From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Wikipedia's non-encyclopedic visitor introduction, see Wikipedia:About.
Slogan The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Commercial? No
Type of site Online encyclopedia
Registration Optional
Available language(s) 236 active editions (253 in total)[1]
Owner Wikimedia Foundation
Created by Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger[2]
Launched January 15, 2001(2001-01-15)
Current status perpetual work-in-progress

Wikipedia (pronunciation Spoken content icon) is a free,[3] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[4] it is currently the largest, fastest-growing, and most popular general reference work on the Internet.[5][6]

As of April 2008, Wikipedia attracts 683 million visitors annually[7] reading over 10 million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.74 billion words for all Wikipedias.[citation needed] The English Wikipedia edition passed the 2,000,000-article mark on September 9, 2007, and as of June 15, 2008 it had over 2,413,000 articles consisting of over 1,048,000,000 words.[1][not in citation given] Wikipedia's articles have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and nearly all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. Having steadily risen in popularity since its inception,[8] it currently ranks among the top ten most-visited web sites worldwide.[9]

Critics of Wikipedia target its systemic bias and inconsistencies[10] and its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[11] 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. Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy are also an issue.[12] Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information.[13] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[14][15]

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.[16][17] When Time Magazine recognized "You" as its Person of the Year 2006, praising the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, Wikipedia was the first particular "Web 2.0" service mentioned, followed by YouTube and MySpace.[18]



Main article: History of Wikipedia

Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process. Nupedia was founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of Bomis, Inc, a web portal company. Its main figures were Jimmy Wales, Bomis CEO, and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was licensed initially under its own Nupedia Open Content License, switching to the GNU Free Documentation License before Wikipedia's founding at the urging of Richard Stallman.[19]

Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the founders of Wikipedia.[2][20] While Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[21] Sanger is usually credited with the counter-intuitive strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[22] On January 10, 2001, Larry Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[23] Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at,[24] and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[25] Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view"[26] 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.[21]

Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and search engine indexing. It grew to approximately 20,000 articles, and 18 language editions, by the end of 2001. By late 2002 it had reached 26 language editions, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the closing stages 2004.[27] 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.[28]

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.[citation needed] Later that year, Wales announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and its website was moved to[29] 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.[30] It applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark Wikipedia on September 17, 2004. The mark was granted registration status on January 10, 2006. Trademark protection was accorded by Japan on December 16, 2004, and in the European Union on January 20, 2005. Technically a service mark, the scope of the mark is for: "Provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet"[citation needed]. There are plans to license the use of the Wikipedia trademark for some products, such as books or DVDs.[31]

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.[32][33] 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.[34] Wikipedia also does not censor itself, and it contains materials that a certain group of people may find objectionable or offensive.[35] For instance, in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of Muhammad's depictions in English Wikipedia, citing this policy. The presence of politically sensitive materials in Wikipedia had also led China to block the access to the site.

Content in Wikipedia is, however, subject to the law in Florida, United States, where Wikipedia servers are hosted, and several internal policies and guidelines;[36] they need to be on "notable"[37] topics, contain "no original research"[38] and only "verifiable"[39] material and must be written from a "neutral point of view."[40] The project relies on its community members, called Wikipedians,[41] to ensure the articles adhere to those policies and guidelines and to delete or modify those failing to meet them. Deletionism and inclusionism are two editor philosophies on the extent of these modifications and deletions.[42][43] The vandalism to articles is dealt with by Wikipedians or, more increasingly, by computer programs called bots.[15]

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.[44] The English-language Wikipedia has introduced an assessment scale against which the quality of articles is judged;[45] 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.[46]

In a 2003 study of Wikipedia as a community, economics Ph.D. student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in wiki software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a "creative construction" approach encourages participation.[47]

The community has a power structure.[48][49] Wikipedia's community has also been described as "cult-like,"[50] although not always with entirely negative connotations,[51] and criticized for failing to accommodate inexperienced users.[52]

