 1% (160%)
These numbers refer only to the quantity of articles: it is possible for one topic to contain a large number of short articles and another to contain a small number of large ones. Through its ”Wikipedia Loves Libraries“ program, Wikipedia has partnered with major public libraries such as the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts to expand its coverage of underrepresented subjects and articles.((“NYT subjects and articles”>
“zerogeography places coverage”>
“Simonite-2013” /> Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally, for example favouring certain nationalities, ethnicities or majority religions.((“Quilter”>
“Quilter” /> 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.((“Edit Wars Reveal the 10 Most Controversial Topics on Wikipedia”, MIT Technology Review, July 17, 2013.
“autogenerated3” /> By comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the Oxford study were for the articles covering (i) Croatia, (ii) Scientology and (iii) 9/11 conspiracy theories.((“autogenerated3” /> === Explicit content === Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information of graphic content. Articles depicting arguably 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, photographs of nude children, illustrations of zoophilia, and photos from hardcore pornographic films in its articles. The Wikipedia article about Virgin Killera 1976 album from German heavy metal band Scorpions—features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl. The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer was blocked for four days by most Internet service providers in the United Kingdom after it was reported by a member of the public as child pornography,((“Register ISP censorship”>
“WP free speech debate”>
“Inquirer child abuse allegations”>
“The Register-April” /> That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are obscene under American law.((“The Register-April” /> Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.((“TET child porn accusations”>
“AFP” /> saying that Wikipedia did not have “material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it.”((“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”.((“BBC News Wales cedes rights”>
Andrew McStay, 2014, Privacy and Philosophy: New Media and Affective Protocol, New York Peter Lang.
“heise Tron public issue 1”>Heise – {{lang|de|Gericht weist einstweilige Verfügung gegen Wikimedia Deutschland ab}}[Update, by Torsten Kleinz, February 9, 2006.
“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”.
“Jeff Elder 2014” /> 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 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 === The operation of Wikipedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free and open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database system.((“nedworks database system”>
“WP extensions installed”>. Retrieved August 18, 2014.
“Orlowski, Andrew”>
“meetbots” /> Bots can also report edits from particular accounts or IP address ranges, as was done at the time of the MH17 jet downing incident in July 2014.((Aljazeera, July 21, 2014, “MH17 Wikipedia entry edited from Russian Government IP Address”. ://
Andrew Lih (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution, chapter Then came the Bots, pp. 99-106.
“WP 1.0 editorial team 1”>
“FMonday feat article patterns 1”>
“IBM feat articles hidden pattern 1”>
“Poderi Giacomo feat articles 1”>Poderi, Giacomo, Wikipedia and the Featured Articles: How a Technological System Can Produce Best Quality Articles, Master thesis, University of Maastricht, October 2008.
“en.wikipedia” />
}} </div> [Note: The table above (prepared by the Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team) is automatically updated daily by WP 1.0 bot, but the bar-chart and the two pie-charts are not auto-updated. In them, new data has to be entered by a Wikipedia editor.] <!– END DUPLICATION WITH ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE –> === Hardware operations and support === Wikipedia receives between 25,000 and 60,000 page requests per second, depending on time of day.((“WP tools requests per day”>"Monthly request statistics", Wikimedia. Retrieved October 31, 2008.
“site internals configuration”>
“globule access trace”>
“CW WP simplifies infrastructure”>
“ars tech Ubuntu server infra”>
“servers” /> By January 22, 2013, Wikipedia had migrated its primary data center to an Equinix facility in Ashburn, Virginia.((
Simonite, T. (2013). MIT Technology Review.
autogenerated5>Frederic M. Scherer and David Ross, [1970] 1990. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 3rd ed. Houghton-Mifflin. Description and 1st ed. review extract.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • Google Scholar search of Frederic M. Scherer.
“Orlowski, Andrew” />((Simonite, T. (2013) MIT Technology Review.
“Patents, Citations pp 89-153”>Patents, Citations, and Innovations, by Adam B. Jaffe, Manuel Trajtenberg, pp 89-153.
“Patents, Citations pp 89-153” /> According to the Michael Porter five forces analysis framework for industry analysis, Wikipedia and its parent institution Wikimedia are known as “first movers” and “radical innovators” in the services provided and supported by an open-source, on-line encyclopedia.((“Porter, M.E. 1985”>Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York, 1985.
“Porter, M.E. 1980”>Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, 1980.
