6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − '''The following is a growing list of examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], silly [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia has been called the ''[[National Enquirer]] of the [[Internet]]''''':<ref>"And in that respect Wikipedia is no better than the National Enquirer. We don't quote the National Enquirer on television (unless [it's] for a documentary on aliens or some other conspiracy theory) so why would we do for Wikipedia?" [http://conservativeeccentric.blogspot.com/2007/05/wussification-of-wikipedia.html]</ref>+ − # [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer</ref> fails to mention his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV, despite appearing in left-wing publication the [[New York Times]]<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss</ref>+ − # Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).+ − # [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>+ − # [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>+ − # On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the [[liberal falsehoods]] and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>+ − # [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; Wikipedia hides a record of its ideological deletions.)+ − # [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical. − # [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked January 9th and remained locked indefinitely. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&action=history]</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref> − # Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132</ref> − # The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007. − # [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref> − # [[Mathematicians]] on [[Wikipedia]] distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial [[Axiom of Choice]] and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_last_theorem</ref> − # In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]]. − # [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time. − # [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] is nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]] lies to exaggerate the credentials of [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], falsely claiming that Dawkins "was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins</ref> In fact, [[Oxford]] recently confirmed that the "Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Richard_Dawkins</ref> − # The [[Good Friday Agreement]] is called precisely that by the [[BBC]],<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/events/good_friday.stm</ref> the vast majority of sites on [[Google]], politicians and the public. But [[Wikipedia]], dominated by an anti-Christian bias, does not like [[Christian]] names and it redirects that term to the less familiar "Belfast Agreement."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[Intelligent Design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper. − # [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[Intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves. − # [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name=tes>Schafersman, Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name=rae>Bergman, Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy in favor of edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]]. − # A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules. − # Arbitration Committee Chairman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html] − # [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked. − # For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation. − # [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous". − # The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!" − # [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. − # For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref> − # [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here. − # [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university. − # [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included: − #* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref> − #* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref> − #* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref> − #* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref> − # In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again. − # [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref> − # A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref> − # Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref> − # "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref> − # The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many [[disease]]s associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref> − # Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s give significantly less to charity than American [[Theism|theists]] on a [[Per Capita|per capita]] basis.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> − # Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref> − # Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist. − # Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it. − # Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref> − # Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref> − # Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that. − # The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref> − # Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. Check out Wikipedia's entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!'' − # Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> − # Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]]. − # Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. 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.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref> − # Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref> − # Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! − # [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref> − # [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref> − # April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck. − # Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> − # Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]]. − # Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "Student Successes Defy Urban Trends," San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic. − # One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref> − # Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref> − # Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref> − # In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim. − # Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref> − # About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref> − # Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as [[atheist]]ic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, [[atheist]], agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref> − # Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> − # The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here. − # Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias. − # Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias. − # Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago! − # There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also. − # Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography. − # Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref> − # Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does. − # Edits to include facts against [[Theory of Evolution|the theory of evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible. − # Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref> − # Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia]. − # Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information. − # The Wikipedia entry for [[John Peter Zenger]] links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer," which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable. − # Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref> − # Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources. − #: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left." − # Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia. − # The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent. − # Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception. − # Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref> − # Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper! − # Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article spells his wife's name incorrectly, and cites no source for the item. The item has been in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip. − # Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies: − #: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness. − # Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref> − # Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation: − #: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref> − # Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref> − #: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered. − #: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors. − #: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite. − #: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome. − #: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries. − # Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref> − #: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?] − # Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref> − #: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people." − # What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref> − #: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose." − # The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref> − # Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. 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." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13. − # Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref> − # In an example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. − # Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> − #Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan. − #Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref> − #Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up: − ## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref> − ## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref> − #Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources. − # Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref> − # Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health has a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section saying that its sources may be unreliable. The sources are American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking#Pipe_smoking</ref> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + − + − * Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
copy edit
<!--
_____ __ __ _ _
|_ _|__ \ \ / /_ _ _ __ __| | __ _| |___ _
| |/ _ \ \ \ / / _` | '_ \ / _` |/ _` | / __/ (_)
| | (_| ) \ \/ / (_| | | | | (_| | (_| | \__ \ _
|_|\___/ \__/ \__,_|_| |_|\__,_|\__,_|_|___/ (_)
(If using a variable-width font: TO VANDALS: ) ____________________________________________________________
*****************************************************************************************
* *
* *** A word of advice to potential vandals: *** *
* **** This page is watched by many, many editors! **** *
* **** Vandalism to this page will be short-lived **** *
* ** and will be quickly reverted (usually within seconds). ** *
* ** In addition, it may result in a block. ** *
* ** Seriously, don't even think of doing it, we're watching! ** *
* *
* So please think twice! *
* And try to relax a little, OK? *
* We are a charitable group trying to do something useful for the world. *
* Consider helping; it is more fun. Honestly, no joke. :-) *
* Thank you. *
* *
*****************************************************************************************
START OF MAIN BOX; SCROLL DOWN IF YOU WISH TO EDIT THE BOXES TO THE RIGHT
--> {{sprotected2}}
{{otheruses4|the free encyclopedia|the different, similar terms related to Wikipedia|Wikipedia (terminology)}}
{{selfref|For Wikipedia's non-encyclopedic visitor introduction, see [[Wikipedia:About]].}}
{{infobox Website
| name = Wikipedia
| screenshot = [[Image:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png|border|280px|Wikipedia's multilingual portal shows the project's different language editions.]]
| caption = Screenshot of Wikipedia's multilingual portal.
| url = [http://www.wikipedia.org www.wikipedia.org]
| type of organization = [[Nonprofit]]
| location = [[Miami, Florida]]
| type = [[Internet encyclopedia project|Online encyclopedia]]
| language = 236 active editions (253 in total)<ref name="ListOfWikipedias"/>
| registration = Optional
| owner = [[Wikimedia Foundation]]
| author = [[Jimmy Wales]], [[Larry Sanger]]<!-- Please, please, [discuss] on talk page before rewriting history. This has been in this article for years. --><ref name=foundercontroversy>{{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html|author=Jonathan Sidener|title=Everyone's Encyclopedia|accessdate=2006-10-15|publisher=San Diego Union Tribune}}</ref>
| launch date = {{birth date|2001|1|15}}
| commercial = No
| alexa = #7<ref name="AlexaStats" />
| current status = perpetual work-in-progress
| slogan = The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
}}
[[Image:2008wikipediaVisitors.PNG|thumb|right|Visitors to ''wikipedia.org'' in 2008.]]