While they are welcomed by the community,[53] authors new to Wikipedia are encouraged to read policies to help them learn the ways of Wikipedia.[32] Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many of levels of volunteer stewardship; this begins with "administrator"[54] and goes up with "steward" and "bureaucrat".[55] Administrators, the largest group of privileged users (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.[56] Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes a bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization". This was later disputed by Aaron Swartz, who noted that several articles he sampled had large portion of their content contributed by a user with low edit count.[57] 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.[58] Although some contributors are authorities in their field, Wikipedia requires that even their contributions be supported by published and verifiable sources. The project's preference for consensus over credentials has been labeled "anti-elitism".[10]

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."[59]

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.[60] 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."[60]

Reliability and bias

See also: Criticism of Wikipedia

Wikipedia has been accused of exhibiting systemic bias and inconsistency;[12] critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for much of the information makes it unreliable.[61] Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia is generally reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not always clear.[11] Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.[62] Many university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[63] some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.[64] 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.[65] Technology writer Bill Thompson commented that the debate was possibly "symptomatic of much learning about information which is happening in society today."[66]

Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[68] and that it is vulnerable to vandalism, the insertion of spurious information and similar problems. In one particularly well-publicized incident, false information was introduced into the biography of John Seigenthaler, Sr. and remained undetected for four months.[67] Some critics claim that Wikipedia's open structure makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, advertisers, and those with an agenda to push.[69][32] The addition of political spin to articles by organizations including the U.S. House of Representatives and special interest groups[13] has been noted,[70] and organizations such as Microsoft have offered financial incentives to work on certain articles.[71] These issues have been parodied, notably by Stephen Colbert in The Colbert Report.[72]

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.[73]

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.[74] In June 2007, former president of the American Library Association Michael Gorman condemned Wikipedia, along with Google,[75] stating that academics who endorse the use of Wikipedia are "the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything." He also said that "a generation of intellectual sluggards incapable of moving beyond the Internet” was being produced at universities. He complains that the web-based sources are discouraging students from learning from the more rare texts which either are found only on paper or are on subscription-only web sites. In the same article Jenny Fry (a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute) commented on the academics who cite Wikipedia that: “You cannot say children are intellectually lazy because they are using the Internet when academics are using search engines in their research," she said. "The difference is that they have more experience of being critical about what is retrieved and whether it is authoritative. Children need to be told how to use the Internet in a critical and appropriate way."[75]

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.[76][77] 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.[78] 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.[79]


Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia

Wikipedia is funded and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related projects such as Wikibooks. In a 2008 interview, Jimmy Wales said that the foundation spent $2 million of donor money in 2007 toward site maintenance costs.[80] The foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, a for-profit company founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. The Wikimedia Foundation received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.[81]

In The New York Times in March 2008, Wales discussed a possible trivia game based on Wikipedia.[82]

Software and hardware

The operation of Wikipedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free and open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database. The software incorporates programming features such as a macro language, variables, a transclusion system for templates, and URL redirection. MediaWiki is licensed under the GNU General Public License and used by all Wikimedia projects, as well as many other wiki projects. Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker.

Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of GNU/Linux servers, 300 in Florida, 26 in Amsterdam and 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility in Seoul.[83] Wikipedia employed a single server until 2004, when the server setup was expanded into a distributed multitier architecture. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache HTTP Server, and seven Squid cache servers.

Wikipedia receives between 20,000 and 45,000 page requests per second, depending on time of day.[84] Page requests are first passed to a front-end layer of 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.[85] The position that Wikipedia is merely a hosting service has been successfully used as a defense in court.[86][87] 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.[88]

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.

There are currently 253 language editions of Wikipedia; of these, 16 have over 100,000 articles and 145 have over 1,000 articles.[1] (See List of Wikipedias for the full list.) According to Alexa, the English subdomain (; 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%).[8] As of December 2007, the five largest language editions are (in order of article count) English, German, French, Polish and Japanese Wikipedias.[90]

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 edition). These differences may lead to some conflicts over spelling differences, (e.g. color vs. colour)[91] or points of view.[92] 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 licensed freely may be used under a claim of fair use.[93][94][95]

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".[96] Though each language edition functions more or less independently, some efforts are made to supervise them all. They are coordinated in part by Meta-Wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki devoted to maintaining all of its projects (Wikipedia and others). For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia and maintain a 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,[97] in part because automated translation of articles is disallowed.[98] 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 [99] developed by Linterweb contains "1988 + articles".[100][101] The Polish version contains nearly 240000 articles.[102] There are also a few German versions.[103]

