Photo:1
Photo:2
Photo:3
Photo:4
Photo:1 Photo:2 Photo:3 Photo:4 |
| History | |
| 2>
Main article: History of Wikipedia
Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project, Nupedia.
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, Inc, a web portal company. Its main figures were Jimmy Wales, Bomis CEO, 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.[25]
Main Page of the English Wikipedia on October 20, 2010.
Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia.[26][27] While Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[28][29] Sanger is usually credited with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[30] On January 10, 2001, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[31] Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[32] and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[28] Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view"[33] was codified in its initial months, and was similar to Nupedia's earlier "nonbiased" policy. Otherwise, there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated independently of Nupedia.[28]
Number of articles in the English Wikipedia (in blue)
Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. It grew to approximately 20,000 articles and 18 language editions by the end of 2001. By late 2002, it had reached 26 language editions, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the final days of 2004.[34] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. English Wikipedia passed the two million-article mark on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, eclipsing even the 1407 Yongle Encyclopedia, which had held the record for exactly 600 years.[35] Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in a perceived English-centric Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002.[36] Later that year, Wales announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and its website was moved to wikipedia.org.[37] Various other wiki-encyclopedia projects have been started, largely under a different philosophy from the open and NPOV editorial model of Wikipedia. Wikinfo does not require a neutral point of view and allows original research. New Wikipedia-inspired projects – such as Citizendium, Scholarpedia, Conservapedia, and Google's Knol where the articles are a little more essayistic[38] – have been started to address perceived limitations of Wikipedia, such as its policies on peer review, original research, and commercial advertising.
Growth of the number of articles in the English Wikipedia (in blue)
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.[39] Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopaedia in 2006; by 2010 that average was roughly 1,000.[40] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center speculated that this is due to the increasing exclusiveness of the project.[41] 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.[42][43]
In November 2009, a PhD thesis written by Felipe Ortega, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.[44][45] The Wall Street Journal reported that "unprecedented numbers of the millions of online volunteers who write, edit and police [Wikipedia] are quitting". The array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content are among the reasons for this trend that are cited in the article.[46] These claims were disputed by Jimmy Wales, who denied the decline and questioned the methodology of the study.[47]
In January 2007, Wikipedia initially entered the top ten list of the most popular websites in the United States, according to comScore Networks Inc. With 42.9 million unique visitors, Wikipedia was ranked No. 9, surpassing the New York Times (#10) and Apple Inc. (#11). This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when the rank was No. 33, with Wikipedia receiving around 18.3 million unique visitors.[48] In April 2011, Wikipedia was listed as the fifth-most-popular website by Google Inc.[49][50] As of October 2011, Wikipedia is the sixth-most-popular website worldwide according to Alexa Internet,[51] receiving more than 2.7 billion U.S. pageviews every month,[10] out of a global monthly total of over 12 billion pageviews.[52]
Tags:Language,Jimmy Wales,Larry Sanger,Free,Alexa,Wiki,Nupedia,English-language,Bomis, Inc,Web Portal,Open Content,Richard Stallman,Mailing List,Slashdot,Web Search Engine,Enciclopedia Libre,Citizendium,Scholarpedia,Conservapedia,Knol,Peer Review,Original Research, | |
| Nature of Wikipedia | |
| 2>
See also: Reliability of Wikipedia and Academic studies about Wikipedia
“
As the popular joke goes, ‘The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work.’
”
—Miikka Ryokas, [53]
Tags: | |
| Editing | |
| 3>
In April 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation conducted a Wikipedia usability study, questioning users about the editing mechanism.[54]
In a departure from the style of traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia employs an open, "wiki" editing model. Except for particularly vandalism-prone pages, every article may be edited anonymously or with a user account. Different language editions modify this policy: only registered users may create a new article in the English edition. No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, or is vetted by any recognized authority; rather, the articles are agreed on by consensus.[55]
By default, any edit to an article becomes available immediately, prior to any review. This means that an article may contain errors, misguided contributions, advocacy, or even patent nonsense, until another editor corrects the problem. Different language editions, each under separate administrative control, are free to modify this policy. For example the German Wikipedia maintains a system of "stable versions" of articles,[56] to allow a reader to see versions of articles that have passed certain reviews. In June 2010, the English Wikipedia began a trial of a "pending changes" system where new users' edits to certain "controversial" or vandalism-prone articles (such as George W. Bush, David Cameron or homework) would be "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication", which, as Jimmy Wales told the BBC, would enable the English Wikipedia "to open up articles for general editing that have been protected or semi-protected for years". Wales opted against the German Wikipedia model of requiring editor review before edits to any article, describing it as "neither necessary nor desirable".[57] The trial lasted until May 2011.[58]
Editors keep track of changes to articles by checking the difference between two revisions of a page, displayed here in red.