'''Wikipedia''' ([[Wikipedia (terminology)#Pronunciation|pronunciation]] {{spoken}}) is a [[Free Content|free]],<ref>Some versions such as the English one contain non-free images.</ref> [[multilingualism|multilingual]], [[open content]] [[encyclopedia]] project operated by the [[non-profit organization|non-profit]] [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. Its name is a [[blend]] of the words ''[[wiki]]'' (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and ''encyclopedia''. Launched in 2001 by [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]],<ref name="Miliard">{{cite news|url=http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37BD3969-14D1-13A2-9F5EEAF5A79E0898|title=Wikipediots: Who are these devoted, even obsessive contributors to Wikipedia?|accessdate=2008-02-21|date=2008-03-01 |publisher=[[Salt Lake City Weekly]]|first=Mike|last=Miliard}}</ref> it is the largest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the [[Internet]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html|title=Look Who's Using Wikipedia|first=Bill|last=Tancer|date=2007-05-01|publisher=''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]''|accessdate=2007-12-01|quote=The sheer volume of content [...] is partly responsible for the site's dominance as an online reference. When compared to the top 3,200 educational reference sites in the U.S., Wikipedia is #1, capturing 24.3% of all visits to the category}} ([http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2007/03/wikipedia_search_and_school_ho.html the author's blog post on the article])</ref><ref name="go-to site">{{cite news |url=http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN0819429120070708 |title=Wikipedia remains go-to site for online news |date=2007-07-08 |accessdate=2007-12-16 |first=Alex |last=Woodson |publisher=''[[Reuters]]'' |quote=Online encyclopedia Wikipedia has added about 20 million unique monthly visitors in the past year, making it the top online news and information destination, according to Nielsen//NetRatings.}}</ref>
[[As of April 2008]], Wikipedia attracts 684 million visitors annually{{Fact|date=April 2008}} reading over 10 million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.74 billion words for all Wikipedias.{{Fact|date=March 2008}} The [[English Wikipedia]] edition passed the 2,000,000-article mark on [[September 9]], [[2007]], <!-- Do not use {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, breaks on mirrors --> and as of [[May 2]], [[2008]] it had over 2,357,000 articles consisting of over 1,015,000,000 words.<ref name="ListOfWikipedias">{{cite web | url = http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias | title = List of Wikipedias | publisher = [[Wikipedia:Meta|Meta-Wiki]] | '''accessdate = 2007-07-12 | date = [[2007-07-12]]}}</ref> Wikipedia's articles have been written [[collaboration|collaboratively]] by [[volunteer]]s 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,<ref name="AlexaStats">{{cite web | url = http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/wikipedia.org?range=5y&size=large&y=t | title = Five-year traffic statistics for wikipedia.org | publisher = [[Alexa Internet]] | accessdate = 2008-04-17 }}</ref> it currently ranks among the top ten most-visited web sites worldwide.<ref name=AlexaTop500 />
[[Criticism of Wikipedia|Critics of Wikipedia]] target its [[systematic bias]] and inconsistencies<ref name="SangerElitism" /> and its policy of favoring [[consensus]] over [[credential]]s in its editorial process.<ref name="AcademiaAndWikipedia">{{cite web | url = http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php | title = Academia and Wikipedia | accessdate = 2007-02-11 | author = [[Danah Boyd]] | publisher = Many-to-Many | date = [[2005-01-04]] }} {{Rs|date=April 2008}}</ref> As a result, contemporary popular icons with relatively low overall significance (TV hosts, pop singers etc.) are often more prominently featured than historical figures with high global importance. [[Reliability of Wikipedia|Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy]] are also an issue.<ref name="Who">{{cite web | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/oct/26/g2.onlinesupplement | title = Who knows? | accessdate = 2007-02-11 | author = Simon Waldman | publisher = ''[[The Guardian]]'' | date = [[2004-10-26]] }}</ref>
Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to [[vandalism]] and the addition of spurious or unverified information.<ref name="DeathByWikipedia" /> Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.<ref name="MIT_IBM_study">{{cite paper | title = Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with History Flow Visualizations | format = [[Portable Document Format|PDF]] | accessdate = 2007-01-24 | url = http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf }}</ref><ref name="CreatingDestroyingAndRestoringValue">{{cite journal
| author =Reid Priedhorsky, Jilin Chen, Shyong (Tony) K. Lam, Katherine Panciera, Loren Terveen, John Riedl
| title =Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia
| journal =[[Association for Computing Machinery]] GROUP '07 conference proceedings
| location =Sanibel Island, Florida, USA.
|date=2007-11-04
| url =http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~reid/papers/group282-priedhorsky.pdf
| accessdate =2007-10-13}}</ref>
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.<ref>{{cite news
| url = http://www10.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?_r=5&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
| title = All the News That's Fit to Print Out
| author = Jonathan Dee
| publisher = The New York Times Magazine
|date=2007-07-01
|accessdate=2007-12-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| author = Andrew Lih
| title = Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource
| journal = 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism
| location = University of Texas at Austin
|date=04-16-2004
| url = http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdf
| accessdate =2007-10-13}}</ref>
When ''[[Time (magazine)|Time Magazine]]'' recognized "[[You (Time Person of the Year)|You]]" as its ''[[Time Person of the Year|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]].<ref name="ME!">{{cite news| date=[[2006-12-13]]| url= http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html |title= Time's Person of the Year: You |publisher= ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]''}}</ref>
==History==
{{main|History of Wikipedia}}
[[Image:Nupedia.jpg|thumb|Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project, [[Nupedia]].]]
Wikipedia began as a complementary project for [[Nupedia]], a free online [[English language|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|Bomis, Inc]], a [[web portal]] company. Its main figures were [[Jimmy Wales]], Bomis [[Chief executive officer|CEO]], and [[Larry Sanger]], [[Editing|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]].<ref name="stallman1999">{{cite web
|url=http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html
|title=The Free Encyclopedia Project
|accessdate=2008-01-04
|last=Stallman
|first=Richard M.
|authorlink=Richard Stallman
|date=2007-06-20
|publisher=[[Free Software Foundation]]}}</ref>
[[Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg|left|thumb|upright|Jimmy Wales.]]
[[Image:L Sanger.jpg|thumb|right|upright|200px|Larry Sanger.]]
[[Image:EnglishWikipediaArticleCountGraph linear.png|thumb|200px|right|Graph of the article count for the English Wikipedia, from January 10, 2001, to September 9, 2007 (the date of the two-millionth article).]]
Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the founders of Wikipedia.<ref name="foundercontroversy"/><ref name="Sanger-NYTimes">
{{cite news
|first=Peter
|last=Meyers
|title=Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You
|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E5D6123BF933A1575AC0A9679C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fC%2fComputer%20Software
|publisher=''[[The New York Times]]''
|date=[[September 20]], [[2001]]
|accessdate=2007-11-22}}<small>"I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales.</small></ref> While Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,<ref name="SangerMemoir" /> Sanger is usually credited with the [[Intuition (knowledge)|counter-intuitive]] [[strategy]] of using a [[wiki]] to reach that goal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html|title=Wikipedia-l: LinkBacks?|accessdate=2007-02-20}}</ref> On [[January 10]], [[2001]], [[Larry Sanger]] proposed on the Nupedia [[mailing list]] to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.<ref>{{cite news |author=[[Larry Sanger]] |title=Let's make a wiki |date=[[January 10]], [[2001]] |publisher=Internet Archive |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html}}</ref>
Wikipedia was formally launched on [[January 15]], [[2001]], as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20010331173908/http://www.wikipedia.com/ |title=Wikipedia: HomePage |accessdate= 2001-03-31}}</ref> and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.<ref>{{cite news |author=[[Larry Sanger]] |title=Wikipedia is up! |date=[[January 17]], [[2001]] |publisher=Internet Archive |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20010506042824/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000684.html}}</ref>
Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view"<ref name="NPOV">"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=102236018 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view], Wikipedia (21 January 2007)</ref> 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.<ref name="SangerMemoir">{{cite news |author=[[Larry Sanger]] |title=The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir|date=[[April 18]], [[2005]] |publisher=[[Slashdot]] |url=http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml}}</ref>
Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, [[Slashdot]] postings, and [[Web search engine|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 closing stages 2004.<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics Multilingual statistics]", Wikipedia, [[March 30]], [[2005]]</ref> Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers went down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. As of December 2007, English Wikipedia had over 2 million articles, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, eclipsing even the [[Yongle Encyclopedia]] (1407), which had held the record for exactly 600 years.<ref name="EB_encyclopedia">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Encyclopedias and Dictionaries |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed. |publisher= Encyclopædia Britannica |date=2007 |volume=18 |pages=257–286}}</ref>
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.{{Fact|date=March 2008}} Later that year, Wales announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and its website was moved to wikipedia.org.<ref>{{cite book|author=Shirky, Clay|title=Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations|pages=273|date=[[February 28]], [[2008]]|publisher=The Penguin Press via Amazon Online Reader|url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1594201536/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=spanish&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go%21#|isbn=1-594201-53-6}}</ref> 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]].<ref>[[Jimmy Wales]]: "[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-June/010690.html Announcing Wikimedia Foundation]", [[June 20]], [[2003]], <wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org></ref> 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]]". There are plans to license the use of the Wikipedia trademark for some products, such as books or DVDs.<ref>{{cite news |first=Vipin |last=Nair|title=Growing on volunteer power |date=[[December 5]], [[2005]] |publisher=Business Line |url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ew/2005/12/05/stories/2005120500070100.htm}}</ref>
==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.<ref name="Torsten_Kleinz"/><ref>The [[Japanese Wikipedia]], for example, is known for deleting every mention of real names of victims of certain high-profile crimes, even though they may still be noted in other language editions.</ref><!-- Much of the coordination of the editing takes place on the "Talk" pages associated with each article.<ref>{{cite journal
|url=http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/wikipedia_coordination_final.pdf
|author=Fernanda B. Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Jesse Kriss, Frank van Ham
|title=Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia
|publisher=Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research
|date=2007-01-03
|accessdate=2007-10-30}}</ref>; uninteresting detail?--> 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer |title=Wikipedia:General disclaimer |accessdate=2008-04-22 |publisher=English Wikipedia}}</ref> (This stance has been successfully used as a defense in court.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201339_Inform.html
|title=Wikipedia cleared in French defamation case
|publisher=Reuters
|date=2007-11-02
|accessdate=2007-11-02}}</ref>) Wikipedia also does not censor itself, and it contain materials that a certain group of people may find objectionable or offensive.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored |title=Wikipedia is not censored |publisher=Wikipedia |accessdate=2008-04-30}}</ref> For instance, in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of [[Depictions of Muhammad#Wikipedia_article|Muhammad's depictions]] in English Wikipedia, citing this policy. The presence of politically sensitive materials in Wikipedia had also led China to [[Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China|block]] the access to the site.
