Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia | |
|---|---|
 | |
 Screenshot of Wikipedia's multilingual portal. | |
| URL | www.wikipedia.org |
| Slogan | The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. |
| Alexa rank | #8[1] |
| Commercial? | No |
| Type of site | Online encyclopedia |
| Registration | Optional |
| Available language(s) | 236 active editions (253 in total)[2] |
| Owner | Wikimedia Foundation |
| Created by | Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger[3] |
| Launched | January 15, 2001(2001-01-15) |
| Current status | perpetual work-in-progress[4] |
Wikipedia (pronunciation 
) is a free,[5] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the United States-based non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[6] it attempts to collect and summarize all human knowledge in every major language.[7]
As of April 2008, Wikipedia attracts 683 million visitors annually (mainly from the USA)[8] It had over 10 million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.74 billion words.[citation needed] The English edition, the largest language edition, had over 2,400,000 articles as of July 2008.[2] Wikipedia's articles have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and nearly all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. Having steadily risen in popularity since its inception,[1] it is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.[9][10][11]
Critics of Wikipedia target its systemic bias and inconsistencies[12] and its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[13] Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy are also an issue.[14] Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information.[15] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[16][17]
In addition to being an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia has received major media attention as an online source of breaking news as it is constantly updated.[18][19] When Time Magazine recognized "You" as its Person of the Year 2006, praising the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, Wikipedia was the first particular "Web 2.0" service mentioned, followed by YouTube and MySpace.[20]
History
- Main article: History of Wikipedia
-
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.[21]
Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the founders of Wikipedia.[3][22] While Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[23] Sanger is usually credited with the counter-intuitive strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[24] On January 10, 2001, Larry Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[25] Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[26] and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[27] Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view"[28] 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.[23]
Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and search engine indexing. It grew to approximately 20,000 articles, and 18 language editions, by the end of 2001. By late 2002 it had reached 26 language editions, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the final days of 2004.[29] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers went down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. English Wikipedia passed the 2,000,000-article mark on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, eclipsing even the Yongle Encyclopedia (1407), which had held the record for exactly 600 years.[30]
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.[31] Later that year, Wales announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and its website was moved to wikipedia.org.[32] Various other projects have since forked from Wikipedia for editorial reasons. Wikinfo does not require neutral point of view and allows original research. New Wikipedia-inspired projects — such as Citizendium, Scholarpedia, Amapedia and Google's Knol — have been started to address perceived limitations of Wikipedia, such as its policies on peer review, original research and commercial advertising.
The Wikimedia Foundation was created from Wikipedia and Nupedia on June 20, 2003.[33] It applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark Wikipedia on September 17, 2004. The mark was granted registration status on January 10, 2006. Trademark protection was accorded by Japan on December 16, 2004, and in the European Union on January 20, 2005. Technically a service mark, the scope of the mark is for: "Provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet"[citation needed]. There are plans to license the use of the Wikipedia trademark for some products, such as books or DVDs.[34]
Editing model and community
Almost every article in Wikipedia may be edited anonymously or with a user account, while only registered users may create a new article. The "History" page attached to each article contains every single past revision of the article, though a revision with libelous content, criminal threats or copyright infringements may be removed afterwards.[35][36] The "Discussion" pages associated with each article are used to coordinate work among multiple editors.[37] Unlike traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica, no article in Wikipedia undergoes formal peer-review process and changes to articles are made available immediately. Consequently, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content.[38] Wikipedia also does not censor itself, and it contains materials that a certain group of people may find objectionable, offensive or pornographic.[39] For instance, in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of Muhammad's depictions in English Wikipedia, citing this policy. The presence of politically sensitive materials in Wikipedia had also led China to block the access to the site.
Content in Wikipedia, however, is subject to the laws (in particular copyright law) in Florida, United States, where Wikipedia servers are hosted, and several policies and guidelines that are intended to reinforce the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and thus is worthy of inclusion. A topic is deemed encyclopedic if it is "notable"[40] in the wikipedia jargon; i.e., if it has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources (i.e., mainstream media or major academic journals) that are independent of the subject of the topic. Second, Wikipedia must expose knowledge that is already established and recognized.[41] In other words, it must not present, for instance, new information (e.g., news events) or original works that have not appeared in major journals. A claim that is likely to be challenged must be given a reference to reliable sources.[42] Within the community of Wikipedia editors, this is often stated by saying "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers are left themselves to check the truthfulness of what appears in the articles.[43] Finally, Wikipedia does not take a side.[44] All opinions and viewpoints, if not original, must enjoy appropriate share of coverage within an article.[45] Wikipedia editors, as a community, write and revise those policies and guidelines[46] and enforce them by deleting and modifying materials failing to meet them. (See also Deletionism and inclusionism[47][48]) The vandalism to articles is dealt with by Wikipedians or, more increasingly, by computer programs called bots.[17]
There have also been efforts within the community to improve the reliability of Wikipedia. The English-language Wikipedia has introduced an assessment scale against which the quality of articles is judged;[49] other editions have also adopted this. Roughly 2,100 articles in English have passed a rigorous set of criteria to reach the highest rank, "featured article" status; such articles are intended to provide thorough, well-written coverage of their topic, supported by many references to peer-reviewed publications.[50]
In a 2003 study of Wikipedia as a community, economics Ph.D. student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in wiki software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a "creative construction" approach encourages participation.[51] In his 2008 book, "The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It," Jonathan Zittrain of the Oxford Internet Institute and Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society cites Wikipedia' success as a case study in how open collaboration has fostered innovation on the web.[52]
The community has a power structure.[53][54] Wikipedia's community has also been described as "cult-like,"[55] although not always with entirely negative connotations,[56] and criticized for failing to accommodate inexperienced users.[57]
While they are welcomed by the community,[58] authors new to Wikipedia are encouraged to read policies to help them learn the ways of Wikipedia.[35] Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many of levels of volunteer stewardship; this begins with "administrator"[59] and goes up with "steward" and "bureaucrat".[60] Administrators, the largest group of privileged users (1,575 Wikipedians for the English edition on July 17, 2008), have the ability to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and block users from editing.
