Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the Internet encyclopedia. For other uses, see Wikipedia (disambiguation).
For Wikipedia's non-encyclopedic visitor introduction, see Wikipedia:About.

Wikipedia

The logo of Wikipedia, a globe featuring glyphsfrom several writing

systems, most of them meaning the letter W or sound "wi"

Screenshot [show]

Web address

wikipedia.org

Slogan

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Commercial?

No

Type of site

Internet encyclopedia

Registration

Optional[notes 1]

Available in

287 editions[1]

Users

73,251 active editors (May 2014),[2] 23,467,578

total accounts.

Content license

CC Attribution / Share-Alike 3.0

Most text also dual-licensed underGFDL, media licensing

varies.

Written in

PHP[3]

Owner

Wikimedia Foundation

Created by

Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger[4]

Launched

January 15, 2001; 13 years ago

Alexa rank

Current status

6 (December 2014)[5]

Active

Wikipedia ( i/wkpidi/ or i/wkipidi/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-) is a free-access, free content Internet

encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who can
access the site[6] can edit almost any of its articles. Wikipedia is the sixth-most popular website[5] and
constitutes the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.[7][8][9]
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia on January 15, 2001. Sanger[10] coined its
name,[11] a portmanteau of wiki(from the Hawaiian word for "quick")[12] and encyclopedia. Although
Wikipedia's content was initially only in English, it quickly became multilingual, through the launch of
versions in different languages. All versions of Wikipedia are similar, but important differences exist
in content and in editing practices. The English Wikipedia is now one of more than 200 Wikipedias,
but remains the largest one, with over 4.6 million articles. As of February 2014, it had 18 billion page
views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.[13] Wikipedia has more than 22 million
accounts, out of which there were over 73,000 active editors globally as of May 2014.[2]
Studies tend to show that Wikipedia's accuracy is similar to Encyclopedia Britannica, with Wikipedia
being much larger. However, critics have worried that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, and that
its group dynamics hinder its goals. Most academics, historians,teachers and journalists reject
Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for being a mixture of truths, half truths, and some
falsehoods,[14] and that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to
manipulation and spin.[15]Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies have been repeatedly
criticised by prominent scholarly sources for underminingfreedom of thought and leading to false
beliefs based on incomplete information.[16][17][18][19]
Contents
[hide]

1 Openness
o 1.1 Restrictions
o 1.2 Review of changes
o 1.3 Vandalism
2 Policies and laws
o 2.1 Content policies and guidelines

3 Governance
o 3.1 Administrators
o 3.2 Dispute resolution
4 Community
o 4.1 Diversity
5 Language editions
6 History
7 Critical reception
o 7.1 Accuracy of content
o 7.2 Quality of writing
o 7.3 Coverage of topics and systemic bias
o 7.4 Explicit content
o 7.5 Privacy
o 7.6 Wikipedia conflicts in the media
8 Operation
o 8.1 Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters
o 8.2 Software operations and support
o 8.3 Automated editing
o 8.4 Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and quality
o 8.5 Hardware operations and support
o 8.6 Internal research and operational development
o 8.7 Internal news publications
9 Access to content
o 9.1 Content licensing
o 9.2 Methods of access
10 Impact
o 10.1 Readership
o 10.2 Cultural significance
o 10.3 Sister projects Wikimedia
o 10.4 Publishing
o 10.5 Scientific use
11 Related projects
12 See also
13 References
o 13.1 Notes
o 13.2 Further reading
14 External links

Openness

Differences between versions of an article are highlighted as shown

Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principlei.e. waiting for a
problem to arise and then fixing itregarding the security of its content;[20] it started almost entirely
openanyone could create articles, and any Wikipedia article could be edited by any reader, even
those who did not have a Wikipedia account. Modifications to all articles would immediately become
available. As a result, all articles could contain inaccuracies, ideological biases, and nonsensical or
irrelevant text until an editor would correct these issues.

Restrictions
Over time, the English Wikipedia and some other Wikipedias gradually restricted modifications. For
example, in the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may
create a new article.[21] On the English Wikipedia and some others, some particularly sensitive and/or
vandalism-prone pages are now "protected" to some degree.[22] A frequently vandalized article can
be semi-protected, meaning that only certain editors are able to modify it.[23] A particularly
contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make changes.[24]
In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some
editors. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles,[25] which have
passed certain reviews. Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia
introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012.[26] Under this system, new users' edits
to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are "subject to review from an established
Wikipedia editor before publication".[27]

The editing interface of Wikipedia

Review of changes
Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikipedia provides
certain tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. The "History" page of each article
links to each revision.[notes 2][28] On most articles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on
the article's history page. Anyone can view the latest changes to articles, and anyone may maintain
a"watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of any changes. "New pages patrol"
is a process whereby newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.[29]
In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of
participating in a wiki create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as
allowing easy access to past versions of a page favor "creative construction" over "creative
destruction".[30]

Vandalism
Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia
Any edit that changes content in a way that deliberately compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is
considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include insertion of
obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also include advertising language and other types
of spam.[31] Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a
given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false
information to an article, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting,

modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the underlying code of
an article, or use images disruptively.[32]

American journalist John Seigenthaler (19272014), subject of the Seigenthaler incident

Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from wiki articles; the median time to detect and fix
vandalism is a few minutes.[33][34]However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair.[35]
In the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced false information
into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler in May 2005. Seigenthaler was
falsely presented as a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[35] The article remained
uncorrected for four months.[35] Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and
founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikipedia
co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the
misinformation. Wales replied that he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually
traced.[36][37] After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible
research tool".[35] This incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening
up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.[38]

Policies and laws

See also: Wikipedia:Five Pillars
Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular,
the copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S.
state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are
located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia
are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and
guidelines intended to appropriately shape content. Even these
rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors work as a
community to write and revise the website's policies and
guidelines.[39] Editors can enforce these rules by deleting or
modifying non-compliant material. Originally, rules on the nonEnglish editions of Wikipedia were based on a translation of the
rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some
extent.[25]

Content policies and guidelines

Main pages: Wikipedia:Content policies and Wikipedia:Content
guidelines
According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in
Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a
dictionary entry or dictionary-like.[40] A topic should also
meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[41] which generally means

that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or

major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's
subject. Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is
already established and recognized.[42] It must not present original
research. A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference
to a reliable source. Among Wikipedia editors, this is often phrased
as "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers, not
the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the
truthfulness of the articles and making their own
interpretations.[43] This can at times lead to the removal of
information that is valid.[44] Finally, Wikipedia must not take
sides.[45] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external
sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an
article.[46] This is known as neutral point of view (NPOV).

Governance
Wikipedia's initial anarchy integrated democratic and hierarchical
elements over time.[47][48] A small number of administrators are
allowed to modify any article, and an even smaller number
of bureaucrats can name new administrators.
An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other
editor and is not vetted by any recognized authority.[49]
Avoidance of a Tragedy of the commons or Free rider problem in
the Wiki-Commons[clarification needed] is attempted via community control
mechanisms and trading status[clarification needed] and attention of
individual Wikipedia authors.[50] Dan Bricklin said Wikipedia is a
prominent example of the "cornucopia of the commons".[51]

Administrators
Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many
levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with
"administrator",[52][53] privileged users who can delete pages, prevent
articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial
disputes, and try to prevent certain persons from editing. Despite
the name, administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special
privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited
to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are
disallowed to ordinary editors, and to implement restrictions
intended to prevent certain persons from making disruptive edits
(such as vandalism).[54][55]
Fewer editors become administrators than in years past, in part
because the process of vetting potential Wikipedia administrators
has become more rigorous.[56]

Dispute resolution
Wikipedians may dispute, for example by repeatedly making
opposite changes to an article.[57][58][59] Over time, Wikipedia has
developed a number of dispute resolution processes. In order to
determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at
the Village Pump, or initiate a request for comment.

