Wikipedia (Listeni/?w?k?'pi?di?/ or Listeni/?w?ki'pi?di?/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-?

) is a free-access, free content

Internet encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who can access the
site[6] can edit almost any of its articles. Wikipedia is the sixth-most popular website[5] and constitutes the
Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.[7][8][9]
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia on January 15, 2001. Sanger[10] coined its name,[11] a
portmanteau of wiki (from the Hawaiian word for "quick")[12] and encyclopedia. Although Wikipedia's content
was initially only in English, it quickly became multilingual, through the launch of versions in different languages.
All versions of Wikipedia are similar, but important differences exist in content and in editing practices. The
English Wikipedia is now one of more than 200 Wikipedias, but remains the largest one, with over 4.6 million
articles. As of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.[13]
Wikipedia has more than 22 million accounts, out of which there were over 73,000 active editors globally as of
May 2014.[2]
Studies tend to show that Wikipedia's accuracy is similar to Encyclopedia Britannica, with Wikipedia being much
larger. However, critics have worried that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its
goals. Most academics, historians, teachers and journalists reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for
being a mixture of truths, half truths, and some falsehoods,[14] and that as a resource about controversial topics,
Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin.[15] Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies
have been repeatedly criticised by prominent scholarly sources for undermining freedom of thought and leading to
false beliefs based on incomplete information.[16][17][18][19]
Contents
1 Openness
1.1 Restrictions
1.2 Review of changes
1.3 Vandalism
2 Policies and laws
2.1 Content policies and guidelines
3 Governance
3.1 Administrators
3.2 Dispute resolution
4 Community
4.1 Diversity
5 Language editions
6 History
7 Critical reception
7.1 Accuracy of content
7.2 Quality of writing
7.3 Coverage of topics and systemic bias
7.4 Explicit content
7.5 Privacy
7.6 Wikipedia conflicts in the media
8 Operation
8.1 Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters
8.2 Software operations and support
8.3 Automated editing
8.4 Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and quality
8.5 Hardware operations and support
8.6 Internal research and operational development
8.7 Internal news publications
9 Access to content
9.1 Content licensing
9.2 Methods of access
10 Impact
10.1 Readership
10.2 Cultural significance
file:///C|/Users/internet/Desktop/rt4.txt[17/12/2014 11:44:24]

10.3 Sister projects Wikimedia

10.4 Publishing
10.5 Scientific use
11 Related projects
12 See also
13 References
13.1 Notes
13.2 Further reading
14 External links
Openness
Differences between versions of an article are highlighted as shown
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principlei.e. waiting for a problem to
arise and then fixing itregarding the security of its content;[20] it started almost entirely openanyone 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 immediately become available. As a result, all articles could contain
inaccuracies, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant text until an editor would correct these issues.
Restrictions
Over time, the English Wikipedia and some other Wikipedias gradually restricted modifications. For example, in
the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article.[21] On the
English Wikipedia and some others, some particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages are now "protected"
to some degree.[22] A frequently vandalized article can be semi-protected, meaning that only certain editors are
able to modify it.[23] A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make
changes.[24]
In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors. For
example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles,[25] which have passed certain reviews.
Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes"
system in December 2012.[26] Under this system, new users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone
articles are "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication".[27]
The editing interface of Wikipedia
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.[notes
2][28] On most articles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's history page. Anyone
can view the latest changes to articles, and anyone 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
obvious problems.[29]
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".[30]
Vandalism
Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia
Any edit that changes content in a way that deliberately compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is considered
vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include insertion of obscenities and crude humor.
Vandalism can also include advertising language and other types of spam.[31] 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.[32]
White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium.
American journalist John Seigenthaler (19272014), subject of the Seigenthaler incident

file:///C|/Users/internet/Desktop/rt4.txt[17/12/2014 11:44:24]

Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from wiki articles; the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a
few minutes.[33][34] However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair.[35]
In the Wikipedia 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.[35] The article remained uncorrected for four months.[35]
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.[36][37] After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research
tool".[35] This incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of
biographical articles of living people.[38]
Policies and laws
See also: Wikipedia:Five Pillars
Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, the copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S.
state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial
principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and guidelines intended to
appropriately shape content. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors work as a community
to write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.[39] Editors can enforce these rules 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.[25]
Content policies and guidelines
Main pages: Wikipedia:Content policies and Wikipedia:Content 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.[40] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of
"notability",[41] 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.[42] 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.[43] This can at times lead to the
removal of information that is valid.[44] Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[45] All opinions and viewpoints,
if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article.[46] This is known
as neutral point of view (NPOV).
Governance
Wikipedia's initial anarchy integrated democratic and hierarchical elements over time.[47][48] A small number of
administrators are allowed to modify any article, and an even smaller number of bureaucrats can name new
administrators.
An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor and is not vetted by any recognized
authority.[49]
Avoidance of a Tragedy of the commons or Free rider problem in the Wiki-Commons[clarification needed] is
attempted via community control mechanisms and trading status[clarification needed] and attention of individual
Wikipedia authors.[50] Dan Bricklin said Wikipedia is a prominent example of the "cornucopia of the
commons".[51]
Administrators
Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins
with "administrator",[52][53] privileged users who can delete pages, prevent articles from being changed in case of
vandalism or editorial disputes, and try to prevent certain persons from editing. Despite the name, administrators
are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to

file:///C|/Users/internet/Desktop/rt4.txt[17/12/2014 11:44:24]

making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to implement
restrictions intended to prevent certain persons from making disruptive edits (such as vandalism).[54][55]
Fewer editors become administrators than in years past, in part because the process of vetting potential Wikipedia
administrators has become more rigorous.[56]
Dispute resolution
Wikipedians may dispute, for example by repeatedly making opposite changes to an article.[57][58][59] Over time,
Wikipedia has developed a number of dispute resolution processes. In order to determine community consensus,
editors can raise issues at the Village Pump, or initiate a request for comment.
Arbitration Committee
Main article: Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute resolution process. Although disputes usually arise
from a disagreement between two opposing views on how an article should read, the Arbitration Committee
explicitly refuses to directly rule on the specific view that should be adopted. Statistical analyses suggest that the
committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted,[60] functioning
not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors
while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate. Therefore, the committee does not dictate the
content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new content violates
Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content is considered biased). Its remedies include cautions and
probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43%), subject matters (23%) or Wikipedia
(16%). Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of impersonation and anti-social behavior.
When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus or in violation of editing policies,
remedies tend to be limited to warnings.[61]
Community
Main article: Wikipedia community
File:Wikimania - the Wikimentary.webmPlay media
Wikimania, an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Video is of the first Wikimania in 2005 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated "Talk" page. These form the primary communication
channel for editors to discuss, coordinate and debate.[62]
File:Editing Hoxne Hoard at the British Museum.ogvPlay media
Wikipedians and British Museum curators collaborate on the article Hoxne Hoard in June 2010
Wikipedia's community has been described as cult-like,[63] although not always with entirely negative
connotations.[64] The project's preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard
of credentials, has been referred to as "anti-elitism".[65]
Wikipedians sometimes award one another virtual barnstars for good work. These personalized tokens of
appreciation reveal a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support,
administrative actions, and types of articulation work.[66]
Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.[67] As Wikipedia grew, "Who
writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked on the project.[68] Jimmy Wales once argued
that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to
Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization".[69] 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."[70] 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.[71]
Historical chart of the number of Wikipedians considered as active by the Wikimedia Foundation
A report in August 2014 showed that Wikipedia had at least 80,000 editors.[72] A significant decline in the number
of English-language editors was reported in 2013 by Tom Simonite who stated: "The number of active editors on
the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since...(t)his past

file:///C|/Users/internet/Desktop/rt4.txt[17/12/2014 11:44:24]

summer (2013) only 31,000 people could be considered active editors."[73] Several attempts to explain this have
been offered. One possible explanation is that some users become turned off by their experiences.[74] Another
explanation, according to Eric Goldman, is found in editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals,
such as signing talk pages, implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds

file:///C|/Users/internet/Desktop/rt4.txt[17/12/2014 11:44:24]