As Wikipedia grows with an unconventional model of encyclopedia building, "Who writes Wikipedia?" has become one of the questions frequently asked on the project, often with a reference to other Web 2.0 projects such as Digg.[61] Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes a bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization". This was later disputed by Aaron Swartz, who noted that several articles he sampled had large portion of their content contributed by a user with low edit count.[62] 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.[63] Although some contributors are authorities in their field, Wikipedia requires that even their contributions be supported by published and verifiable sources. The project's preference for consensus over credentials has been labeled "anti-elitism".[12]
While praising many aspects of Wikipedia, historian Roy Rosenzweig noted: "Overall, writing is the Achilles' heel of Wikipedia. Committees rarely write well, and Wikipedia entries often have a choppy quality that results from the stringing together of sentences or paragraphs written by different people."[64]
In August 2007, a website developed by computer science graduate student Virgil Griffith named WikiScanner made its public debut. WikiScanner traces the source of millions of changes made to Wikipedia by editors who are not logged in, which reveals that many of these edits come from corporations or sovereign government agencies about articles related to them, their personnel or their work, and were attempts to remove criticism.[65]
Reliability and bias
- Main article: Reliability of Wikipedia
- See also: Criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia has been accused of exhibiting systemic bias and inconsistency;[14] critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for much of the information makes it unreliable.[66] Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia is generally reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not always clear.[13] Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.[67] Many university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[68] some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.[69] Co-founder Jimmy Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate as primary sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.[70] Technology writer Bill Thompson commented that the debate was possibly "symptomatic of much learning about information which is happening in society today."[71]
Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[73] and that it is vulnerable to vandalism, the insertion of spurious information and similar problems. In one particularly well-publicized incident, false information was introduced into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler, Sr. and remained undetected for four months.[72] Some critics claim that Wikipedia's open structure makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, advertisers, and those with an agenda to push.[74][35] The addition of political spin to articles by organizations including the U.S. House of Representatives and special interest groups[15] has been noted,[75] and organizations such as Microsoft have offered financial incentives to work on certain articles.[76] These issues have been parodied, notably by Stephen Colbert in The Colbert Report.[77]
Economist Tyler Cowen writes, "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 many traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases. Novel results are over-reported in journal articles, and relevant information is omitted from news reports. But he also cautions that errors are frequently found in Internet sites, and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them.[78]
In February 2007, an article in The Harvard Crimson newspaper reported that some of the professors at Harvard University include Wikipedia in their syllabus, but that there is a split in their perception of using Wikipedia.[79] In June 2007, former president of the American Library Association Michael Gorman condemned Wikipedia, along with Google,[80] 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." He also said that "a generation of intellectual sluggards incapable of moving beyond the Internet” was being produced at universities. He complains that the web-based sources are discouraging students from learning from the more rare texts which either are found only on paper or are on subscription-only web sites. In the same article Jenny Fry (a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute) commented on the academics who cite Wikipedia that: “You cannot say children are intellectually lazy because they are using the Internet when academics are using search engines in their research," she said. "The difference is that they have more experience of being critical about what is retrieved and whether it is authoritative. Children need to be told how to use the Internet in a critical and appropriate way."[80]
In order to improve reliability, some editors have called for "stable versions" of articles, or articles that have been reviewed by the community and locked from further editing – but the community has been unable to form a consensus in favor of such changes, partly because they would require a major software overhaul.[81][82] However a similar system is being tested on the German Wikipedia, and there is an expectation that some form of that system will make its way onto the English version at some future time.[83] Software created by Luca de Alfaro and colleagues at the University of California, Santa Cruz is now being tested that will assign "trust ratings" to individual Wikipedia contributors, with the intention that eventually only edits made by those who have established themselves as "trusted editors" will be made immediately visible.[84]
Operation
Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia
Wikipedia is funded and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related projects such as Wikibooks. In a 2008 interview, Jimmy Wales said that the foundation spent $2 million of donor money in 2007 toward site maintenance costs.[85] The foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, a for-profit company founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. The Wikimedia Foundation received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.[86]
In The New York Times in March 2008, Wales discussed a possible trivia game based on Wikipedia.[87]
Software and hardware
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.[88] 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 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.
Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of GNU/Linux servers, 300 in Florida, 26 in Amsterdam and 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility in Seoul.[89] Wikipedia employed a single server until 2004, when the server setup was expanded into a distributed multitier architecture. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache HTTP Server, and seven Squid cache servers.
Wikipedia receives between 20,000 and 45,000 page requests per second, depending on time of day.[90] Page requests are first passed to a front-end layer of Squid caching servers.[91]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 the request 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 for anonymous users are cached in a distributed memory cache until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses. Two larger clusters in the Netherlands and Korea now handle much of Wikipedia's traffic load.
License and language editions
- See also: List of Wikipedias
All text in Wikipedia is covered by 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.[92] The position that Wikipedia is merely a hosting service has been successfully used as a defense in court.[93][94] Wikipedia has been working on the switch to Creative Commons licenses because the GFDL, initially designed for software manuals, is not suitable for online reference works and because the two licenses are currently incompatible.[95]
Nicholas Moreau
Invite as author
Copyright violation
Monsieur B
Invite as author
shame on you wikipedia is GFDL