Content in Wikipedia is, however, subject to the law in [[Florida, United States]], where Wikipedia servers are hosted, and several internal policies and guidelines;<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1866322157;fp;2;fpid;2 |title=Who's behind Wikipedia? |publisher=PC World |date=2008-02-06 |accessdate=2008-02-07}}</ref> they need to be on "notable"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability |title=Wikipedia:Notability |accessdate=2008-02-13 |quote=A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.}}</ref> topics, contain "no original research"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research |title=Wikipedia:No original research |accessdate=2008-02-13 |quote=Wikipedia does not publish original thought}}</ref> and only "verifiable"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability |title= Wikipedia:Verifiability |accessdate=2008-02-13 |quote=Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.}}</ref> material and must be written from a "neutral point of view."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view |title= Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view |accessdate=2008-02-13 |quote=All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.}}</ref> The project relies on its community members, called ''Wikipedians'',<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians
|title=Wikipedia:Wikipedians
|accessdate=2007-12-08
|publisher=Wikipedia}}</ref> to ensure the articles adhere to those policies and guidelines and to delete or modify those failing to meet them. [[Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia|Deletionism and inclusionism]] are two editor philosophies on the extent of these modifications and deletions.<ref>{{cite news |title=The battle for Wikipedia's soul |url=http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354 |publisher=[[The Economist]] |date=2008-03-06 |accessdate=2008-03-07 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/10/11/dlwiki11.xml |title=Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart |date=2007-11-10 |accessdate=2008-03-11 |publisher=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}</ref> The vandalism to articles is dealt by Wikipedians or, more increasingly, by [[Internet bot|bots]], computer programs.<ref name="CreatingDestroyingAndRestoringValue" />
Wikipedia tries to address the problem of [[systemic bias]], and to deal with zealous editors who seek to influence the presentation of an article in a biased way, by insisting on a neutral point of view.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.alternet.org/story/61365/?page=entire
|title=Will Unethical Editing Destroy Wikipedia's Credibility?
|author=Eric Haas
|publisher=AlterNet.org
|date=[[2007-10-26]]}}</ref>
The English-language Wikipedia has introduced an assessment scale against which the quality of articles is judged;<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment
|title=Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment
|accessdate=2007-10-28}}</ref> other editions have also adopted this. Roughly 1,500 articles 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.<ref>{{cite journal
|url=http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/hidden_order_wikipedia.pdf
|author=Fernanda B. Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, and Matthew M. McKeon
|title=The Hidden Order of Wikipedia
|publisher=Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research
|date=2007-07-22
|accessdate=2007-10-30
|format=pdf}}</ref>
In a 2003 study of Wikipedia as a community, economics [[Doctor of Philosophy|Ph.D.]] student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low [[transaction cost]]s of participating in [[wiki]] software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a "creative construction" approach encourages participation.<ref>
Andrea Ciffolilli, "[http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/ciffolilli/index.html Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia]", ''[[First Monday (journal)|First Monday]]'' December 2003.
</ref>
[[Image:WIkimania-2006 010.jpg|thumb|[[Wikimania]], an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.]]
The community has a power structure.<ref name="iTWireJune18-2006">
{{cite news
|first=Stuart
|last=Corner
|title=What's all the fuss about Wikipedia?
|url=http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/4666/127/
|publisher=[[iT Wire]]
|date=[[June 18]], [[2006]]
|accessdate=2007-03-25}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2184487 |title=The Wisdom of the Chaperones |date=2008-02-22 |accessdate=2008-03-04 |first=Chris |last=Wilson |publisher=Slate}}</ref>
Wikipedia's community has also been described as "[[cult]]-like,"<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/dec/15/wikipedia.web20
|title=Log on and join in, but beware the web cults
|first=Charles |last=Arthur
|date=[[2005-12-15]]
|publisher= ''[[The Guardian]]''
}}</ref> although not always with entirely negative connotations,<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/03/wikipedia/index.html
|title=Wikipedia: The know-it-all Web site
|date=[[2003-08-04]]
|first=Kristie
|last=Lu Stout|publisher=[[CNN]]
}}</ref> and criticized for failing to accommodate inexperienced users.<ref>"{{cite web
|url=http://wikinfo.org/index.php/Critical_views_of_Wikipedia
|title=Critical views of Wikipedia
|author=[[Wikinfo]]
|date=[[2005-03-30]]
|accessdate=2007-01-29
}}</ref><!--This sentence is poorly written, and, more important, it isn't quite encyclopedic. -- Taku
While they are welcomed by the community,<ref name="TheNewYorker">
{{cite news
|first=Stacy
|last=Schiff
|title=Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?
|work =Know It All
|url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact
|publisher =[[The New Yorker]]
|date =[[July 24]], [[2006]]
|accessdate=2007-03-25}}</ref> authors new to Wikipedia are encouraged to read policies to help them learn the ways of Wikipedia.<ref name="Torsten_Kleinz">{{cite news
|first=Torsten
|last=Kleinz
|title=World of Knowledge
|work =The Wikipedia Project
|url=http://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/51/Wikipedia_Encyclopedia.pdf
|publisher=[[Linux Magazine]]
|date=February, 2005
|accessdate=2007-03-25}}</ref>
--> Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many of levels of volunteer stewardship; this begins with "[[sysop|administrator]]"<ref name="David_Mehegan">{{cite news
|first=David
|last=Mehegan
|title=Many contributors, common cause
|url=http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/13/many_contributors_common_cause/
|publisher=[[The Boston Globe]]
|date=[[February 13]], [[2006]]
|accessdate=2007-03-25}}</ref> and goes up with "steward" and "bureaucrat".<ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_access_levels&oldid=100160162 Wikipedia:User access levels]," Wikipedia ([[January 12]], [[2007]])</ref> Administrators, the largest group of privileged users ({{srlink|Special:Statistics|1,503 Wikipedians}} for the English edition on [[February 23]], [[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]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.viktoria.se/altchi/submissions/submission_edchi_1.pdf |title=Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie |first=Aniket |last=Kittur | accessdate =2008-02-23 |format=pdf}}</ref> Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia |title=Raw Thought: Who Writes Wikipedia? |first=Aaron |last=Swartz |accessdate=2008-02-23 |date=2006-09-04}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=good-samaritans-are-on-the-money
|title=Wikipedia "Good Samaritans'' Are on the Money
|publisher=[[Scientific American]]
|date=[[2007-10-19]]}}</ref>
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 [[credential]]s has been labeled "anti-elitism".<ref name="SangerElitism">[[Larry Sanger]], [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism], [[Kuro5hin]], [[December 31]], [[2004]].</ref>
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."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42
|title=Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past
|publisher=The Journal of American History Volume 93, Number 1 (June, 2006): 117-46
|author=Rosenzweig, Roy
|accessdate=2007-10-29
}}</ref>
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.<ref name="Seeing Corporate Fingerprints">{{cite news
|url=http://www10.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html?_r=5&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
|title=Seeing Corporate Fingerprints From the Editing of Wikipedia
|first=Katie
|last=Hafner
|date=[[2007-08-19]]
|publisher=[[The New York Times]]
}}</ref> Wales called WikiScanner "a very clever idea," and said that he was considering some changes to Wikipedia to help visitors better understand what information is recorded about them. "When someone clicks on 'edit,' it would be interesting if we could say, 'Hi, thank you for editing. We see you're logged in from ''[[The New York Times]]''. Keep in mind that we know that, and it's public information,'" he said. "That might make them stop and think."<ref name="Seeing Corporate Fingerprints"/>
==Reliability and bias ==
{{main|Reliability of Wikipedia}}
:''See also [[Criticism of Wikipedia]].''