Cultural significance

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media

In addition to logistic growth in the number of its articles,[104] Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.[105] According to Alexa and comScore, Wikipedia is among the ten most visited websites world-wide.[9][106] 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;[107] about 50% of search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google,[108] a good portion of which is related to academic research.[109] In April 2007 the Pew Internet and American Life project found that one third of US Internet users consulted Wikipedia.[110] In October 2006, the site was estimated to have a hypothetical market value of $580 million if it ran ads.[111] On January 26, 2007, Wikipedia was also awarded the fourth highest brand ranking by the readers of, receiving 15% of the votes in answer to the question "Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?"[112]

Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases.[113][114] 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.[115] 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[116] – though mainly for supporting information rather than information decisive to a case.[117] Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some U.S. intelligence agency reports.[118]

Wikipedia has also been used as a source in journalism,[119] sometimes without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for plagiarizing from Wikipedia.[120][121][122] In July 2007, Wikipedia was the focus of a 30-minute documentary on BBC Radio 4[123] 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 Hoovering or 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".[72]

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",[124] while others may draw upon Wikipedia's statement that anyone can edit, such as "The Negotiation", an episode of The Office, where character 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.[125][126] Dutch filmmaker IJsbrand van Veelen premiered his 45-minute documentary The Truth According to Wikipedia in April, 2008.[127]

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."[128] 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.[129]

Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004.[130] 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 Award for the "community" category.[131] Wikipedia was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby.

Related projects

Find more about Wikipedia on Wikipedia's sister projects:
Dictionary definitions
Source texts
Images and media
News stories
Learning resources

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 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.[132] 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 Wiki",[133] created in October 2002,[134] detailed the September 11, 2001 attacks; this project was closed in October 2006. Wiktionary, a dictionary project, was launched in December 2002;[135] 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.[136]

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.[19]

Other websites centered on collaborative knowledge base development have drawn inspiration from or inspired Wikipedia. Some, such as, 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,[137] said in an interview in regard to the online encyclopedia Citizendium which is overviewed by experts in their respective fields:[138] "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."[139]

See also

Meta has related information at:

Further reading

Press coverage

Academic studies


  1. ^ a b c List of Wikipedias. Meta-Wiki (2007-07-12).
  2. ^ a b Jonathan Sidener. "Everyone's Encyclopedia", San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved on 2006-10-15. 
  3. ^ Some versions such as the English one contain non-free images.
  4. ^ Miliard, Mike. "Wikipediots: Who are these devoted, even obsessive contributors to Wikipedia?", Salt Lake City Weekly, 2008-03-01. Retrieved on 2008-02-21. 
  5. ^ Tancer, Bill. "Look Who's Using Wikipedia", Time, 2007-05-01. Retrieved on 2007-12-01. "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"  (the author's blog post on the article)
  6. ^ Woodson, Alex. "Wikipedia remains go-to site for online news", Reuters, 2007-07-08. Retrieved on 2007-12-16. "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." 
  7. ^ SnapShot of at Retrieved on 2008-04-19.
  8. ^ a b Five-year traffic statistics for Alexa Internet. Retrieved on 2008-04-17.
  9. ^ a b Top 500. Alexa. Retrieved on 2007-12-04.
  10. ^ a b Larry Sanger, Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism, Kuro5hin, December 31, 2004.
  11. ^ a b Danah Boyd (2005-01-04). Academia and Wikipedia. Many-to-Many. Retrieved on 2007-02-11.[unreliable source?]
  12. ^ a b Simon Waldman (2004-10-26). Who knows?. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-02-11.
  13. ^ a b Ahrens, Frank (2006-07-09). Death by Wikipedia: The Kenneth Lay Chronicles. The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2006-11-01.
  14. ^ . "Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with History Flow Visualizations" (PDF). Retrieved on 2007-01-24.
  15. ^ a b Reid Priedhorsky, Jilin Chen, Shyong (Tony) K. Lam, Katherine Panciera, Loren Terveen, John Riedl (2007-11-04). "Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia". Association for Computing Machinery GROUP '07 conference proceedings. 
  16. ^ Jonathan Dee. "All the News That's Fit to Print Out", The New York Times Magazine, 2007-07-01. Retrieved on 2007-12-01. 
  17. ^ Andrew Lih (04-16-2004). "Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource". 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism. 
  18. ^ "Time's Person of the Year: You", Time, 2006-12-13. 
  19. ^ a b Stallman, Richard M. (2007-06-20). The Free Encyclopedia Project. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
  20. ^ Meyers, Peter. "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You", The New York Times, September 20, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-11-22. "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.
  21. ^ a b Larry Sanger. "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir", Slashdot, April 18, 2005. 
  22. ^ Wikipedia-l: LinkBacks?. Retrieved on 2007-02-20.
  23. ^ Larry Sanger. "Let's make a wiki", Internet Archive, January 10, 2001. 
  24. ^ Wikipedia: HomePage. Retrieved on 2001-03-31.
  25. ^ Larry Sanger. "Wikipedia is up!", Internet Archive, January 17, 2001. 
  26. ^ "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (21 January 2007)
  27. ^ "Multilingual statistics", Wikipedia, March 30, 2005
  28. ^ "Encyclopedias and Dictionaries". Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed. 18. (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica. 257–286. 
  29. ^ Shirky, Clay (February 28, 2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. The Penguin Press via Amazon Online Reader, 273. ISBN 1-594201-53-6. 
  30. ^ Jimmy Wales: "Announcing Wikimedia Foundation", June 20, 2003, <>
  31. ^ Nair, Vipin. "Growing on volunteer power", Business Line, December 5, 2005. 
  32. ^ a b c Kleinz, Torsten. "World of Knowledge", The Wikipedia Project, Linux Magazine, February, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
  33. ^ 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.
  34. ^ Wikipedia:General disclaimer. English Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2008-04-22.
  35. ^ Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.
  36. ^ Who's behind Wikipedia?. PC World (2008-02-06). Retrieved on 2008-02-07.
  37. ^ Wikipedia:Notability. Retrieved on 2008-02-13. “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”
  38. ^ Wikipedia:No original research. Retrieved on 2008-02-13. “Wikipedia does not publish original thought”
  39. ^ Wikipedia:Verifiability. Retrieved on 2008-02-13. “Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.”
  40. ^ Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Retrieved on 2008-02-13. “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.”
  41. ^ Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2007-12-08.
  42. ^ "The battle for Wikipedia's soul", The Economist, 2008-03-06. Retrieved on 2008-03-07. 
  43. ^ "Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart", The Daily Telegraph, 2007-11-10. Retrieved on 2008-03-11. 