Arbitration Committee
Main article: Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute
resolution process. Although disputes usually arise from a
disagreement between two opposing views on how an article should
read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on
the specific view that should be adopted. Statistical analyses
suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and
rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted,[60] functioning not
so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting
editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing
potentially productive editors back in to participate. Therefore, the
committee does not dictate the content of articles, although it
sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new
content violates Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content
is considered biased). Its remedies include cautions
and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from
articles (43%), subject matters (23%) or Wikipedia (16%). Complete
bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of
impersonation and anti-social behavior. When conduct is not
impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus or in
violation of editing policies, remedies tend to be limited to
warnings.[61]

Community
Main article: Wikipedia community

Wikimania, an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects

operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Video is of the first Wikimania in
2005 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated "Talk"

page. These form the primary communication channel for editors to
discuss, coordinate and debate.[62]

Wikipedians and British Museumcurators collaborate on the articleHoxne

Hoard in June 2010

Wikipedia's community has been described as cult-like,[63] although

not always with entirely negative connotations.[64] The project's
preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that
includes disregard of credentials, has been referred to as "antielitism".[65]
Wikipedians sometimes award one another virtual barnstars for
good work. These personalized tokens of appreciation reveal a wide
range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include
social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation
work.[66]
Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide
identification.[67] As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?"
became one of the questions frequently asked on the
project.[68]Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community ... a
dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of
contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much
like any traditional organization".[69] In 2008, a Slate magazine article
reported that: "According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of
Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's
edits."[70] This method of evaluating contributions was later disputed
by Aaron Swartz, who noted that several articles he sampled had
large portions of their content (measured by number of characters)
contributed by users with low edit counts.[71]

Historical chart of the number of Wikipedians considered as active by the

Wikimedia Foundation

A report in August 2014 showed that Wikipedia had at least 80,000

editors.[72] A significant decline in the number of English-language
editors was reported in 2013 by Tom Simonite who stated: "The
number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked
in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever
since...(t)his past summer (2013) only 31,000 people could be
considered active editors."[73] Several attempts to explain this have
been offered. One possible explanation is that some users become
turned off by their experiences.[74] Another explanation, according to
Eric Goldman, is found in editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia
cultural rituals, such as signing talk pages, implicitly signal that they
are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders
may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a Wikipedia
insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to build
a user page, learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to
a sometimes convoluted dispute resolution process, and learn a
"baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references". Editors
who do not log in are in some sense second-class citizens on
Wikipedia,[75] as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki
community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of
the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation",[76] but
the contribution histories of IP addresses cannot be attributed to a
particular editor with certainty.
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".[77] Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "(I)t turns out over
50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users... 524
people... And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people,
have done 73.4% of all the edits."[69] However, Business
Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodget showed in 2009 that in a
random sample of articles, most content in Wikipedia (measured by
the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled
edit) is created by "outsiders", while most editing and formatting is
done by "insiders".[69]
A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open,
and conscientious than others.[78][79] According to a 2009 study, there
is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to
new content".[80]

Diversity

Wikipedia editor demographics

Main article: Gender bias on Wikipedia

One study found that the contributor base to Wikipedia "was barely
13% women; the average age of a contributor was in the mid20s".[81]A 2011 study by researchers from the University of
Minnesota found that females comprised 16.1% of the 38,497
editors who started editing Wikipedia during 2009.[82] In a January
2011 New York Times article, Noam Cohen observed that just 13%
of Wikipedia's contributors are female according to a 2009
Wikimedia Foundation survey.[83] Sue Gardner, a former executive
director of the Wikimedia Foundation, hopes to see female
contributions increase to twenty-five percent by 2015.[84] Linda
Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women,
noted the contrast in these Wikipedia editor statistics with the
percentage of women currently completing bachelor's degrees,
master's degrees and PhD programs in the United States (all at
rates of 50 percent or greater).[85]
In response, various universities have hosted edit-a-thons to
encourage more women to participate in the Wikipedia community.
In fall 2013, 15 colleges and universities, including Yale, Brown, and
Pennsylvania State, offered college credit for students to "write
feminist thinking" about technology into Wikipedia.[86]
In August 2014, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales announced in a
BBC interview the Wikimedia Foundation's plans for "doubling
down" on the issue of gender bias on Wikipedia. Wales agreed that
Sue Gardner's goal of 25% women enrollment by 2015 had not
been met. Wales said the foundation would be open to more
outreach, more software changes,[87] and more women
administrators. Software changes were left open to explore ways of
increasing the appeal of Wikipedia to attract women readers to
register as editors, and to increase the potential of existing editors
to nominate more women administrators [clarify] to enhance the
'management' presence of women at Wikipedia.[88]

Language editions
See also: List of Wikipedias
There are currently 287 language editions of Wikipedia (also
called language versions, or simply Wikipedias). Eleven of these

have over one million articles each

(English, Dutch,German, French, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Russian,
Swedish, Vietnamese, and Waray-Waray), four more have over
700,000 articles (Cebuano, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese), 37
more have over 100,000 articles, and 73 more have over
10,000 articles.[89][90] The largest, the English Wikipedia, has over 4.6
million articles. As of June 2013, according to Alexa, the
English subdomain (en.wikipedia.org; English Wikipedia) receives
approximately 56% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the
remaining split among the other languages (Spanish: 9%;
Japanese: 8%; Russian: 6%; German: 5%; French: 4%; Italian:
3%).[91] As of December 2014, the six largest language editions are
(in order of article count)
the English, Swedish, Dutch, German, French, and WarayWaray Wikipedias.[92]

Distribution of the 34,039,652 articles in different language editions

(as of 18 December 2014)[93]
English (13.7%)
Swedish (5.7%)
Dutch (5.3%)
German (5.3%)
French (4.6%)
Waray-Waray (3.7%)
Cebuano (3.6%)
Russian (3.4%)
Italian (3.4%)
Spanish (3.4%)
Other (47.9%)

Logarithmic graph of the 20 largest language editions of Wikipedia

(as of 18 December 2014)[94]

0.1

(millions of articles)
0.3
1

English 4,672,310
Swedish 1,950,635
Dutch 1,803,163
German 1,787,402
French 1,571,535
Waray-Waray 1,258,850
Cebuano 1,208,473
Russian 1,171,514
Italian 1,163,342
Spanish 1,144,934
Vietnamese 1,110,905
Polish 1,081,305
Japanese 938,192
Portuguese 856,383
Chinese 800,726
Ukrainian 542,890
Catalan 444,551
Persian 437,210
Norwegian 402,492
Finnish 361,883
The unit for the numbers in bars is articles. Since Wikipedia is
based on the Web and therefore worldwide, contributors to the
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. colour versuscolor)[95] or points of view.[96]
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.[97][98][99]
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".[100] 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).[101] For
instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language
editions of Wikipedia,[102] and it maintains a list of articles every
Wikipedia should have.[103] The list concerns basic content by
subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science,
technology, 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, even
when they meet notability criteria of other language Wikipedia
projects.

Estimation of contributions shares from different regions in the world to different

Wikipedia editions

Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most

editions, in part because fully automated translation of articles is
disallowed.[104] Articles available in more than one language may
offer "interwiki links", which link to the counterpart articles in other
editions.
A study published by PLOS ONE in 2012 also estimated the share
of contributions to different editions of Wikipedia from different
regions of the world. It reported that almost 51% of edits from North
America are limited to the English Wikipedia and this value
decreases to 25% insimple English Wikipedia.[105][106][not in citation given] The
Wikimedia Foundation hopes to increase the number of editors in
the Global South to thirty-seven percent by 2015.[107]
On 1 March 2014, The Economist in an article titled "The Future of
Wikipedia" cited a trend analysis concerning data published by
Wikimedia stating that: "The number of editors for the Englishlanguage version has fallen by a third in seven years."[108] The
attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was cited by The
Economist as substantially in contrast to statistics for Wikipedia in
other languages (non-English Wikipedia). The Economist reported
that the number of contributors with an average of five of more edits
per month was relatively constant since 2008 for Wikipedia in other
languages at approximately 42,000 editors within narrow seasonal
variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. The attrition rates for
editors in English Wikipedia, by sharp comparison, were cited as
peaking in 2007 at approximately 50,000 editors which has dropped

to 30,000 editors as of the start of 2014. At the quoted trend rate,

the number of active editors in English Wikipedia has lost
approximately 20,000 editors to attrition since 2007, and the
documented trend rate indicates the loss of another 20,000 editors
by 2021, down to 10,000 active editors on English Wikipedia by
2021 if left unabated.[108] Given that the trend analysis published
in The Economist presents the number of active editors for
Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) as remaining
relatively constant and successful in sustaining its numbers at
approximately 42,000 active editors, the contrast has pointed to the
effectiveness of Wikipedia in other languages to retain its active
editors on a renewable and sustained basis.[108] No comment was
made concerning which of the differentiated edit policy standards
from Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) would
provide a possible alternative to English Wikipedia for effectively
ameliorating substantial editor attrition rates on the English
language Wikipedia.[109]

History
Main article: History of Wikipedia

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger

Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project, Nupedia

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,
aweb portal company. Its main figures were the Bomis CEO Jimmy

Wales 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.[110] Sanger and Wales founded
Wikipedia.[111][112] While Wales is credited with defining the goal of
making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[113][114] Sanger is credited
with the strategy of using a wikito reach that goal.[115] On January 10,
2001, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki
as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[116]

External audio
The Great Book of Knowledge, Part
1, Ideas with Paul Kennedy,CBC,
January 15, 2014.

Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single

English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[117] and announced
by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[113] Wikipedia's policy of
"neutral point-of-view"[118] was codified in its first months. Otherwise,
there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated
independently of Nupedia.[113] Originally, Bomis intended to make
Wikipedia a business for profit.[119]
Wikipedia gained early contributors from
Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. On
August 8, 2001, Wikipedia had over 8,000 articles.[120] On
September 25, 2001, Wikipedia had over 13,000 articles.[121] And by
the end of 2001 it had grown to approximately 20,000 articles and
18 language editions. It had reached 26 language editions by late
2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the final days of
2004.[122] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers
were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was
incorporated into Wikipedia. English Wikipedia passed the mark of
two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest
encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing even the 1408 Yongle
Encyclopedia, which had held the record for 600 years.[123]
Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in
Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to
create theEnciclopedia Libre in February 2002.[124] These moves
encouraged Wales to announce that Wikipedia would not display
advertisements, and to change Wikipedia's domain
fromwikipedia.com to wikipedia.org.[125]
Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in
August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of
articles and of contributors, appears to have peaked around early
2007.[126] Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia
in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800.[127] A team at

the Palo Alto Research Center attributed this slowing of growth to

the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to
change.[128] Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally
because articles that could be called "low-hanging fruit" topics that
clearly merit an article have already been created and built up
extensively.[129][130][131]
In November 2009, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos
University in Madrid (Spain) found that the English Wikipedia had
lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in
comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same
period in 2008.[132][133] The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules
applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the
reasons for this trend.[134] Wales disputed these claims in 2009,
denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the
study.[135] Two years later, Wales acknowledged the presence of a
slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000
writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011.[136] In the same
interview, Wales also claimed the number of editors was "stable and
sustainable," a claim which was questioned by MIT's Technology
Review in a 2013 article titled "The Decline of Wikipedia."[73] In July
2012, the Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also
in decline.[137] In the 25 November 2013 issue of New
York magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the sixth-mostused website, is facing an internal crisis. In 2013, MIT's Technology
Review revealed that since 2007, the site has lost a third of the
volunteer editors who update and correct the online encyclopedia's
millions of pages and those still there have focused increasingly on
minutiae."[138]

Wikipedia blackout protest againstSOPA on January 18, 2012

In January 2007, Wikipedia entered for the first time the top-ten list
of the most popular websites in the United States, according
tocomScore Networks. With 42.9 million unique visitors, Wikipedia
was ranked number 9, surpassing the New York Times (#10)
and Apple(#11). This marked a significant increase over January
2006, when the rank was number 33, with Wikipedia receiving
around 18.3 million unique visitors.[139] In February 2014, Wikipedia
was the sixth-most popular website worldwide according to Alexa
Internet,[91] receiving 12 billion pageviews every month[140] (2.7 billion
from the United States[141]). On 9 February 2014, The New York
Times reported that Wikipedia has 18 billion page views and nearly
500 million unique visitors a month, "according to the ratings firm
comScore."[13]
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series
of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the United

States Congressthe Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and

the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)by blacking out its pages for 24
hours.[142] More than 162 million people viewed the blackout
explanation page that temporarily replaced Wikipedia content.[143][144]
Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a
long tradition of historical encyclopedias that accumulated
improvements piecemeal through "stigmergicaccumulation".[145][146]
On 20 January 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for The Economic
Times indicated that not only had Wikipedia growth flattened but
that it has "lost nearly 10 per cent of its page-views last year. That's
a decline of about 2 billion between December 2012 and December
2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of
the English Wikipedia declined by 12 per cent, those of German
version slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per
cent."[147] Varma added that, "While Wikipedia's managers think that
this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that
Google's Knowledge Graphs project launched last year may be
gobbling up Wikipedia users."[147] When contacted on this matter,
Clay Shirky, associate professor at New York University and fellow
at Harvard's Berkman Center for internet and Security indicated that
he suspected much of the page view decline was due to Knowledge
Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the
search page, you don't need to click [any further]."[147]

Number of articles in the English Wikipedia (in blue)

Growth of the number of articles in the English Wikipedia (in

blue)

Number of days between every 10,000,000th edit from 2005 to

2012

Critical reception
See also: Academic studies about Wikipedia and Criticism of
Wikipedia
As Wikipedia has become a main source for a wide range of
general knowledge, criticism sites have developed that were
instrumental in exposing the dark side of Wikipedia such as paid
advocacy.[148] As of 2014, the most prominent site is Wikipediocracy,
which, according to Wikipedia, "has provided some journalists with
background information onWikipedia's controversies."[149] Several
Wikipedians have criticized Wikipedia's large and growing
regulation, which includes over 50 policies and nearly 150,000
words as of 2014.[150][151]

Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, and that
its group dynamics hinder its goals.
Most academics, historians, teachers and journalists reject
Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for being a mixture of
truth, half truth, and some falsehoods.[14] Articles in the Times Higher
Education magazine, The Chronicle of Higher Educationand The
Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized
Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies, concluding that
the first undermines the Freedom of thought and the second; the
fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct
information about a subject, but rather only present the majority
"weight" of viewpoints creates omissions which can lead to false
beliefs based on incomplete information.[16][17][18][19] Novelist and
critic A. S. Byatt has described this consensus populism as leading
to thetyranny of the majority.[152] A New York Times article concluded
that the casual reader is not aware of these policies which restrict
freedom of expression.[153]
Prominent unorthodox scientists Brian Josephson, Jack
Sarfatti and Rupert Sheldrake share the critical view that,
"Wikipedia seemed to be in the hands of a group of sceptical minds,
intent on making sure there were no mysteries and no
conspiracies."[154][155][156][157] Members of the alternative
medicine community have accused Wikipedia of systematically and
dogmatically being biased and misleading against alternative
medicine.[158][159][160][161] Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin
Black noted how articles are dominated by the loudest and most
persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the
topic.[14][162] An article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a
resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject
to manipulation and spin.[15]
Scholar and author Mark Bauerlein perceives Wikipedia as a threat
for being a "monolith enclosing the knowledge worlds of
students".[163] The Academic Integrity at MIThandbook for students
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology states: 'Wikipedia is Not a
Reliable Academic Source: The bibliography published at the end of
the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do
not assume that these sources are reliable use the same criteria
to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the
Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research."[164]

Accuracy of content
Main article: Reliability of Wikipedia
Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopdia
Britannica are carefully and deliberately written by experts, lending
such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy. Conversely,
Wikipedia is often cited for factual inaccuracies and
misrepresentations. However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two
scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopdia Britannica by
the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and
concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained
around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."[165] Reagle
suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of

Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have

fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities
subjects."[166] The findings by Nature were disputed
by Encyclopdia Britannica,[167][168] and in response,Nature gave a
rebuttal of the points raised by Britannica.[169] In addition to the pointfor-point disagreement between these two parties, others have
examined the sample size and selection method used in
the Nature effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in Nature'
s manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison),
absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported confidence
intervals), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small
sample size, 42 or 4 x 101 articles compared, vs >105 and >106 set
sizes for Britannica and the English Wikipedia, respectively).[170]
As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no
guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately
responsible for any claims appearing in it.[171]Concerns have been
raised by PC World in 2009 regarding the lack of accountability that
results from users' anonymity,[172] the insertion of false
information,[173] vandalism, and similar problems.
Economist Tyler Cowen wrote: "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 some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from
systemic biases and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported
in journal articles and relevant information is omitted from news
reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found
on Internet sites, and that academics and experts must be vigilant in
correcting them.[174]
Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper
sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.[175] Some
commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the
reliability of any given article is not clear.[176] Editors of
traditional reference works such as the Encyclopdia
Britannica have questioned the project's utilityand status as an
encyclopedia.[177]

External video
Inside Wikipedia - Attack of the PR
Industry, Deutsche Welle, 7:13 mins[178]

Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for

Internet trolls, spammers, and various forms of paid advocacy seen
as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable
online encyclopedia.[28][179] In response to paid advocacy and
undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article by
Jeff Elder in The Wall Street Journal on 16 June 2014 to have
strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.[180] The
article stated that: "Beginning Monday (from date of article),

changes in Wikipedia's terms of use will require anyone paid to edit

articles to disclose that arrangement. Katherine Maher, the nonprofit
Wikimedia Foundation's chief communications officer, said the
changes address a sentiment among volunteer editors that, 'we're
not an advertising service; we're an
encyclopedia.'"[180][181][182][183][184] These issues, among others, had been
parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by Stephen
Colbert on The Colbert Report.[185]
On 5 March 2014, Julie Beck writing for The Atlantic magazine in an
article titled "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information:
Wikipedia", stated that "Fifty percent of physicians look up
conditions on the (Wikipedia) site, and some are editing articles
themselves to improve the quality of available information."[186] Beck
continued to detail in this article new programs of Dr. Amin Azzam
at the University of San Francisco to offer medical school courses to
medical students for learning to edit and improve Wikipedia articles
on health-related issues, as well as internal quality control programs
within Wikipedia organized by Dr. James Heilman to improve a
group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance
up to Wikipedia's highest standard of peer review evaluated articles
using its Featured Article and Good Article peer review evaluation
standards.[186] In a 7 May 2014 follow-up article in The Atlantic titled
"Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text", Julie Beck
quotes Wikiproject's Dr. James Heilman as stating: "Just because a
reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality
reference."[187] Beck added that: "Wikipedia has its own peer review
process before articles can be classified as 'good' or 'featured.'
Heilman, who has participated in that process before, says 'less
than 1 percent' of Wikipedia's medical articles have passed.[187]
Most university lecturers discourage students from citing any
encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary
sources;[188] some specifically prohibit Wikipedia
citations.[189][190]Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are
not usually appropriate to use as citeable sources, and should not
be relied upon as authoritative.[191] Wales once (2006 or earlier) said
he receives about ten emails weekly from students saying they got
failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia; he told the
students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in
college; don't cite the encyclopedia", he said.[192]
In February 2007, an article in The Harvard Crimson newspaper
reported that a few of the professors at Harvard University include
Wikipedia in their syllabi, but that there is a split in their perception
of using Wikipedia.[193] In June 2007, former president of
the American Library Association Michael Gorman condemned
Wikipedia, along with Google,[194]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".
A Harvard law textbook, Legal Research in a Nutshell (2011), cites
Wikipedia as a "general source" that "can be a real boon" in
"coming up to speed in the law governing a situation" and, "while

not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more

in-depth resources".[195]

Quality of writing
Because contributors usually rewrite small portions of an entry
rather than making full-length revisions, high- and low-quality
content may be intermingled within an entry. Roy Rosenzweig, a
history professor, stated that American National Biography
Online outperformed Wikipedia in terms of its "clear and engaging
prose", which, he said, was an important aspect of good historical
writing.[196] Most Wikipedia articles are related to
history.[197] Contrasting Wikipedia's treatment of Abraham Lincoln to
that of Civil Warhistorian James McPherson in American National
Biography Online, he said that both were essentially accurate and
covered the major episodes in Lincoln's life, but praised
"McPherson's richer contextualization [] his artful use of
quotations to capture Lincoln's voice [] and [] his ability to
convey a profound message in a handful of words." By contrast, he
gives an example of Wikipedia's prose that he finds "both verbose
and dull". Rosenzweig also criticized the "wafflingencouraged by
the npov policy[which] means that it is hard to discern any overall
interpretive stance in Wikipedia history". By example, he quoted the
conclusion of Wikipedia's article on William Clarke Quantrill. While
generally praising the article, he pointed out its "waffling"
conclusion: "Some historians [] remember him as an
opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while others continue to view him
as a daring soldier and local folk hero."[196]
Other critics have made similar charges that, even if Wikipedia
articles are factually accurate, they are often written in a poor,
almost unreadable style. Frequent Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski
commented: "Even when a Wikipedia entry is 100 per cent factually
correct, and those facts have been carefully chosen, it all too often
reads as if it has been translated from one language to another then
into to a third, passing an illiterate translator at each stage."[198] A
study of articles on cancer was undertaken in 2010 by Yaacov
Lawrence of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson
University limited to those Wikipedia articles which could be found
in the Physician Data Query and excluding Wikipedia articles written
at the "start" class or the "stub" class level. Lawrence found the
articles accurate but not very readable, and thought that
"Wikipedia's lack of readability (to non-college readers) may reflect
its varied origins and haphazard editing".[199] The Economist argued
that better-written articles tend to be more reliable: "inelegant or
ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete
information".[200]

Coverage of topics and systemic bias

See also: Notability in English Wikipedia
Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the
form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered
encyclopedically in one article. Since it has terabytesof disk space,
it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed

encyclopedia.[201] The exact degree and manner of coverage on

Wikipedia is under constant review by its editors, and
disagreements are not uncommon (see deletionism and
inclusionism).[202][203] Wikipedia contains materials that some people
may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic
because Wikipedia is not censored. The policy has sometimes
proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition
against the inclusion of images of Muhammad in the English
edition of its Muhammad article, citing this policy. The presence of
politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in
Wikipedia has led to the censorship of Wikipedia by national
authorities in China,[204] Pakistan,[205] and the United
Kingdom,[206] among other countries.

Pie chart of Wikipedia content by subject as of January 2008[207]

A 2008 study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon

University and Palo Alto Research Center gave a distribution of
topics as well as growth (from July 2006 to January 2008) in each
field:[207]

Culture and the arts: 30% (210%)

Biographies and persons: 15% (97%)
Geography and places: 14% (52%)
Society and social sciences: 12% (83%)
History and events: 11% (143%)
Natural and physical sciences: 9% (213%)
Technology and the applied sciences: 4% (6%)
Religions and belief systems: 2% (38%)
Health: 2% (42%)
Mathematics and logic: 1% (146%)
Thought and philosophy: 1% (160%)

These numbers refer only to the quantity of articles: it is possible for

one topic to contain a large number of short articles and another to
contain a small number of large ones. Through its "Wikipedia Loves
Libraries" program, Wikipedia has partnered with major public
libraries such as the New York Public Library for the Performing
Arts to expand its coverage of underrepresented subjects and
articles.[208]
A 2011 study conducted by researchers at the University of
Minnesota indicated that male and female editors focus on different
coverage topics. There was a greater concentration of females in
the People and Arts category, while males focus more on
Geography and Science.[209]
Coverage of topics and selection bias
Research conducted by the Oxford Internet Institute has shown that
the geographic distribution of article topics is highly
uneven. Africa is most underrepresented.[210]
A "selection bias" may arise when more words per article are
devoted to one public figure than a rival public figure. Editors may
dispute suspected biases and discuss controversial articles,
sometimes at great length.
Systemic bias
When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, there
may arise a systemic bias, such as non-opposite definitions for
apparent antonyms. In 2011, Wales noted that the unevenness of
coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, which
predominantly consists of young males with high education levels in
the developed world (cfpreviously).[136] The 22 October 2013 essay
by Tom Simonite in MIT's Technology Review titled "The Decline of
Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and policy creepon
recent downward trends in the number of editors available to
support Wikipedia's range and coverage of topics.[73]
Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally, for
example favouring certain ethnicities or majority religions.[211] It may
more specifically follow the biases ofInternet culture, inclining to
being young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically
aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases of its
own may include over-emphasis on topics such as pop culture,
technology, and current events.[211]
Taha Yasseri of the University of Oxford, in 2013, studied the
statistical trends of systemic bias at Wikipedia introduced by editing
conflicts and their resolution.[212][213] His research examined
the counterproductive work behavior of edit warring. Yasseri
contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the
most significant measure of counterproductive behavior at
Wikipedia and relied instead on the statistical measurement of
detecting "reverting/reverted pairs" or "mutually reverting edit pairs."
Such a "mutually reverting edit pair" is defined where one editor
reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to
revert the first editor in the "mutually reverting edit pairs." The

results were tabulated for all language versions of Wikipedia, with

the English Wikipedia three largest conflict rates applying to articles
about (i) G.W. Bush, (ii)Anarchism and (iii) Mohammad.[213] By
comparison, for German Wikipedia the three largest conflict rates at
the time of the Oxford study were for the articles covering
(i) Croatia, (ii) Scientology and (iii) 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.[213]

Explicit content
Main category: Wikipedia objectionable content
See also: Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia and Reporting
of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons

Problem? What problem? So, you didn't know that

Wikipedia has a porn problem?