Wikipedia has been accused of exhibiting [[systemic bias]] and inconsistency;<ref name="Who">Simon Waldman, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/oct/26/g2.onlinesupplement Who knows?] ''The Guardian'', [[October 26]], [[2004]]</ref> critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for much of the information makes it unreliable.<ref>{{ cite news | author = Stacy Schiff | date = [[2006-07-31]] | title = Know It All | work = The New Yorker }}</ref> Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia is generally reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not always clear.<ref name="AcademiaAndWikipedia" /> Editors of traditional [[reference work]]s such as the ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.<ref name="McHenry_2004">[[Robert McHenry]], "[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html The Faith-Based Encyclopedia]", [[Tech Central Station]], [[November 15]], [[2004]].</ref> Many [[university]] [[lecturer]]s discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in [[Academia|academic work]], preferring [[primary source]]s;<ref name="WideWorldOfWikipedia">{{ cite web | title = Wide World of WIKIPEDIA | publisher = The Emory Wheel | url = http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=17902 | date = [[April 21]], [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-10-17 }}</ref> some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.<ref>{{cite news |first=Scott |last=Jaschik |title=A Stand Against Wikipedia |url=http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki |publisher=Inside Higher Ed |date=[[2007-01-26]] |accessdate=2007-01-27 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="AWorkInProgress">{{cite news |first=Burt |last=Helm |title= Wikipedia: "A Work in Progress" |url= http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm |publisher=[[BusinessWeek]] |date=[[2005-12-14]] |accessdate=2007-01-29 }}</ref> Technology writer [[Bill Thompson (technology writer)|Bill Thompson]] commented that the debate was possibly "symptomatic of much learning about information which is happening in society today."<ref>{{cite news |title=What is it with Wikipedia? |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4534712.stm |date=[[2005-12-16]] |publisher=[[British Broadcasting Company|BBC]] |first=Bill |last=Thompson}}</ref>
[[Image:John Seigenthaler Sr. speaking.jpg|right|thumb|John Seigenthaler Sr. has described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool."<ref name=Seigenthaler />]]
Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of [[accountability]] that results from users' anonymity,<ref name="WikipediaWatch">[[Public Information Research]] – Wikipedia Watch. Retrieved on [[2007-01-28]].</ref> and that it is vulnerable to [[vandalism]], the insertion of spurious information and similar problems. In one particularly well-publicized [[Seigenthaler incident|incident]], false information was introduced into the biography of [[John Seigenthaler, Sr.]] and remained undetected for four months.<ref name=Seigenthaler>{{cite news
|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
|last=Seigenthaler
|first=John
|title=A False Wikipedia 'biography'
|date=2005-11-29
|publisher=USA Today
}}</ref> Some critics claim that Wikipedia's open structure makes it an easy target for Internet [[troll (Internet)|trolls]], [[Spam (electronic)|advertisers]], and those with an agenda to push.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version)
|url=http://www.citizendium.org/essay.html
|work=Citizendium.org
|accessdate=2006-10-10
}}</ref><ref name="Torsten_Kleinz">{{cite news
|first=Torsten
|last=Kleinz
|title=World of Knowledge
|work =The Wikipedia Project
|url=http://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/51/Wikipedia_Encyclopedia.pdf
|publisher=[[Linux Magazine]]
|date=February, 2005
|accessdate=2007-07-13
|quote= The Wikipedia's open structure makes it a target for trolls and vandals who malevolently add incorrect information to articles, get other people tied up in endless discussions, and generally do everything to draw attention to themselves.
}}</ref> The addition of political [[Spin (public relations)|spin]] to articles by organizations including the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] and special interest groups<ref name="DeathByWikipedia">{{cite web
|title=Death by Wikipedia: The Kenneth Lay Chronicles
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800135.html
|accessdate=2006-11-01
|first=Frank
|last=Ahrens
|publisher=The Washington Post
|date=[[2006-07-09]]
}}</ref> has been noted,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6032713-7.html
|title=Politicians notice Wikipedia
|publisher=[[CNET Networks|CNET]]
|author=Kane, Margaret
|date=[[2006-01-30]]
|accessdate=2007-01-28
}}</ref> and organizations such as [[Microsoft]] have offered financial incentives to work on certain articles.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16775981/
|title=Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit
|publisher=[[MSNBC]]
|author=Bergstein, Brian
|date=[[2007-01-23]]
|accessdate=2007-02-01
}}</ref> These issues have been parodied, notably by [[Stephen Colbert]] in ''[[The Colbert Report]]''.<ref name="wikiality">{{cite news
|title=Wikiality
|publisher=Comedycentral.com
|url=http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=72347
|author=Stephen Colbert
|date=[[2006-07-30]]
}}</ref>
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.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=82eb5d70-13bd-4086-9ec0-cb0e9e8411b3
|title=Cooked Books
|author=Tyler Cowen
|publisher=The New Republic
|date=[[2008-03-14]]}}</ref>
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.<ref>Child, Maxwell L.,[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517305 "Professors Split on Wiki Debate"], The Harvard Crimson, Monday, [[February 26]], [[2007]].</ref> In June 2007, former president of the [[American Library Association]] [[Michael Gorman (librarian)|Michael Gorman]] condemned Wikipedia, along with [[Google]],<ref name=stothart>Chloe Stothart, [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=209408 Web threatens learning ethos],
''The Times Higher Education Supplement'', 2007, '''1799''' (22 June), page 2</ref> stating that academics who endorse the use of Wikipedia are “the intellectual equivalent of a [[dietitian]] who recommends a steady diet of [[Big Mac]]s 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.”<ref name=stothart />
<!--
Speaking at a conference in Pennsylvania, Wales said he receives about ten e-mails weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia. According to ''[[The Sunday Times]]'' of London, Wales told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia," he said.<ref>"Jimmy Wales," ''Biography Resource Center Online''. (Gale, 2006)</ref>
So what? First we need some paragraph discussing the reliance of Wikipedia in school. -- Taku
-->
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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reviewed_article_version|title=meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reviewed_article_version<!--INSERT TITLE-->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stable_versions|title=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stable_versions<!--INSERT TITLE-->}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions|title=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions<!--INSERT TITLE-->}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19526226.200-wikipedia-20-%C3%A2-now-with-added-trust.html
|last=Giles
|first=Jim
|title=Wikipedia 2.0 - now with added trust
|date=2007-09-20
|publisher=NewScientist.com news service
}}</ref>
== 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 an interview, Jimmy Wales said that the foundation spent $2 million of donor money in 2007 toward site maintenance costs.<ref>[http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/feb/22inter.htm Wales spent $2m of donor money to maintain Wikipedia]</ref> The foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with [[Wikia]]. The Wikimedia Foundation received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the fiscal year ending [[June 30]] [[2006]].<ref> [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/49/Wikimedia_2007_fs.pdf Wikimedia Foundation 2006–2007 Audit] page 9 says "The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc."</ref>
In ''[[The New York Times]]'' in March 2008, Jimbo Wales discussed a possible trivia game based on Wikipedia.<ref name=cohen>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/technology/17wikipedia.html |title=Open-Source Troubles in Wiki World |accessdate = 2008-04-01 |author=Noam Cohen |date=[[2008-03-17]] |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>
===Software and hardware===
The operation of Wikipedia depends on [[MediaWiki]], a custom-made, [[free software|free]] and [[open source software|open source]] [[wiki software]] platform written in [[PHP]] and built upon the [[MySQL]] database. The software incorporates programming features such as a [[Macro (computer science)|macro language]], [[variable]]s, a [[transclusion]] system for [[Web template#Sub-template|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 [[PhpWiki|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 [[Exponential growth|exponentially increasing]] demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker.