Markides, Constantinos (2005). Fast Second, Wiley&Sons Inc., San Francisco, 2005
“Porter, M.E. 1985” /> The fourth force in the Porter five forces analysis is the “bargaining power of consumers” who use the services provided by Wikipedia, which has historically largely been nullified by the Wikipedia founding principle of an open invitation to expand and edit its content expressed in its moniker of being “the encyclopedia which anyone can edit.”((“Porter, M.E. 1980” /> The fifth force in the Porter five forces analysis is defined as the “bargaining power of suppliers”, presently seen as the open domain of both the global internet as a whole and the resources of public libraries world-wide, and therefore it is not seen as a limiting factor in the immediate future of the further development of Wikipedia.((“Porter, M.E. 1985” /> === 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.((
“WP copyright and commerciality 1”>
“WPF switch to CC”>
“voteresult” />((“MW licensing QA”>
“MW licensing timeline 1”>
“WP blog license migration”>
“NYT photos on WP”>
“reuters French defamation case”>
“ars tech WP dumb suing case”>
“bing WP research and referencing”/> and DuckDuckGo.
  • Compact discs, DVDs – Collections of Wikipedia articles have been published on optical discs. An English version, 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, contained about 2,000 articles.((“wikipediaondvd authorized 1”>"Wikipedia on DVD". 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”.
“wikipediaondvd commercially available 1”>"Wikipedia 0.5 Available on a CD-ROM". Wikipedia on DVD. Linterweb. “The DVD or CD-ROM version 0.5 was commercially available for purchase.” Retrieved June 1, 2007.
“WM polish WP on dvd”>
“WP german on dvd 1”>
“ CDPedia Argentina 1”>
“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.((“WP into books 1”>
“WP schools selection 1”>
“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 format, RDF. This is still under development. As of Feb 2014 it has 15,000,000 items and 1,000 properties for describing them.
Obtaining the full contents of Wikipedia for reuse presents challenges, since direct cloning via a web crawler is discouraged.((“WP DB usage policy 1”/> Wikipedia publishes "dumps" of its contents, but these are text-only; there was no dump available of Wikipedia's images.((“WP image data dumps 1”>Data dumps: Downloading Images, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
“”/> The latest version of 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.((
“WM mobile added 1”>
“ LPOI WP 1”>
“ilounge iphone gems WP”>
“small screen” /> In addition to logistic growth in the number of its articles,((“modelling” /> Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.((“comscore” /> About 50% of search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google,((“hitwisegoogle” /> a good portion of which is related to academic research.((“hitwiseAcademic” /> The number of readers of Wikipedia worldwide reached 365 million at the end of 2009.((“365M” /> The Pew Internet and American Life project found that one third of US Internet users consulted Wikipedia.((“Wikipedia users” /> In 2011 Business Insider gave Wikipedia a valuation of $4 billion if it ran advertisements.((
“Wikipedia in media” />((“Bourgeois” />((“ Wikipedian Justice 1”>
“ same-sex marriage”>
“WP_court_source” />&nbsp;– though mainly for supporting information rather than information decisive to a case.((“Courts turn to Wikipedia” /> Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some US intelligence agency reports.((“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 RNA family for publication in Wikipedia.((“Declan” /> Wikipedia has also been used as a source in journalism,((“ WP in the newsroom”>
“twsY23” /> often without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for plagiarizing from Wikipedia.((“shizuoka plagiarized WP 1”>
“WA Express-News staffer resigns”>, San Antonio Express-News, January 9, 2007.
“ Inquiry prompts dismissal”>
“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((
“ WP election usage”>
“LER students write for WP 1”>
“WP awards for WP 1”>"Trophy box", (March 28, 2005).
“webbyawards WP awards 1”>
“ awards 1”>
“ WP award 1”>
“wikiality” /> Another example can be found in “Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence”, a July 2006 front-page article in The Onion.,((“onion WP 750 years 1”>
“Bakken one doctor 1”>Bakken, Janae. ”My Number One Doctor“; Scrubs; ABC; December 6, 2007.
“ WP funny 1”>
“dilbert WP funny 1”>
“ WP funny 1”>
“tosh CC WP funny 1”>
“tosh CC WP funny 2”>
“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.((“OurProjects” /> Of these, only Commons has had success comparable to that of Wikipedia. Another sister project of Wikipedia, Wikispecies, is a catalogue of species. In 2012 Wikivoyage, an editable travel guide, and Wikidata, an editable knowledge base, launched. === Publishing === The most obvious economic effect of Wikipedia has been the death of commercial encyclopedias, especially the printed versions, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica, which were unable to compete with a product that is essentially free.((
“FT impact on traditional media”>
“RType WP traditional media impact 1”>
“ 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 UEA and author of The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton and George Eliot: the Last Victorian.((
“wikify”>Rada Mihalcea and Andras Csomai (2007). Wikify! Linking Documents to Encyclopedic Knowledge. Proc. CIKM.
“milne witten WP usage 1”>David Milne and Ian H. Witten (2008). Learning to link with Wikipedia. Proc. CIKM.