Larry Sanger, [214]

Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information of graphic

content. Articles depicting arguably objectionable content (such
as Feces, Cadaver, Human penis, and Vulva) contain graphic
pictures and detailed information easily available to anyone with
access to the internet, including children.
The site also includes sexual content such as images and videos
of masturbation and ejaculation, photographs of nude
children, illustrations of zoophilia, and photos from hardcore
pornographic films in its articles.
The Wikipedia article about Virgin Killer a 1976 album
from German heavy metal band Scorpions features a picture of
the album's original cover, which depicts a nakedprepubescent girl.
The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in
some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia
article Virgin Killer was blocked for four days by most Internet
service providers in the United Kingdom after it was reported by a
member of the public as child pornography,[215] to the Internet Watch
Foundation (IWF), which issues a stop list to Internet service
providers. IWF, a non-profit, non-government-affiliated organization,
later criticized the inclusion of the picture as "distasteful".[216]
In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images
on Wikimedia Commons contained child pornography, and were in
violation of US federal obscenity law.[217] Sanger later clarified that
the images, which were related to pedophilia and one about lolicon,
were not of real children, but said that they constituted "obscene
visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", under
the PROTECT Act of 2003.[218] That law bans photographic child
pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that
are obscene under American law.[218] Sanger also expressed
concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in
schools.[219] Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh strongly

rejected Sanger's accusation,[220] saying that Wikipedia did not have

"material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove
it."[220] Following the complaint by Sanger, Wales deleted sexual
images without consulting the community. After some editors who
volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete had
been made hastily, Wales voluntarily gave up some of the powers
he had held up to that time as part of his co-founder status. He
wrote in a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing-list that
this action was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be
about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me
and how quickly I acted".[221] Critics, including Wikipediocracy,
noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from
Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.[222]

Privacy
One privacy concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private
citizen to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure" in
the eyes of the law.[223][notes 3] It is a battle between the right to be
anonymous in cyberspace and the right to be anonymous in real
life ("meatspace"). A particular problem occurs in the case of an
individual who is relatively unimportant and for whom there exists a
Wikipedia page against her or his wishes.
In January 2006, a German court ordered the German
Wikipedia shut down within Germany because it stated the full
name of Boris Floricic, aka "Tron", a deceased hacker. On February
9, 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was
overturned, with the court rejecting the notion that Tron's right to
privacy or that of his parents was being violated.[224]
Wikipedia has a "Volunteer Response Team" that uses
the OTRS system to handle queries without having to reveal the
identities of the involved parties. This is used, for example, in
confirming the permission for using individual images and other
media in the project.[225]

Wikipedia conflicts in the media

Wedding dress of Kate Middleton

The observation decks and spire of the Donauturm

Attempts to delete an entry about the Wedding dress of Kate

Middleton led to a controversy on the English Wikipedia.[226] Jimmy
Wales used the example to illustrate his notion about a 'gender gap'
in Wikipedia on theWikimania 2012,[227] the issue received some
press coverage.[228][229]
One of the largest disputes in the German Wikipedia about a simple
sentence was about the Donauturm in Vienna.[230] While the
observation tower shares some architectural aspects with
the Fernsehturm Stuttgart, it was never planned for TV broadcasting
purposes. The German Wikipedia went through a rather lengthy
(about 600,000 characters) discussion about the suitable title and
category. Some (often Austrian) authors denied the description of
Donauturm as a "TV tower", which was stubbornly defended by
others.[230] The Spiegel coverage of the issue cited a participant with
"On good days, Wikipedia is better than any TV soap".[230]
Although poorly written articles are flagged for
improvement,[231] critics note that the style and quality of individual
articles may vary greatly.
In 2006, the Wikipedia Watch criticism website listed dozens of
examples of plagiarism by Wikipedia editors on the English
version.[232]

Operation
A group of Wikipedia editors may form a WikiProject to focus their
work on a specific topic area, using its associated discussion page
to coordinate changes across multiple articles.[233]

Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters

Main article: Wikimedia Foundation

Wikimedia Foundationlogo

Wikipedia is hosted and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, a

non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related
projects such asWiktionary and Wikibooks. The foundation relies on
public contributions and grants to fund its mission.[234] Wikimedia
chapters, local associations of users and supporters of the
Wikimedia projects also participate in the promotion, development,
and funding of the project. The foundation's recent 2013 IRS Form
990 shows revenue of $39.7 million and expenses of almost $29
million, with assets of $37.2 million and liabilities of about $2.3
million.[235]
In May 2014, Wikimedia Foundation named Lila Tretikov as its new
executive director, taking over for Sue Gardner.[236] The Wall Street
Journalreported on 1 May 2014 that Tretikov's information
technology background from her years at University of California
offers Wikipedia an opportunity to develop in more concentrated
directions guided by her often repeated position statement that,
"Information, like air, wants to be free."[237][238] The same Wall Street
Journal article reported these directions of development according
to an interview with spokesman Jay Walsh of Wikimedia who "said
Tretikov would address that issue (paid advocacy) as a priority. 'We
are really pushing toward more transparency... We are reinforcing
that paid advocacy is not welcome.' Initiatives to involve greater
diversity of contributors, better mobile support of Wikipedia, new
geo-location tools to find local content more easily, and more tools
for users in the second and third world are also priorities, Walsh
said."[237]

Software operations and support

See also: MediaWiki
The operation of Wikipedia depends on MediaWiki, a custommade, free and open source wiki software platform written
in PHP and built upon the MySQL database system.[239]The software
incorporates programming features such as a macro
language, variables, a transclusion system for templates, and URL
redirection. MediaWiki is licensed under theGNU General Public
License and it is 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.
Several MediaWiki extensions are installed[240] to extend the
functionality of the MediaWiki software.

In April 2005, a Lucene extension[241][242] was added to MediaWiki's

built-in search and Wikipedia switched from MySQL to Lucene for
searching. The site currently uses Lucene Search 2.1,[243] which is
written in Java and based on Lucene library 2.3.[244]
In July 2013, after extensive beta testing, a WYSIWYG (What You
See Is What You Get) extension, VisualEditor, was opened to public
use.[245][246][247][248] It was met with much rejection and criticism, and
was described as "slow and buggy".[249] The feature was turned off
afterward.

Automated editing
Computer programs called bots have been used widely to perform
simple and repetitive tasks, such as correcting common
misspellings and stylistic issues, or to start articles such as
geography entries in a standard format from statistical
data.[250][251][252] One controversial contributor massively creating
articles with his bot was reported to create up to ten thousand
articles on the Swedish Wikipedia on certain days.[253] There are also
some bots designed to automatically warn editors making common
editing errors (such as unmatched quotes or unmatched
parenthesis).[254] Edits misidentified by a bot as the work of a banned
editor can be restored by other editors. An anti-vandal bot tries to
detect and revert vandalism quickly and automatically.[251] Bots can
also report edits from particular accounts or IP address ranges, as
was done at the time of the MH17 jet downing incident in July
2014.[255] Bots on Wikipedia must be approved prior to activation.[256]
According to Andrew Lih, the current expansion of Wikipedia to
millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the use of
such bots.[257]

Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and

quality
In 2007, in preparation for producing a print version, the English
Wikipedia introduced an assessment scale of the quality of
articles.[258] The range of quality classes begins with "Stub" (very
short pages), followed by "Start", "C" and "B" (in increasing order of
quality). Community peer review is needed for the article to enter
one of the highest quality classes: either "A", "good article" or the
highest, "featured article". Of the total of about 4.4 million articles
assessed as of 11 December 2013, approximately five thousand
are featured articles (0.1%). One featured article per day, as
selected by editors, appears on the main page of Wikipedia.[259][260]
Researcher Giacomo Poderi found that articles tend to reach
featured status via the intensive work of a few editors.[261] A 2010
study found unevenness in quality among featured articles and
concluded that the community process is ineffective in assessing
the quality of articles.[262]
The articles can also be rated as per "importance" as judged by a
Wikiproject. Currently, there are 5 importance categories: "low",
"mid", "high", "top", and "???" for unclassified/unsure level. For a

particular article, different Wikiprojects may assign different

importance levels.
The Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team has developed a table
(shown below) that displays data of all rated articles by quality and
importance, on the English Wikipedia. If an article receives different
ratings by two or more Wikiprojects, then the highest rating is used
in the table. The software regularly auto-updates the data.

