h the launch of versions in different languages.
All versions are similar, but differences exist in content and in editing
practices. The English Wikipedia is now one of more than 200 Wikipedias and is the largest 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]
Wikipedia's accuracy is similar to Encyclopedia Britannica, with Wikipedia being much larger.[14][15] However,
critics argue Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias.[16] Wikipedia as a resource about controversial topics is notoriously
subject to manipulation and spin.[15] Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies have been criticised by
prominent scholarly sources for undermining freedom of thought and leading to false beliefs based on incomplete
information.[17][18][19][20]
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
10.3 Sister projects Wikimedia
10.4 Publishing
10.5 Scientific use
11 Related projects
12 See also
13 References
file:///C|/Users/wsu$public.AD.077/Desktop/03.txt[1/16/2015 9:00:54 AM]
13.1 Notes
14 Further reading
14.1 Academic studies
14.2 Books
14.3 Book reviews and other articles
15 External links
Openness
Differences between versions of an article are highlighted as shown.
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principle (i.e. waiting for an issue to cause
enough problems before taking measure to solve it) regarding the security of its content.[21] 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 be published immediately. As a result, any article could
contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant text.
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.[22] On the
English Wikipedia and some others, some particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages are now "protected" to
some degree.[23] A frequently vandalized article can be semi-protected, meaning that only certain editors are able to
modify it.[24] A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make
changes.[25]
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,[26] which have passed certain reviews. Following
protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in
December 2012.[27] Under this system, new users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are
"subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication".[28]
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][29] 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.[30]
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".[31]
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.[32] 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.[33]
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/wsu$public.AD.077/Desktop/03.txt[1/16/2015 9:00:54 AM]
Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from wiki articles; the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a
few minutes.[34][35] However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair.[36]
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.[36] The article remained uncorrected for four months.[36] 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.[37][38] After the
incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[36] This incident led to
policy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living
people.[39]
Policies and laws
See also: Wikipedia:Five Pillars
Content in Wikipedia is 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. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of
Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and guidelines intended to appropriately shape
content. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors write and revise the website's policies and
guidelines.[40] 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.[26]
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.[41] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[42]
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.[43] It must not present original research. A claim that is likely t
file:///C|/Users/wsu$public.AD.077/Desktop/03.txt[1/16/2015 9:00:54 AM]