“discovering missing WP links 1”>Sisay Fissaha Adafre and [Maarten de Rijke] (2005). Discovering missing links in Wikipedia. Proc. LinkKDD.
wikipediarankingtimesworldunifranche/> == Related projects == A number of interactive multimedia encyclopedias incorporating entries written by the public existed long before Wikipedia was founded. The first of these was the 1986 BBC Domesday Project, which included text (entered on BBC Micro computers) and photographs from over 1&nbsp;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.((“Domesday Project” /> One of the most successful early online encyclopedias incorporating entries by the public was h2g2, which was created by Douglas Adams. The h2g2 encyclopedia is relatively light-hearted, focusing on articles which are both witty and informative. Everything2 was created in 1998. All of these projects had similarities with Wikipedia, but were not wikis and neither gave full editorial privileges to public users. GNE, an encyclopedia which was not a wiki, also created in January 2001, co-existed with Nupedia and Wikipedia early in its history; however, it has been retired.((“stallman1999” /> Other websites centered on collaborative knowledge base development have drawn inspiration from Wikipedia. Some, such as, Enciclopedia Libre, Hudong, and Baidu Baike likewise employ no formal review process, although some like Conservapedia are not as open. Others use more traditional peer review, such as Encyclopedia of Life and the online wiki encyclopedias Scholarpedia and Citizendium. The latter was started by Sanger in an attempt to create a reliable alternative to Wikipedia.((“Orlowski18” />((“JayLyman” /> Wikipedia's most direct (albeit significantly smaller) competitor is Infogalactic, which allows contributors and readers to choose their own preferred editorial viewpoints. == See also ==

Special searches

== References ==
“ crowds wisdom”>
“NYT WP contributors gender 1”>
“Alexa siteinfo”>
“Wikipedia users”>
“Wikipedia valuation”>
“Wikipedia in media”>
“Courts turn to Wikipedia”>
“US Intelligence”>
“NPOV”>”point of view&oldid=102236018 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (January 21, 2007).
NOR>. February 13, 2008. “Wikipedia does not publish original thought.”
autogenerated2>. 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.”
“Seeing Corporate Fingerprints”>
Kittur2009>Kittur, A., Chi, E. H., and Suh, B. 2009. What's in Wikipedia? Mapping Topics and Conflict Using Socially Annotated Category Structure. In Proceedings of the 27th international Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, Massachusetts, USA, April 4–9, 2009). CHI '09. ACM, New York, USA, 1509–1512.
Rosenzweig> (Center for History and New Media.
“WikipediaWatch”>Public Information Research, Wikipedia Watch
“GilesJ2005Internet”> Note: The study was cited in several news articles; e.g.:
  • ))
((“”>Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature, Encyclopædia Britannica, March 2006
“stothart”>Chloe Stothart. "Web threatens learning ethos". The Times Higher Education Supplement, 2007, 1799 (June 22), p. 2.
“The Register-April”>
AFP>|accessdate=April 29, 2010}}
“user identification”>
“WP_court_source”> (The name “World Intellectual Property Office” should however read “World Intellectual Property Organization” in this source.
“Domesday Project”>
“OurProjects”>"Our projects", Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved January 24, 2007.
Tancer>. Cf. Bill Tancer (Global Manager, Hitwise), "Wikipedia, Search and School Homework", Hitwise, March 1, 2007.
“bing WP research and referencing”>
“WP vandalism manipulation 1”>. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 6, 2012.
“WP CD selection 1”>. Retrieved September 8, 2009.
“WP DB usage policy 1”> on data download
“J Sidener”>
“NBC WP editorial warzone 1”>
“FMonday WP quality control 1”>
“WM dictionary 1”>
“emory disputes handled 1”>
355) (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word “duh” did Wikipedia eventually remove it
such as Honk If You Love Fred Durst (accessed April 1, 2007
Part of the article about Henry Liddell, a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child Alice in Wonderland was written for (accessed April 1, 2007
List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia, accessed April 1, 2007.
Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.
English Wikipedia statistics accessed April 1, 2007
English Wikipedia statistics accessed May 6, 2011
Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, “WIKIPEDIA,” The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006
Wikimedia Foundation accessed April 7, 2007
MediaWiki home accessed April 7, 2007
=== Research === On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at FrontPage Magazine detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the political left and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on Anne Coulter, Michael Moore, Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/liberal bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.((How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1
379) , 381)
382) , 392)
User:Essjay/Letter. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.
383) , 393)
Seigenthaler's Op-Eds, October 1, 2005. Retrieved from November 12, 2007.
A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, USA Today, 11/29/2005.
Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander, Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.
Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist “Watchdog” Groups, Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.
Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness, by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from October 29, 2007.
Bondy, Filip. “They Can Finally Say They Belong Here”, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
“LATimes” />((“ABCLocal” />((“LATimes2” /> and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against Niles West High School on Wikipedia in 2006.((
wikia/> == Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia == See also: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd - satire An article entitled Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds declared: Jimmy Wales said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is “a 26-year-old geeky male” who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.((Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says
wikipedia.txt · Last modified: 2020/08/11 09:51 (external edit)