[[Image:Wikimedia-servers-2006-05-09.svg|thumb|right|Overview of system architecture, May 2006. See [[:meta:Server layout diagrams|server layout diagrams on Meta-Wiki]].]]
Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated [[computer cluster|clusters]] of [[Linux|GNU/Linux]] servers, 300 in [[Florida]], 26 in [[Amsterdam]] and 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility in [[Seoul]].<ref name="servers">{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers|title=Wikimedia servers at wikimedia.org|accessdate=2008-02-16}}</ref> 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 hosting service|dedicated servers]] located in Florida. This configuration included a single master [[database server]] running [[MySQL]], multiple slave database servers, 21 [[web server]]s running the [[Apache HTTP Server]], and seven [[Squid (software)|Squid cache]] servers.
Wikipedia receives between 20,000 and 45,000 page requests per second, depending on time of day.<ref>"[http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/reqstats/reqstats-monthly.png Monthly request statistics]", Wikimedia. Retrieved on [[2008-02-26]].</ref> Page requests are first passed to a front-end layer of [[Squid (software)|Squid caching]] servers. 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==
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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights |title=Wikipedia:Copyrights |accessdate=2008-04-22 |publisher=English Wikipedia}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
|title=Resolution:License update
|date=2007
|accessdate=2007-12-04
|author=Walter Vermeir
|publisher=Wikizine}}</ref>
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. This is in part because of the difference in copyright laws between countries; for example, the notion of fair use does not exist 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.
[[Image:English Wikipedia contributors by country (1).svg|thumb|Contributors for English Wikipedia by country as of September 2006<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Edits_by_project_and_country_of_origin
|title=Edits by project and country of origin
|date=2006-09-04
|accessdate=2007-10-25
}}</ref>.]]
There are currently 253 language editions of Wikipedia; of these, 16 have over 100,000 articles and 145 have over 1,000 articles.<ref name="ListOfWikipedias" /> (See [[List of Wikipedias]] for the full list.) According to Alexa, the English [[subdomain]] (en.wikipedia.org; [[English Wikipedia]]) receives approximately 55% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages (Spanish: 17%, Japanese 4%, German: 4%, Polish: 3%, French: 3%, Portuguese: 2%).<ref name="AlexaStats" /> As of December 2007, the five largest language editions are (in order of article count) [[English Wikipedia|English]], [[German Wikipedia|German]], [[French Wikipedia|French]], [[Polish Wikipedia|Polish]] and [[Japanese Wikipedia]]s.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics |title=Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics |publisher=English Wikipedia |accessdate=2007-12-23}}</ref>
Since Wikipedia is web-based and therefore worldwide, contributors of a same language edition may use different dialects or may come from different countries (as is the case for the [[English Wikipedia|English edition]]). These differences may lead to some conflicts over [[American and British English spelling differences|spelling differences]], (e.g. ''color'' vs. ''colour'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spelling|title= spelling | work = Manual of Style | publisher = Wikipedia |accessdate=2007-05-19}}</ref> or points of view.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias|title=Countering systemic bias|accessdate=2007-05-19}}</ref>
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 [[Free Content|licensed freely]] may be used under a claim of [[fair use]].<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
|title=Fair use
|publisher=Meta wiki
|accessdate=2007-07-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Images_on_Wikipedia
|title=Images on Wikipedia
|accessdate=2007-07-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
|url=http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/viegas_hicss_visual_wikipedia.pdf
|author=Fernanda B. Viégas
|title=The Visual Side of Wikipedia
|publisher=Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research
|date=2007-01-03
|accessdate=2007-10-30}}</ref>
[[Image:PercentWikipediasGraph.png|thumb|Percentage of all Wikipedia articles in English (red) and top ten largest language editions (blue). As of November 2007, less than 25% of Wikipedia articles are in English.]] 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".<ref>[[Jimmy Wales]], "[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-March/020469.html Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]", March 8 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org></ref> Though each language edition functions more or less independently, some efforts are made to supervise them all. They are coordinated in part by [[Wikipedia:Meta|Meta-Wiki]], the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki devoted to maintaining all of its projects (Wikipedia and others). For instance, Meta-Wiki provides [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Statistics important statistics] on all language editions of Wikipedia and maintain a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have list of articles every Wikipedia should have]. The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, foodstuffs, 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.
Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions,<ref>For example, "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation_into_English Translation into English]", Wikipedia. ([[March 9]], [[2005]])</ref> in part because automated translation of articles is disallowed.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translations Wikipedia: Translation]. English Wikipedia, accessed on [[2007-02-03]]</ref> Articles available in more than one language may offer "[[InterWiki]]" links, which link to the counterpart articles in other editions.
Several language versions have published a selection of Wikipedia articles on an optical disk version. An English version [[2006 Wikipedia CD Selection]] contained about 2000 articles. Another English version <ref>"[http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/site.php?temp=down List of Mirrors Hosting the CD Iso.]" ''Wikipedia on DVD''. [[History of Wikipedia|Linterweb]]. Accessed [[1 June]] [[2007]]</ref> developed by [[History of Wikipedia|Linterweb]] contains "1988 + articles".<ref>"[http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/ Wikipedia on DVD]". Linterweb. Accessed [[1 June]] [[2007]]. "Linterweb is authorized to make a commercial use of the Wikipedia trademark restricted to the selling of the Encyclopedia CDs and DVDs."</ref><ref>"[http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/site.php?temp=buy Wikipedia 0.5 Available on a CD-ROM]". ''Wikipedia on DVD''. Linterweb. Accessed [[1 June]] [[2007]]. "The DVD or CD-ROM version 0.5 was commercially available for purchase."</ref> The Polish version contains nearly 240000 articles.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polska_Wikipedia_na_DVD_%28z_Helionem%29/en |title=Polish Wikipedia on DVD}}</ref> There are also a few German versions.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-Distribution |title=Wikipedia:DVD}}</ref>
==Cultural significance==
{{selfref|{{see also|Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media}}}}
[[Image:Webcomic xkcd - Wikipedian protester.png|thumb|An [[xkcd]] strip entitled "Wikipedian Protester."]]