Quality-wise distribution of over 4.6 million articles and lists on the

English Wikipedia, as of 6 September 2014[263]
Featured articles (0.11%)
Featured lists (0.04%)
A class (0.03%)
Good articles (0.49%)
B class (2.16%)
C class (3.90%)
Start class (25.50%)
Stub class (54.12%)
Lists (3.46%)
Unassessed (10.29%)

Importance-wise distribution of over 4.6 million articles and lists on

the English Wikipedia, as of 6 September 2014[263]
Top importance (0.93%)
High importance (3.25%)
Mid importance (12.47%)
Low importance (48.39%)
??? (34.95%)

All rated articles by quality and importance

Importance

Quality

Top

High

Mid

Low

???

Total

FA

1,047

1,632

1,522

880

172

5,253

FL

135

519

611

557

121

1,943

189

349

527

283

72

1,420

1,727

4,022

7,852

7,642

1,466

22,709

10,770 20,642 31,207

23,281

12,718

98,618

GA

8,407 24,178 53,741

66,464

Start

15,397 66,445 269,625

622,807

250,262 1,224,536

Stub

3,877 27,280 199,609 1,530,565

831,631 2,592,962

List

2,462

9,289 26,523

71,081

35,990

56,113

188,780

165,468

Assessed 44,011 154,356 591,217 2,323,560 1,188,545 4,301,689

Unassessed

Total

123

333

1,620

19,751

464,052

485,879

44,134 154,689 592,837 2,343,311 1,652,597 4,787,568

About this table
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
Top importance
High importance
Mid-importance
Low importance
???

Featured articles
Featured lists
A-class articles
Good articles
B-class articles
C-class articles
Start-class articles
Stub articles
Lists
Unassessed articles and lists

[Note: The table above (prepared by the Wikipedia Version 1.0

Editorial Team) is automatically updated, but the bar-chart and the
two pie-charts are not auto-updated. In them, new data has to be
entered by a Wikipedia editor (i.e. user).]

Hardware operations and support

See also: Wikimedia Foundation Hardware
Wikipedia receives between 25,000 and 60,000 page requests per
second, depending on time of day.[264] Page requests are first
passed to a front-end layer of Squid caching servers.[265] Further
statistics, based on a publicly available 3-month Wikipedia access
trace, are available.[266] 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 them 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 are cached in a distributed memory cache
until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for
most common page accesses.
Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of Linux servers
(mainly Ubuntu).[267][268] As of December 2009, there were 300 in
Florida and 44 in Amsterdam.[269] By January 22, 2013, Wikipedia
had migrated its primary data center to an Equinix facility
in Ashburn, Virginia.[270][271]

Overview of system architecture, December 2010. See server layout diagrams

on Meta-Wiki

Internal research and operational development

In accordance with growing amounts of incoming donations

exceeding seven digits in 2013 as recently reported,[272] the
Foundation has reached a threshold of assets which qualify its
consideration under the principles of industrial
organization economics to indicate the need for the re-investment of
donations into the internal research and development of the
Foundation.[273] Two of the recent projects of such internal research
and development have been the creation of a Visual Editor and a
largely under-utilized "Thank" tab which were developed for the
purpose of ameliorating issues of editor attrition, which have met
with limited success.[249][274] The estimates for reinvestment by
industrial organizations into internal research and development was
studied by Adam Jaffe who recorded that the range of 4% to 25%
annually was to be recommended, with high end technology
requiring the higher level of support for internal reinvestment.[275] At
the 2013 level of contributions for Wikimedia presently documented
as 45 million dollars, the computed budget level recommended by
Jaffe and Caballero for reinvestment into internal research and
development is between 1.8 million and 11.3 million dollars
annually.[275]
According to the Michael Porter five forces analysis framework for
industry analysis, Wikipedia and its parent institution Wikimedia are
known as "first movers" and "radical innovators" in the services
provided and supported by an open-source, on-line
encyclopedia.[276] The "five forces" are centered around the issue of
"competitive rivalry" within the encyclopedia industry where
Wikipedia is seen as having redefined by its "radical innovation" the
parameters of effectiveness applied to conventional encyclopedia
publication. This is the first force of Porter's five forces
analysis.[277] The second force is the "threat of new entrants" with
competitive services and products possibly arising on the internet or
the web. As a "first mover", Wikipedia has largely eluded the
emergence of a fast second to challenge its radical innovation and
its standing as the central provider of the services which it offers
through the World Wide Web.[278] Porter's third force is the "threat of
substitute products" and it is too early to identify Google's
"Knowledge Graphs" as an effective competitor given the current
dependence of "Knowledge Graphs" upon Wikipedia's free access
to its open-source services.[276] The fourth force in the Porter five
forces analysisis the "bargaining power of consumers" who use the
services provided by Wikipedia, which has historically largely been
nullified by the Wikipedia founding principle of an open invitation to
expand and edit its content expressed in its moniker of being "the
encyclopedia which anyone can edit."[277] The fifth force in the Porter
five forces analysis is defined as the "bargaining power of
suppliers", presently seen as the open domain of both the global
internet as a whole and the resources of public libraries world-wide,
and therefore it is not seen as a limiting factor in the immediate
future of the further development of Wikipedia.[276]

Internal news publications

Community-produced news publications include the English

Wikipedia's The Signpost, founded in 2005 by Michael Snow, an
attorney, Wikipedia administrator and former chair of the Wikimedia
Foundation board of trustees.[279] It covers news and events from the
site, as well as major events from other Wikimedia projects, such
as Wikimedia Commons. Similar publications are the Germanlanguage Kurier, and the Portuguese-language Correro da
Wikipdia. Other past and present community news publications on
English Wikipedia include the "Wikiworld" web comic, the Wikipedia
Weekly podcast, and newsletters of specific WikiProjects like The
Bugle from WikiProject Military History and the monthly newsletter
from The Guild of Copy Editors. There are also a number of
publications from the Wikimedia Foundation and multilingual
publications such as the Wikimedia Blog and This Month in
Education.

Access to content
Content licensing
When the project was started in 2001, all text in Wikipedia was
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.[280] GFDL was created for software manuals that come
with free software programs licensed under GPL. This made it a
poor choice for a general reference work; for example, the GFDL
requires the reprints of materials from Wikipedia to come with a full
copy of the GFDL license text. In December 2002, the Creative
Commons license was released: it was specifically designed for
creative works in general, not just for software manuals. The license
gained popularity among bloggers and others distributing creative
works on the Web. The Wikipedia project sought the switch to the
Creative Commons.[281] Because the two licenses, GFDL and
Creative Commons, were incompatible, in November 2008,
following the request of the project, the Free Software
Foundation (FSF) released a new version of GFDL designed
specifically to allow Wikipedia to relicense its content to CC BYSA by August 1, 2009. (A new version of GFDL automatically
covers Wikipedia contents.) In April 2009, Wikipedia and its sister
projects held a community-wide referendum which decided the
switch in June 2009.[282][283][284][285]
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 usedoctrine, while
the others have opted not to, in part because of the lack of fair use
doctrines in their home countries (e.g. 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. Wikipedia's accommodation of varying
international copyright laws regarding images has led some to

observe that its photographic coverage of topics lags behind the

quality of the encyclopedic text.[286]
The Wikimedia Foundation is not a licensor of content, but merely a
hosting service for the contributors (and licensors) of the Wikipedia.
This position has been successfully defended in court.[287][288]

Methods of access
Because Wikipedia content is distributed under an open license,
anyone can reuse or re-distribute it at no charge. The content of
Wikipedia has been published in many forms, both online and
offline, outside of the Wikipedia website.

Websites Thousands of "mirror sites" exist that republish

content from Wikipedia: two prominent ones, that also include
content from other reference sources,
areReference.com and Answers.com. Another example
is Wapedia, which began to display Wikipedia content in a
mobile-device-friendly format before Wikipedia itself did.
Mobile apps A variety of mobile apps provide access to
Wikipedia on hand-held devices, including
both Android and iOS devices (see Wikipedia apps). (See
also Mobile access.)
Search engines Some web search engines make special use
of Wikipedia content when displaying search results: examples
include Bing (via technology gained fromPowerset)[289] and Duck
Duck Go.
Compact discs, DVDs Collections of Wikipedia articles have
been published on optical discs. An English version, 2006
Wikipedia CD Selection, contained about 2,000
articles.[290][291] The Polish-language version contains nearly
240,000 articles.[292] There are German- and Spanish-language
versions as well.[293][294] Also, "Wikipedia for Schools", the
Wikipedia series of CDs / DVDs produced by Wikipedians
and SOS Children, is a free, hand-checked, non-commercial
selection from Wikipedia targeted around the UK National
Curriculum and intended to be useful for much of the Englishspeaking world.[295] The project is available online; an equivalent
print encyclopedia would require roughly 20 volumes.
Books There are efforts to put a select subset of Wikipedia's
articles into printed book form.[296][297] Since 2009, tens of
thousands of print on demand books which reproduced English,
German, Russian and French Wikipedia articles have been
produced by the American company Books LLC and by
three Mauritian subsidiaries of the German publisher VDM.[298]
Semantic Web The website DBpedia, begun in 2007,
extracts data from the infoboxes and category declarations of
the English-language Wikipedia. Wikimedia has created
the Wikidata project with a similar objective of storing the basic
facts from each page of Wikipedia and the other WMF wikis and
make it available in a queriable semanticformat, RDF. This is
still under development. As of Feb 2014 it has 15,000,000 items
and 1,000 properties for describing them.