Contributors, registered or not, can take advantage of features available in the software that powers Wikipedia. The "History" page attached to each article records every single past revision of the article, though a revision with libelous content, criminal threats or copyright infringements may be removed afterwards.[59][60] This feature makes it easy to compare old and new versions, undo changes that an editor considers undesirable, or restore lost content. The "Talk" pages associated with each article are used to coordinate work among multiple editors.[61] Regular contributors often maintain a "watchlist" of articles of interest to them, so that they can easily keep tabs on all recent changes to those articles. Computer programs called bots have been used widely to remove vandalism as soon as it was made,[23] to correct common misspellings and stylistic issues, or to start articles such as geography entries in a standard format from statistical data.
The editing interface of Wikipedia.
Articles in Wikipedia are organized roughly in three ways according to: development status, subject matter and the access level required for editing.[clarification needed] The most developed state of articles is called "featured article" status: articles labeled as such are the ones that will be featured in the main page of Wikipedia.[62][63] Researcher Giacomo Poderi found that articles tend to reach the FA status via the intensive work of few editors.[64] In 2007, in preparation for producing a print version, the English-language Wikipedia introduced an assessment scale against which the quality of articles is judged.[65]
A WikiProject is a place for a group of editors to coordinate work on a specific topic. The discussion pages attached to a project are often used to coordinate changes that take place across articles. Wikipedia also maintains a style guide called the Manual of Style (or MoS for short), which stipulates, for example, that, in the first sentence of any given article, the title of the article and any alternative titles should appear in bold.
Tags:Wikimedia Foundation, | |
| Defenses against undesirable edits | |
| 3>
The open nature of the editing model has been central to most criticism of Wikipedia. For example, a reader of an article cannot be certain that it has not been compromised by the insertion of false information or the removal of essential information. Former Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Robert McHenry once described this by saying:[66]
The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.[67]
John Seigenthaler has described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[68]
However, obvious vandalism is easy to remove from wiki articles, since the previous versions of each article are kept. In practice, the median time to detect and fix vandalisms is very low, usually a few minutes,[22][23] but in one particularly well-publicized incident, false information was introduced into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler and remained undetected for four months.[68] John Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Jimmy Wales and asked if Wales had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales replied that he did not, nevertheless the perpetrator was eventually traced.[69][70] This incident led to policy changes on the site, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of all biographical articles of living people.
Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spamming, and those with an agenda to push.[59][71] The addition of political spin to articles by organizations including members of the US House of Representatives and special interest groups[21] has been noted,[72] and organizations such as Microsoft have offered financial incentives to work on certain articles.[73] These issues have been parodied, notably by Stephen Colbert in The Colbert Report.[74]
For example, in August 2007, the website WikiScanner began to trace the sources of changes made to Wikipedia by anonymous editors without Wikipedia accounts. The program revealed that many such edits were made by corporations or government agencies changing the content of articles related to them, their personnel or their work.[75]
Wikipedia can be defended from attack by several systems and techniques. These include users checking pages and edits (e.g. 'watchlists' and 'recent changes'), computer programs ('bots') that are designed to try to detect attacks and fix them automatically (or semi-automatically), filters that warn users making "undesirable" edits,[76] blocks on the creation of links to particular websites, blocks on edits from particular accounts, IP addresses or address ranges.
For heavily attacked pages, particular articles can be semi-protected so that only well established accounts can edit them,[77] or for particularly contentious cases, locked so that only administrators are able to make changes.[78] Such locking is allegedly applied sparingly and for only short periods of time while attacks may appear likely to continue.[citation needed]
Tags:Nature,Encyclopædia Britannica, | |
| Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior | |
| 3>
Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, the copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of Florida, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers reside. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars", and numerous policies and guidelines that are intended to shape the content appropriately. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors as a community are able to write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.[79] Rules can be enforced by deleting or modifying article materials failing to meet them. The rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia branched off a translation of the rules on the English Wikipedia and have since diverged to some extent. While they still show similarities, they differ in many details.
Tags: | |
| Content policies | |
| 5>
According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia to be worthy of inclusion must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-like.[80] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[81] which usually means that it must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as mainstream media or major academic journals that are independent of the subject of the topic. Further, Wikipedia must expose knowledge that is already established and recognized.[82] In other words, it must not present, for instance, new information or original works. 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.[83] This can lead to the removal of information that is valid, thus hindering inclusion of knowledge and growth of the encyclopedia.[84] Finally, Wikipedia must not take a side.[85] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article.[86] This is known as neutral point of view (NPOV).
Tags: | |
zote monety click here click here click here click here |