In addition to [[Logistic function|logistic growth]] in the number of its articles,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth |title=Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth |accessdate=2007-12-22}}</ref> Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=849 |title=694 Million People Currently Use the Internet Worldwide According To comScore Networks |date-2006-05-04 |accessdate=2007-12-16 |publisher=comScore |quote=Wikipedia has emerged as a site that continues to increase in popularity, both globally and in the U.S. }}</ref> According to [[Alexa Internet|Alexa]] and [[comScore]], Wikipedia is among the ten most visited websites world-wide.<ref name=AlexaTop500>{{cite web |url=http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=global&lang=none |title=Top 500 |accessdate=2007-12-04 |publisher=[[Alexa Internet|Alexa]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.comscore.com/press/data.asp |title=comScore Data Center |date=October 2007 |accessdate=2008-01-19}}</ref> Of the top ten, Wikipedia is the only non-profit website. The growth of Wikipedia has been fueled by its dominant position in Google search results;<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/16111162.html |title=Wikipedia or Wickedpedia? |journal=Hoover Institution |first=Michael J |last= Petrilli |volume=8 |issue=2 |accessdate=2008-03-21}}</ref> about 50% of search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-prescott/2007/02/wikipedia_traffic_sources.html |title=Google Traffic To Wikipedia up 166% Year over Year |publisher=[[Hitwise]] |date=2007-02-16 |accessdate=2007-12-22}}</ref> a good portion of which is related to academic research.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-prescott/2006/10/wikipedia_and_academic_researc.html |title=Wikipedia and Academic Research |publisher=[[Hitwise]] |date=2006-10-17 |accessdate=2008-02-06}}</ref> In April 2007 the [[Pew Research Center|Pew]] Internet and American Life project found that one third of US Internet users consulted Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web |first=Lee |last=Rainie |coauthor=Bill Tancer |title=Wikipedia users |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] |work=Pew Internet & American Life Project |date=2007-12-15 |url=http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2007-12-15 |quote=36% of online American adults consult Wikipedia. It is particularly popular with the well-educated and current college-age students.}}</ref> In October 2006 the site was estimated to have a hypothetical market value of $580 million if it ran ads.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=626
|title=What is Wikipedia.org's Valuation?
|first=Ashkan
|last=Karbasfrooshan
|date=2006-10-26
|accessdate=2007-12-01}}</ref>
[[Image:Penny Arcade comic-20051216h.jpg|thumb|A [[parody]] comic of [[Skeletor]] [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalizing]] the article [[He-Man]].]]
Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases.<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_the_media Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media]", Wikipedia</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf|title=Bourgeois ''et al'' v. Peters ''et al.''|format=PDF|accessdate=2007-02-06}}</ref> 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]].<ref> [http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Session=13&query=4381&List=ot#2 C-38], LEGISINFO ([[March 28]], [[2005]])</ref> The encyclopedia's assertions are increasingly used as a source by organizations such as the U.S. Federal Courts and the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]]<ref name="WP_court_source">{{cite journal |last=Arias |first=Martha L. |date=[[2007-01-29]] |title=[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1668 Wikipedia: The Free Online Encyclopedia and its Use as Court Source] |journal=Internet Business Law Services}} (the name "''World Intellectual Property Office''" should however read "''World Intellectual Property Organization''" in this source)</ref> – though mainly for ''supporting information'' rather than information decisive to a case.<ref>{{cite news |last=Cohen |first=Noam |date=[[2007-01-29]] |title=Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively |url=http://www10.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html?_r=5&ref=technology&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin |journal=New York Times}}</ref> Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some [[U.S. intelligence community|U.S. intelligence agency]] reports.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/03/the_wikipedia_factor_in_us_int.html
|title=The Wikipedia Factor in U.S. Intelligence
|first=Steven | last= Aftergood
|publisher=Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy
|date=2007-03-21
|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>
Wikipedia has also been used as a source in [[journalism]],<ref>{{cite news |title=Wikipedia in the Newsroom |url=http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461 |date=[[February 2008|February]]/March 2008 |publisher=[[American Journalism Review]] |first=Donna |last=Shaw |accessdate=2008-02-11}}</ref> sometimes without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for plagiarizing from Wikipedia.<ref>Shizuoka newspaper plagiarized Wikipedia article, ''Japan News Review'', [[July 5]], [[2007]]</ref><ref> "[http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA010307.02A.richter.132c153.html Express-News staffer resigns after plagiarism in column is discovered]", ''[[San Antonio Express-News]]'', [[January 9]], [[2007]].</ref><ref>"[http://starbulletin.com/2006/01/13/news/story03.html Inquiry prompts reporter's dismissal]", ''[[Honolulu Star-Bulletin]]'', [[January 13]], [[2007]].</ref>
In July 2007, Wikipedia was the focus of a 30-minute documentary on [[BBC Radio 4]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/efv21/|title=Radio 4 Documentary}}</ref> which argued that, with increased usage and awareness, the number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the term is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar ([[Google]], [[Facebook]], [[YouTube]]) that they no longer need explanation and are on a par with such 20th-century terms as [[The Hoover Company|Hoovering]] or [[Coca-Cola|Coke]]. Many parody Wikipedia's openness, with characters vandalizing or modifying the online encyclopedia project's articles. Notably, comedian [[Stephen Colbert]] has parodied or referenced Wikipedia on numerous episodes of his show ''[[The Colbert Report]]'' and coined the related term "[[wikiality]]".<ref name="wikiality" />
Wikipedia has also created an impact upon forms of media. Some media sources satirize Wikipedia's susceptibility to inserted inaccuracies, such as a front-page article in ''[[The Onion]]'' in July 2006 with the title "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 |title=Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence |accessmonthday= [[October 15]] |accessyear=2006 |year=2006 |work=[http://www.theonion.com/content/index The Onion]}}</ref> while others may draw upon Wikipedia's statement that anyone can edit, such as "[[The Negotiation]]", an episode of ''[[The Office (U.S. TV series)|The Office]]'', where character [[Michael Scott (The Office)|Michael Scott]] said that "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information", and a select few parody Wikipedia's policies, such as the ''xkcd'' strip named "Wikipedian Protester", that also included the joke "Semi-protect the Constitution!"
The first documentary film about Wikipedia, entitled ''[[Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story]]'', is scheduled for 2009 release. Shot on several continents, the film will cover the history of Wikipedia and feature interviews with Wikipedia editors around the world.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikidocumentary.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page|title=wikidocumentary.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page<!--INSERT TITLE-->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/11/PKGRJN87UI1.DTL| title=Industry Buzz| last=Hart| first=Hugh| date=[[March 11]], [[2007]]| publisher=[[San Francisco Chronicle|SFGate.com]]}}</ref> Dutch filmmaker [[Tegenlicht|IJsbrand van Veelen]] premiered his 45-minute documentary ''The Truth According to Wikipedia'' in April, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/08/the-truth-according-to-wikipedia/
|title=The Truth According to Wikipedia
|last=Schonfeld
|first=Erick
|date=[[April 8]], [[2008]]
|publisher=TechCruch.com}}</ref>
On [[September 28]], [[2007]], Italian politician [[Franco Grillini]] raised a parliamentary question with the Minister of Cultural Resources and Activities about the necessity of [[Panoramafreiheit|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.grillini.it/show.php?4885|title=Comunicato stampa. On. Franco Grillini. Wikipedia. Interrogazione a Rutelli. Con "diritto di panorama" promuovere arte e architettura contemporanea italiana. Rivedere con urgenza legge copyright|date=12 October 2007}}</ref>
On [[September 16]], [[2007]], ''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported that Wikipedia had become a focal point in the 2008 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."<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699_pf.html
|title=On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet
|author=Jose Antonio Vargas
|publisher=The Washington Post
|date=2007-09-17}}
</ref> An October 2007 [[Reuters]] article, entitled "Wikipedia page the latest status symbol", reported the recent phenomenon of how having a Wikipedia article vindicates one's notability.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2232893820071022?sp=true
|title=Wikipedia page the latest status symbol
|author=Jennifer Ablan
|publisher=Reuters
|date=2007-10-22
|accessdate=2007-10-24}}</ref>
Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004.<ref>"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trophy_box Trophy Box]", [[Wikipedia:Meta|Meta-Wiki]] ([[March 28]], [[2005]]).</ref> 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 Awards|Webby Award]] for the "community" category.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/winners-2004.php|title=Webby Awards 2004|publisher=The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences|date=2004|accessdate=2007-06-19}}</ref> Wikipedia was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby.