Obtaining the full contents of Wikipedia for reuse presents

challenges, since direct cloning via a web crawler is
discouraged.[299] Wikipedia publishes "dumps" of its contents, but
these are text-only; as of 2007 there was no dump available of
Wikipedia's images.[300]
Several languages of Wikipedia also maintain a reference desk,
where volunteers answer questions from the general public.
According to a study by Pnina Shachaf in the Journal of
Documentation, the quality of the Wikipedia reference desk is
comparable to a standard library reference desk, with an accuracy
of 55%.[301]
Mobile access
See also: Help:Mobile access

The mobile version of the English Wikipedia's main page

Wikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit

content using any standard web browser through a
fixed Internet connection. Although Wikipedia content has been
accessible through the mobile web since July 2013, The New
York Times on 9 February 2014 quoted Erik Moller, deputy
director of the Wikimedia Foundation, stating that the transition
of internet traffic from desktops to mobile devices was
significant and a cause for concern and worry.[13] The The New
York Times article reported the comparison statistics for mobile
edits stating that, "Only 20 percent of the readership of the
English-language Wikipedia comes via mobile devices, a figure
substantially lower than the percentage of mobile traffic for
other media sites, many of which approach 50 percent. And the
shift to mobile editing has lagged even more."[13] The New York

Times reports that Mr. Moller of Wikimedia has assigned "a

team of 10 software developers focused on mobile," out of a
total of approximately 200 employees working at the Wikimedia
Foundation. One principal concern cited by The New York
Times for the "worry" is for Wikipedia to effectively address
attrition issues with the number of editors which the on-line
encyclopedia attracts to edit and maintain its content in a
mobile access environment.[13]
Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported in July 2014 that Google's
Android mobile apps have dominated the largest share of global
smartphone shipments for 2013 with 78.6% of market share
over their next closest competitor in IOS with 15.2% of the
market.[302] At the time of the Tretikov appointment and her
posted web interview with Sue Gardner in May 2014, Wikimedia
representatives made a technical announcement concerning
the number of mobile access systems in the market seeking
access to Wikipedia. Directly after the posted web interview, the
representatives stated that Wikimedia would be applying an allinclusive approach to accommodate as many mobile access
systems as possible in its efforts for expanding general mobile
access, including BlackBerry and the Windows Phone system,
making market share a secondary issue.[238] The latest version
of the Android app for Wikipedia was released on 23 July 2014
to generally positive reviews scoring over 4 on a scale of 5 at a
poll of approximately 200,000 users downloading from
Google.[303] The latest version for IOS was released on 3 April
2013 to similar reviews.[304]
Access to Wikipedia from mobile phones was possible as early
as 2004, through the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), via
the Wapediaservice. In June 2007 Wikipedia
launched en.mobile.wikipedia.org, an official website for
wireless devices. In 2009 a newer mobile service was officially
released,[305] located aten.m.wikipedia.org, which caters to more
advanced mobile devices such as the iPhone, Android-based
devices or WebOS-based devices. Several other methods of
mobile access to Wikipedia have emerged. Many devices and
applications optimise or enhance the display of Wikipedia
content for mobile devices, while some also incorporate
additional features such as use of
Wikipedia metadata (See Wikipedia:Metadata), such
as geoinformation.[306][307]
Wikipedia Zero is an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to
expand the reach of the encyclopedia to the developing
countries.[308]

Impact
Readership
Wikipedia is extremely popular. In February 2014, The New
York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally
among all websites, stating "With 18 billion page views and

nearly 500 million unique visitors a month [...] Wikipedia trails

just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with
1.2 billion unique visitors."[13]
In addition to logistic growth in the number of its
articles,[309] Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general
reference website since its inception in 2001.[310] About 50% of
search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google,[311] a
good portion of which is related to academic research.[312] The
number of readers of Wikipedia worldwide reached 365 million
at the end of 2009.[313] The Pew Internet and American Life
project found that one third of US Internet users consulted
Wikipedia.[314] In 2011 Business Insider gave Wikipedia a
valuation of $4 billion if it ran advertisements.[315]
According to "Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011", the average
age of Wikipedia readers is 36, with a rough parity between
genders. Almost half of Wikipedia readers visit the site more
than five times a month, and a similar number of readers
specifically look for Wikipedia in search engine results. About
47% of Wikipedia readers do not realize that Wikipedia is a
non-profit organization.[316]

Cultural significance
Main article: Wikipedia in culture
Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies,
books, conferences, and court cases.[317][318][319] The Parliament of
Canada's website refers to Wikipedia's article onsame-sex
marriage in the "related links" section of its "further reading" list
for the Civil Marriage Act.[320] The encyclopedia's assertions are
increasingly used as a source by organizations such as the US
federal courts and the World Intellectual Property
Organization[321] though mainly for supporting
information rather than information decisive to a
case.[322] Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as
a source and referenced in some US intelligence
agency reports.[323] In December 2008, the scientific journalRNA
Biology launched a new section for descriptions of families of
RNA molecules and requires authors who contribute to the
section to also submit a draft article on the RNA family for
publication in Wikipedia.[324]
Wikipedia has also been used as a source in
journalism,[325][326] often without attribution, and several reporters
have been dismissed for plagiarizing from Wikipedia.[327][328][329]
In 2006, Time magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation
(along with YouTube, Reddit, MySpace, and Facebook[330]) in
the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by
millions of people worldwide.
In July 2007 Wikipedia was the focus of a 30-minute
documentary on BBC Radio 4[331] which argued that, with
increased usage and awareness, the number of references to
Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the word 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 words
as hoovering or Coca-Cola.
On September 28, 2007, Italian politician Franco Grillini raised
a parliamentary question with the minister of cultural resources
and activities about the necessity of 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.[332]

Jimmy Wales receiving theQuadriga A Mission of Enlightenmentaward

On September 16, 2007, The Washington Post reported that

Wikipedia had become a focal point in the 2008 US 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."[333] An October
2007 Reuters article, titled "Wikipedia page the latest status
symbol", reported the recent phenomenon of how having a
Wikipedia article vindicates one's notability.[334]
Active participation also has an impact. Law students have
been assigned to write Wikipedia articles as an exercise in clear
and succinct writing for an uninitiated audience.[335]
Awards
Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004.[336] The first was
a Golden Nica for Digital Communities of the annual Prix Ars
Electronicacontest; 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.[337] Wikipedia was also
nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby award.
In 2007, readers of brandchannel.com voted Wikipedia as the
fourth-highest brand ranking, receiving 15% of the votes in
answer to the question "Which brand had the most impact on
our lives in 2006?"[338]

In September 2008, Wikipedia received Quadriga A Mission of

Enlightenment award of Werkstatt Deutschland along with Boris
Tadi, Eckart Hfling, and Peter Gabriel. The award was
presented to Wales by David Weinberger.[339]
Satire
See also Category:Parodies of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia shown in "Weird Al" Yankovic's music video for his song
"White & Nerdy"

Many parodies target Wikipedia's openness and susceptibility to

inserted inaccuracies, with characters vandalizing or modifying
the online encyclopedia project's articles.
Comedian Stephen Colbert has parodied or referenced
Wikipedia on numerous episodes of his show The Colbert
Report and coined the related term wikiality, meaning "together
we can create a reality that we all agree onthe reality we just
agreed on".[185] Another example can be found in "Wikipedia
Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence", a July 2006
front-page article in The Onion.,[340] as well as the 2010 The
Onion article "'L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874 Times
Today".[341]
"My Number One Doctor", a 2007 episode of the television
show Scrubs, played on the perception that Wikipedia is an
unreliable reference tool with a scene in which Dr. Perry
Cox reacts to a patient who says that a Wikipedia article
indicates that the raw food dietreverses the effects of bone
cancer by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article
also wrote the Battlestar Galactica episode guide.[342]
In 2008, the comedic website CollegeHumor produced a video
sketch named "Professor Wikipedia", in which the fictitious
Professor Wikipedia instructs a class with a medley of
unverifiable and occasionally absurd statements.[343]
The Dilbert comic strip from May 8, 2009, features a character
supporting an improbable claim by saying "Give me ten minutes
and then check Wikipedia."[344]
In July 2009, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a comedy series
called Bigipedia, which was set on a website which was a
parody of Wikipedia. Some of the sketches were directly
inspired by Wikipedia and its articles.[345]