  44. ^ Eric Haas (2007-10-26). Will Unethical Editing Destroy Wikipedia's Credibility?.
  45. ^ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Retrieved on 2007-10-28.
  46. ^ Fernanda B. Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, and Matthew M. McKeon (2007-07-22). "The Hidden Order of Wikipedia" (pdf). Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research. 
  47. ^ Andrea Ciffolilli, "Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia", First Monday December 2003.
  48. ^ Corner, Stuart. "What's all the fuss about Wikipedia?", iT Wire, June 18, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
  49. ^ Wilson, Chris. "The Wisdom of the Chaperones", Slate, 2008-02-22. Retrieved on 2008-03-04. 
  50. ^ Arthur, Charles. "Log on and join in, but beware the web cults", The Guardian, 2005-12-15. 
  51. ^ Lu Stout, Kristie. "Wikipedia: The know-it-all Web site", CNN, 2003-08-04. 
  52. ^ "Wikinfo (2005-03-30). Critical views of Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
  53. ^ Schiff, Stacy. "Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?", Know It All, The New Yorker, July 24, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
  54. ^ Mehegan, David. "Many contributors, common cause", The Boston Globe, February 13, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
  55. ^ Wikipedia:User access levels," Wikipedia (January 12, 2007)
  56. ^ Kittur, Aniket. Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie (pdf). Retrieved on 2008-02-23.
  57. ^ Swartz, Aaron (2006-09-04). Raw Thought: Who Writes Wikipedia?. Retrieved on 2008-02-23.
  58. ^ "Wikipedia "Good Samaritans Are on the Money", Scientific American, 2007-10-19. 
  59. ^ Rosenzweig, Roy. Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past. The Journal of American History Volume 93, Number 1 (June, 2006): 117-46. Retrieved on 2007-10-29.
  60. ^ a b Hafner, Katie. "Seeing Corporate Fingerprints From the Editing of Wikipedia", The New York Times, 2007-08-19. 
  61. ^ Stacy Schiff. "Know It All", The New Yorker, 2006-07-31. 
  62. ^ Robert McHenry, "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia", Tech Central Station, November 15, 2004.
  63. ^ Wide World of WIKIPEDIA. The Emory Wheel (April 21, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-10-17.
  64. ^ Jaschik, Scott. "A Stand Against Wikipedia", Inside Higher Ed, 2007-01-26. Retrieved on 2007-01-27. 
  65. ^ Helm, Burt. "Wikipedia: "A Work in Progress"", BusinessWeek, 2005-12-14. Retrieved on 2007-01-29. 
  66. ^ Thompson, Bill. "What is it with Wikipedia?", BBC, 2005-12-16. 
  67. ^ a b Seigenthaler, John. "A False Wikipedia 'biography'", USA Today, 2005-11-29. 
  68. ^ Public Information Research – Wikipedia Watch. Retrieved on 2007-01-28.
  69. ^ Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version). Retrieved on 2006-10-10.
  70. ^ Kane, Margaret (2006-01-30). Politicians notice Wikipedia. CNET. Retrieved on 2007-01-28.
  71. ^ Bergstein, Brian (2007-01-23). Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit. MSNBC. Retrieved on 2007-02-01.
  72. ^ a b Stephen Colbert. "Wikiality",, 2006-07-30. 
  73. ^ Tyler Cowen (2008-03-14). Cooked Books. The New Republic.
  74. ^ Child, Maxwell L.,"Professors Split on Wiki Debate", The Harvard Crimson, Monday, February 26, 2007.
  75. ^ a b Chloe Stothart, Web threatens learning ethos, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 2007, 1799 (22 June), page 2
  76. ^
  77. ^
  78. ^
  79. ^ Giles, Jim. "Wikipedia 2.0 - now with added trust", news service, 2007-09-20. 
  80. ^ Wales spent $2m of donor money to maintain Wikipedia
  81. ^ 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."
  82. ^ Noam Cohen (2008-03-17). Open-Source Troubles in Wiki World. The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-04-01.
  83. ^ Wikimedia servers at Retrieved on 2008-02-16.
  84. ^ "Monthly request statistics", Wikimedia. Retrieved on 2008-02-26.
  85. ^ Wikipedia:Copyrights. English Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2008-04-22.
  86. ^ "Wikipedia cleared in French defamation case", Reuters, 2007-11-02. Retrieved on 2007-11-02. 
  87. ^ Anderson, Nate (2008-05-02). Dumb idea: suing Wikipedia for calling you "dumb". Ars Technica. Retrieved on 2008-05-04.
  88. ^ Walter Vermeir (2007). Resolution:License update. Wikizine. Retrieved on 2007-12-04.
  89. ^ Edits by project and country of origin (2006-09-04). Retrieved on 2007-10-25.
  90. ^ Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics. English Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2007-12-23.
  91. ^ spelling. Manual of Style. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2007-05-19.
  92. ^ Countering systemic bias. Retrieved on 2007-05-19.
  93. ^ Fair use. Meta wiki. Retrieved on 2007-07-14.
  94. ^ Images on Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2007-07-14.