In a 2006 ''Multiscope'' research study, the [[Dutch Wikipedia]] was rated the third best [[Dutch language]] site, after [[Google]] and [[Gmail]], with a score of 8.1.<ref> [http://www.multiscope.nl/organisatie/nieuws/sberichten/nederlandse-wikipedia-groeit-als-kool.html Nederlandse Wikipedia groeit als kool] (Website in Dutch Language), Recovered [[December 27]], [[2006]]</ref> On [[January 26]], [[2007]], Wikipedia was also awarded the fifth highest brand ranking by the readers of brandchannel.com, receiving 15% of the votes in answer to the question "Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?"<ref>{{cite news |first=Anthony |last=Zumpano |title=Similar Search Results: Google Wins |url=http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=352 |publisher=[[Interbrand]] |date=[[2007-01-29]] |accessdate=2007-01-28 }}</ref> [[Jimmy Wales]] was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by ''[[Time (magazine)|TIME Magazine]]'' in 2006.<ref>{{cite news |first=Chris |last=Anderson |title=Jimmy Wales |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187286,00.html |publisher=[[Time (magazine)|TIME]] |date=[[2006-04-30]] |accessdate=2006-12-18 }}</ref>
==Related projects==
{{sisterlinks}}
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 million contributors in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], and covering 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 have now been emulated on a website.<ref name="Domesday Project">[http://www.domesday1986.com/ Web-based emulator of the Domesday Project User Interface] and data from the Community Disc (contributions from the general public) -- most articles can be accessed using the interactive map</ref> One of the most successful early online encyclopedias incorporating entries by the public was [[h2g2]], which was also created by the [[BBC]]. The h2g2 encyclopedia was relatively light-hearted, focusing on articles which were both witty and informative. Both of these projects had similarities with Wikipedia, but neither gave full editorial freedom to public users.
Wikipedia has also spawned several sister projects. The first, "In Memoriam: September 11<!--Do not reformat this date, it is quoted--> Wiki",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sep11memories.org/wiki/In_Memoriam|title=sep11memories.org/<!--INSERT TITLE-->|accessdate=2007-02-06}}</ref> created in October 2002,<ref>[http://www.sep11memories.org/index.php?title=In_Memoriam&oldid=1502 First edit to the wiki] In Memoriam: September 11 wiki ([[October 28]], [[2002]]),</ref> detailed the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]; this project was closed in October 2006. [[Wiktionary]], a dictionary project, was launched in December 2002;<ref>"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_News&diff=prev&oldid=4133 Announcement of Wiktionary's creation]", [[December 12]], [[2002]]. Retrieved on [[2007-02-02]].</ref> [[Wikiquote]], a collection of quotations, a week after Wikimedia launched, and [[Wikibooks]], a collection of collaboratively written free books. Wikimedia has since started a number of other projects.<ref name="OurProjects">"[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects Our projects]", [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. Retrieved on [[2007-01-24]]</ref>
A similar non-wiki project, the [[GNUPedia]] project, co-existed with Nupedia early in its history; however, it has been retired and its creator, [[free software]] figure [[Richard Stallman]], has lent his support to Wikipedia.<ref name="stallman1999" />
Other websites centered on collaborative [[knowledge base]] development have drawn inspiration from or inspired Wikipedia. Some, such as [[Susning.nu]], [[Enciclopedia Libre]], and [[WikiZnanie]] likewise employ no formal review process, whereas others use more traditional [[peer review]], such as [[Encyclopedia of Life]], [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], [[Scholarpedia]], [[h2g2]] and [[Everything2]].
Jimmy Wales, the ''de facto'' leader of Wikipedia,<ref name="defactoleader">{{cite news
|first=Holden
|last=Frith
|url=http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1571519.ece
|title=Wikipedia founder launches rival online encyclopedia
|publisher=''[[The Times]]''
|date=[[March 26]], [[2007]],
|accessdate=2007-06-27
|quote=<small>Wikipedia's de facto leader, Jimmy Wales, stood by the site's format.</small>}}<small> – Holden Frith.</small></ref> said in an interview in regard to the online encyclopedia [[Citizendium]] which is overviewed by experts in their respective fields:<ref name=Orlowski18>
{{cite news
|first=Andrew
|last=Orlowski
|authorlink=Andrew Orlowski
|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/
|title=Wikipedia founder forks Wikipedia, More experts, less fiddling?
|publisher=''[[The Register]]''
|date=[[September 18]], [[2006]]
|accessdate=2007-06-27
|quote=<small>Larry Sanger describes the Citizendium project as a "progressive or gradual fork", with the major difference that experts have the final say over edits.</small>}}<small> – Andrew Orlowski.</small></ref> "We welcome a diversity of efforts. If Larry's project is able to produce good work, we will benefit from it by copying it back into Wikipedia."<ref name="JayLyman">
{{cite news
|first=Jay
|last=Lyman
|url=http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/53137.html
|title=Wikipedia Co-Founder Planning New Expert-Authored Site
|publisher=LinuxInsider
|date=September 20, 2006
|accessdate=2007-06-27}}</ref>
==See also==
{{meta|List of Wikipedias}}
* [[List of encyclopedias]]
* [[List of wikis]]
* [[Open content]]
* [[Self-reference]]
* [[USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia]]
* [[User-generated content]]
* [[Peer pioneers]]
* [[Wikipedia:About]]
* [[Googlepedia]]
* {{srlink|Wikipedia:Press coverage}}
==Further reading==
===Press coverage===
*{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin |title=All the News That's Fit to Print Out |first=Jonathan |last=Dee |publisher=The New York Times Magazine |date=2007-07-01 |accessdate=2008-02-22}}
*{{cite news |title=Wikipedia 2.0 - now with added trust |url=http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19526226.200-wikipedia-20-â-now-with-added-trust.html |date=2007-09-20 |accessdate=2008-02-22 |first=Jim |last=Giles |publisher=New Scientist}}
*{{cite news |title=Wikipedia Rules |url=http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid52864.aspx |publisher=[[The Phoenix (newspaper)|The Phoenix]] |date=2007-12-02 |accessdate=2008-02-22 |first=Mike |last=Miliard}}
*{{cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066904-1,00.html |title=It's a Wiki, Wiki World |first=Chris |last=Taylor |date=2005-05-29 |publisher=Time |accessdate=2008-02-22}}
*{{cite news |url=http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia |title=The Hive |first=Marshall |last=Poe |authorlink=Marshall Poe |date=2006-09 |accessdate=2008-03-22 |publisher=[[The Atlantic Monthly]]}}
*Balke, Jeff. [http://blogs.chron.com/brokenrecord/2008/03/for_music_fans_wikipedia_myspa.html For Music Fans: Wikipedia > MySpace] ''[[Houston Chronicle]]''
===Academic studies===
* {{cite journal|author=Ulrike Pfeil, Panayiotis Zaphiris, and Chee Siang Ang|date=2006|title=Cultural differences in collaborative authoring of Wikipedia|journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication|volume=12|issue=1|url=http://jcmc.indiana.edu./vol12/issue1/pfeil.html}}
* {{cite web|title=Do as I do: leadership in the Wikipedia|author=Joseph M. Reagle Jr.|url=http://reagle.org./joseph/2005/ethno/leadership.html|work=Wikipedia Drafts|date=2005}}
* {{cite journal |url=http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_4/wilkinson/index.html |title=Assessing the value of cooperation in Wikipedia |date=April 2007 |first=Dennis M. |last=Wilkinson |co-author=Bernardo A. Huberman |journal=First Monday |volume=12 |issue=4 |accessdate=2008-02-22}}
* {{cite journal |url=http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/nielsen/index.html |title=Scientific citations in Wikipedia |date=August 2007 |journal=First Monday |volume=12 |issue=8 |accessdate=2008-02-22 |first=Finn Årup |last=Nielsen}}
==References==
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
==External links==
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
{{Spoken Wikipedia|Wikipedia.ogg|2005-06-25}}
*[http://www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia] – multilingual portal (contains links to all language editions of the project)
*[http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/Wikipedia/ Wikipedia] at the [[Open Directory Project]]
*[http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/wikipedia.html CBC News: I, editor]
*[http://www.wikihow.com/Contribute-to-Wikipedia Help Edit Wikipedia] A [[wikiHow]] article.
*[http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/01/wikipedia.assignment.ap/index.html Class assignment: Write an original Wikipedia article]
*[http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42 Essay about wikipedia]
*[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 The Charms of Wikipedia] Nicholson Baker article on Wikipedia from ''[[The New York Review of Books]]''
*[irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia #wikipedia] on freenode
*[http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml A pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia]
{{Wikimedia Foundation}}
{{Wikipediahistory}}
{{Wikipedias}}
[[Category:Web 2.0]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Free encyclopedias]]
[[Category:Online encyclopedias]]
[[Category:General encyclopedias]]
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Internet properties established in 2001]]
[[Category:Wikimedia projects]]
[[Category:Advertising-free websites]]
[[af:Wikipedia]]
[[als:Wikipedia]]
[[am:ውክፔዲያ]]
[[ang:Wicipǣdia]]
[[ar:ويكيبيديا]]
[[an:Biquipedia]]
[[arc:ܘܝܟܝܦܕܝܐ]]
[[roa-rup:Wikipedia]]
[[frp:Vouiquipèdia]]
[[ast:Uiquipedia]]
[[gn:Vikipetã]]
[[ay:Wikipidiya]]
[[az:Vikipediya]]
[[bm:Wikipedia]]
[[bn:উইকিপিডিয়া]]
[[zh-min-nan:Wikipedia]]
[[map-bms:Wikipedia]]
[[ba:Википедия]]
[[be:Вікіпедыя]]
[[be-x-old:Вікіпэдыя]]
[[bar:Wikipedia]]
[[bs:Wikipedia]]
[[br:Wikipedia]]
[[bg:Уикипедия]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia]]
[[cv:Википеди]]
[[ceb:Wikipedya]]
[[cs:Wikipedie]]
[[ch:Wikipedia]]
[[co:Wikipedia]]
[[cy:Wicipedia]]
[[da:Wikipedia]]
[[de:Wikipedia]]
[[nv:Wikiibíídiiya]]
[[et:Vikipeedia]]
[[el:Βικιπαίδεια]]
[[es:Wikipedia]]
[[eo:Vikipedio]]
[[eu:Wikipedia]]
[[fa:ویکیپدیا]]
[[fo:Wikipedia]]
[[fr:Wikipédia]]
[[fy:Wikipedy]]
[[ff:Wikipeediya]]
[[fur:Vichipedie]]
[[ga:Vicipéid]]
[[gv:Wikipedia]]
[[gd:Bhicipèidia]]
[[gl:Wikipedia]]
[[gu:વિકિપીડિયા]]
[[zh-classical:維基大典]]
[[hak:Wikipedia]]
[[ko:위키백과]]
[[hy:Վիքիփեդիա]]
[[hi:विकिपीडिया]]
[[hsb:Wikipedija]]
[[hr:Wikipedija]]
[[io:Wikipedio]]
[[ig:Wikipedia]]
[[ilo:Wikipedia]]
[[bpy:উইকিপিডিয়া]]
[[id:Wikipedia]]
[[ia:Wikipedia]]
[[iu:ᐅᐃᑭᐱᑎᐊ/uikipitia]]
[[ik:Wikipedia]]
[[os:Википеди]]
[[is:Wikipedia]]
[[it:Wikipedia]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה]]
[[jv:Wikipedia]]
[[kl:Wikipedia]]
[[pam:Wikipedia]]
[[kn:ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ]]
[[ka:ვიკიპედია]]
[[csb:Wikipedijô]]
[[kk:Уикипедия]]
[[kw:Wikipedya]]
[[sw:Wikipedia]]
[[ht:Wikipedya]]
[[ku:Wikipedia]]
[[lad:ויקיפידיה]]
[[lbe:Википедия]]
[[lo:ວິກິພີເດຍ]]
[[la:Wikipedia]]
[[lv:Vikipēdija]]
[[lb:Wikipedia]]
[[lt:Vikipedija]]
[[lij:Wikipedia]]
[[li:Wikipedia]]
[[ln:Wikipedia]]
[[jbo:uikipedias]]
[[lmo:Wikipedia]]
[[hu:Wikipédia]]
[[mk:Википедија]]
[[mg:Wikipedia]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ]]
[[mt:Wikipedija]]
[[mi:Wikipedia]]
[[mr:विकिपीडिया]]
[[mzn:ویکیپدیا]]
[[ms:Wikipedia]]
[[cdo:Wikipedia]]
[[mn:Википедиа]]
[[nah:Huiquipedia]]
[[na:Wikipedia]]
[[nl:Wikipedia]]
[[nds-nl:Wikipedia]]
[[ne:विकिपीडिया]]
[[ja:ウィキペディア]]
[[nap:Wikipedia]]
[[no:Wikipedia]]
[[nn:Wikipedia]]
[[nrm:Viqùipédie]]
[[oc:Wikipèdia]]
[[ng:Wikipedia]]
[[ug:Wikipédiye]]
[[uz:Vikipediya]]
[[pa:ਵਿਕਿਪੀਡਿਆ]]
[[pag:Wikipedia]]
[[pap:Wikipedia]]
[[ps:پروژه:په هکله]]
[[pms:Wikipedia]]
[[nds:Wikipedia]]
[[pl:Wikipedia]]
[[pt:Wikipédia]]
[[crh:Vikipediya]]
[[ksh:Wikkipedija]]
[[ro:Wikipedia]]
[[rmy:Vikipidiya]]
[[rm:Wikipedia]]
[[qu:Wikipidiya]]
[[ru:Википедия]]
[[se:Wikipediija]]
[[sc:Wikipedia]]
[[sco:Wikipaedia]]
[[sq:Wikipedia]]
[[scn:Wikipedia]]
[[si:විකිපීඩියා]]
[[simple:Wikipedia]]
[[sd:وڪيپيڊيا]]
[[sk:Wikipédia]]
[[cu:Википедї]]
[[sl:Wikipedija]]
[[so:Wikipedia]]
[[sr:Википедија]]
[[sh:Wikipedia]]
[[su:Wikipédia]]
[[fi:Wikipedia]]
[[sv:Wikipedia]]
[[tl:Wikipedia]]
[[ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா]]
[[kab:Wikipedia]]
[[roa-tara:Uicchipèdie]]
[[tt:Wikipedia]]
[[te:వికీపీడియా]]
[[tet:Wikipédia]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย]]
[[vi:Wikipedia]]
[[tg:Википедиа]]
[[tpi:Wikipedia]]
[[chr:ᏫᎩᏇᏗᏯ]]
[[chy:Wikipedia]]
[[tr:Vikipedi]]
[[tk:Wikipediýa]]
[[udm:Википедия]]
[[bug:Wikipedia]]
[[uk:Вікіпедія]]
[[vec:Wikipedia]]
[[fiu-vro:Vikipeediä]]
[[wa:Wikipedia]]
[[vls:Wikipedia]]
[[war:Wikipedia]]
[[wo:Wikipedia]]
[[wuu:维基百科]]
[[yi:װיקיפעדיע]]
[[yo:Wikipedia]]
[[zh-yue:維基百科]]
[[diq:Wikipediya]]
[[zea:Wikipedia]]
[[bat-smg:Vikipedėjė]]
[[zh:维基百科]]