  95. ^ Fernanda B. Viégas (2007-01-03). "The Visual Side of Wikipedia". Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research. 
  96. ^ Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8 2005, <>
  97. ^ For example, "Translation into English", Wikipedia. (March 9, 2005)
  98. ^ Wikipedia: Translation. English Wikipedia, accessed on 2007-02-03
  99. ^ "List of Mirrors Hosting the CD Iso." Wikipedia on DVD. Linterweb. Accessed 1 June 2007
  100. ^ "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."
  101. ^ "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."
  102. ^ Polish Wikipedia on DVD.
  103. ^ Wikipedia:DVD.
  104. ^ Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth. Retrieved on 2007-12-22.
  105. ^ 694 Million People Currently Use the Internet Worldwide According To comScore Networks. comScore. Retrieved on 2007-12-16. “Wikipedia has emerged as a site that continues to increase in popularity, both globally and in the U.S.”
  106. ^ comScore Data Center (October 2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-19.
  107. ^ Petrilli, Michael J. "Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?". Hoover Institution 8 (2). 
  108. ^ Google Traffic To Wikipedia up 166% Year over Year. Hitwise (2007-02-16). Retrieved on 2007-12-22.
  109. ^ Wikipedia and Academic Research. Hitwise (2006-10-17). Retrieved on 2008-02-06.
  110. ^ Rainie, Lee (2007-12-15). Wikipedia users (PDF). Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Research Center. Retrieved on 2007-12-15. “36% of online American adults consult Wikipedia. It is particularly popular with the well-educated and current college-age students.”
  111. ^ Karbasfrooshan, Ashkan (2006-10-26). What is's Valuation?. Retrieved on 2007-12-01.
  112. ^ Zumpano, Anthony. "Similar Search Results: Google Wins", Interbrand, 2007-01-29. Retrieved on 2007-01-28. 
  113. ^ "Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media", Wikipedia
  114. ^ Bourgeois et al v. Peters et al. (PDF). Retrieved on 2007-02-06.
  115. ^ C-38, LEGISINFO (March 28, 2005)
  116. ^ Arias, Martha L. (2007-01-29). "Wikipedia: The Free Online Encyclopedia and its Use as Court Source". Internet Business Law Services.  (the name "World Intellectual Property Office" should however read "World Intellectual Property Organization" in this source)
  117. ^ Cohen, Noam. "Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively", 2007-01-29. 
  118. ^ Aftergood, Steven (2007-03-21). The Wikipedia Factor in U.S. Intelligence. Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
  119. ^ Shaw, Donna. "Wikipedia in the Newsroom", American Journalism Review, February/March 2008. Retrieved on 2008-02-11. 
  120. ^ Shizuoka newspaper plagiarized Wikipedia article, Japan News Review, July 5, 2007
  121. ^ "Express-News staffer resigns after plagiarism in column is discovered", San Antonio Express-News, January 9, 2007.
  122. ^ "Inquiry prompts reporter's dismissal", Honolulu Star-Bulletin, January 13, 2007.
  123. ^ Radio 4 Documentary.
  124. ^ Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence. The Onion (2006). Retrieved on October 15, 2006.
  125. ^
  126. ^ Hart, Hugh (March 11, 2007). Industry Buzz.
  127. ^ Schonfeld, Erick (April 8, 2008). The Truth According to Wikipedia.
  128. ^ Jose Antonio Vargas. "On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet", The Washington Post, 2007-09-17. 
  129. ^ Jennifer Ablan. "Wikipedia page the latest status symbol", Reuters, 2007-10-22. Retrieved on 2007-10-24. 
  130. ^ "Trophy Box", Meta-Wiki (March 28, 2005).
  131. ^ Webby Awards 2004. The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences (2004). Retrieved on 2007-06-19.
  132. ^ 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
  133. ^ Retrieved on 2007-02-06.
  134. ^ First edit to the wiki In Memoriam: September 11 wiki (October 28, 2002),
  135. ^ "Announcement of Wiktionary's creation", December 12, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-02-02.
  136. ^ "Our projects", Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved on 2007-01-24
  137. ^ Frith, Holden. "Wikipedia founder launches rival online encyclopedia", The Times, March 26, 2007,. Retrieved on 2007-06-27. "Wikipedia's de facto leader, Jimmy Wales, stood by the site's format."  – Holden Frith.
  138. ^ Orlowski, Andrew. "Wikipedia founder forks Wikipedia, More experts, less fiddling?", The Register, September 18, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-06-27. "Larry Sanger describes the Citizendium project as a "progressive or gradual fork", with the major difference that experts have the final say over edits."  – Andrew Orlowski.
  139. ^ Lyman, Jay. "Wikipedia Co-Founder Planning New Expert-Authored Site", LinuxInsider, September 20, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-06-27. 

External links