In 2010, comedian Daniel Tosh encouraged viewers of his

show, Tosh.0, to visit the show's Wikipedia article and edit it at
will. On a later episode, he commented on the edits to the
article, most of them offensive, which had been made by the
audience and had prompted the article to be locked from
editing.[346][347]
On August 23, 2013, the New Yorker website published a
cartoon with this caption: "Dammit, Manning, have you
considered the pronoun war that this is going to start on your
Wikipedia page?"[348]

Sister projects Wikimedia

Main article: Wikimedia project
Wikipedia has also spawned several sister projects, which are
also wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation. These
other Wikimedia projects include Wiktionary, a dictionary project
launched in December 2002,[349] Wikiquote, a collection of
quotations created a week after Wikimedia
launched, Wikibooks, a collection of collaboratively written free
textbooks and annotated texts, Wikimedia Commons, a site
devoted to free-knowledge multimedia, Wikinews, for citizen
journalism, and Wikiversity, a project for the creation of free
learning materials and the provision of online learning
activities.[350] Of these, only Commons has had success
comparable to that of Wikipedia. Another sister project of
Wikipedia, Wikispecies, is a catalogue of species. In
2012 Wikivoyage, an editable travel guide, and Wikidata, an
editable knowledge base, launched.

Publishing

A group of Wikimedians of theWikimedia DC chapter at the 2013 DC

Wikimedia annual meeting standing in front of the Encyclopdia
Britannica (back left) at the US National Archives

The most obvious economic effect of Wikipedia has been the

death of commercial encyclopedias, especially the printed
versions, e.g.Encyclopaedia Britannica, which were unable to
compete with a product that is essentially free.[351][352][353] Nicholas
Carr wrote a 2005 essay, "The amorality of Web 2.0", that
criticized websites with user-generated content, like Wikipedia,
for possibly leading to professional (and, in his view, superior)
content producers going out of business, because "free trumps
quality all the time". Carr wrote: "Implicit in the ecstatic visions

of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't

imagine anything more frightening."[354] Others dispute the notion
that Wikipedia, or similar efforts, will entirely displace traditional
publications. For instance, Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief
ofWired Magazine, wrote in Nature that the "wisdom of crowds"
approach of Wikipedia will not displace top scientific journals,
with their rigorous peer review process.[355]
There is also an ongoing debate about the influence of
Wikipedia on the biography publishing business. "The worry is
that, if you can get all that information from Wikipedia, what's
left for biography?" Said Kathryn Hughes, professor of life
writing at UEA and author of The Short Life and Long Times of
Mrs Beeton and George Eliot: the Last Victorian.[356]

Scientific use
In computational linguistics, information retrieval and natural
language processing, Wikipedia has seen widespread use as
a corpus for linguistic research. In particular, it commonly
serves as a target knowledge base for the entity
linking problem, which is then called "wikification",[357] and to the
related problem of word sense disambiguation.[358]Methods
similar to wikification can in turn be used to find "missing" links
in Wikipedia.[359]

Related projects
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
covered 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 were emulated on a website
until 2008.[360]
One of the most successful early online encyclopedias
incorporating entries by the public was h2g2, which was created
by Douglas Adams. The h2g2 encyclopedia is relatively lighthearted, focusing on articles which are both witty and
informative. Everything2 was created in 1998. All of these
projects had similarities with Wikipedia, but were not wikis and
neither gave full editorial privileges to public users.
GNE, an encyclopedia which was not a wiki, also created in
January 2001, co-existed with Nupedia and Wikipedia early in
its history; however, it has been retired.[110]
Other websites centered on collaborative knowledge
base development have drawn inspiration from Wikipedia.
Some, such as Susning.nu, Enciclopedia Libre, Hudong,

andBaidu Baike likewise employ no formal review process,

although some like Conservapedia are not as open. Others use
more traditional peer review, such as Encyclopedia of Lifeand
the online wiki encyclopedias Scholarpedia and Citizendium.
The latter was started by Sanger in an attempt to create a
reliable alternative to Wikipedia.[361][362]

See also
Internet portal

Outline of Wikipedia guide to the subject

of Wikipedia presented as atree structured list of its
subtopics; for an outline of the contents ofWikipedia,
see Portal:Contents/Outlines
Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia
Democratization of knowledge
Interpedia, an early proposal for a
collaborative Internet encyclopedia
List of online encyclopedias
Network effect
QRpedia multilingual, mobile interface to Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review

Special searches

All pages with titles containing "Wikipedia"

All pages beginning with "Wikipedia"

References
1. Jump up^ Kiss, Jemima; Gibbs, Samuel (6 August
2014). "Wikipedia boss Lila Tretikov: 'Glasnost taught me
much about freedom of information". The Guardian.
Retrieved 21 August2014.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Wikipedia Statistics Tables Active
wikipedians". Stats.wikimedia.org. Archived from the
original on 2014-07-24. Retrieved 2013-07-04.
3. Jump up^ Roger Chapman. "Top 40 Website
Programming Languages". roadchap.com.
RetrievedSeptember 6, 2011.
4. Jump up^ Jonathan Sidener. "Everyone's
Encyclopedia". U-T San Diego. Retrieved October
15,2006.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b "wikipedia.org Site Overview". Alexa
Internet. Retrieved 2014-07-23.
6. Jump up^ "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales Speaks Out On
China And Internet Freedom". Huffington Post.
Retrieved September 24, 2011. Currently Wikipedia,
Facebook and Twitter remain blocked in China

7. Jump up^ Bill Tancer (May 1, 2007). "Look Who's Using

Wikipedia". Time. RetrievedDecember 1, 2007. 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 US, Wikipedia
is No. 1, capturing 24.3% of all visits to the
category. Cf Bill Tancer (Global Manager,
Hitwise), "Wikipedia, Search and School
Homework", Hitwise, March 1, 2007.
8. Jump up^ Alex Woodson (July 8, 2007). "Wikipedia
remains go-to site for online news". Reuters.
Retrieved December 16, 2007. 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.
9. Jump up^ "comScore MMX Ranks Top 50 US Web
Properties for August 2012". comScore. 12 September
2012. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
10. Jump up^ Mike Miliard (March 1, 2008). "Wikipediots:
Who Are These Devoted, Even Obsessive Contributors to
Wikipedia?". Salt Lake City Weekly. Retrieved December
18, 2008.
11. Jump up^ Sidener, Jonathan (October 9,
2006). "Wikipedia family feud rooted in San Diego". The
San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2009-05-05.
12. Jump up^ "Wiki" in the Hawaiian Dictionary, revised and
enlarged edition, University of Hawaii Press, 1986
13. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Cohen, Noam (9 February
2014). "Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen". New York Times.
14. ^ Jump up to:a b c Black, Edwin (April 19,
2010) WikipediaThe Dumbing Down of World
Knowledge, History News Network Retrieved October 21,
2014
15. ^ Jump up to:a b J. Petrilli , Michael (SPRING 2008/Vol.8,
No.2) Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?,Education
Next Retrieved October 22, 2014
16. ^ Jump up to:a b Cohen, Martin. "Encyclopaedia
Idiotica". Times Higher Education (28 August 2008): 26.
17. ^ Jump up to:a b Messer-Kruse, Timothy (February 12,
2012) The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia The
Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved March 27, 2014
18. ^ Jump up to:a b Coln-Aguirre, Monica &Fleming-May,
Rachel A. (October 11, 2012) "You Just Type in What You
Are Looking For": Undergraduates' Use of Library
Resources vs. Wikipedia(page 392) The Journal of
Academic Librarianship Retrieved March 27, 2014
19. ^ Jump up to:a b Bowling Green News (February 27,
2012) Wikipedia experience sparks national
debate Bowling Green State University Retrieved March
27, 2014
20. Jump up^ Zittrain, Jonathan (2008). The Future of the
Internet and How to Stop It Chapter 6: The Lessons of
Wikipedia. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-124873. RetrievedDecember 26, 2008.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

26.

27.

28.

29.
30.

31.
32.
33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

Jump up^ Registration notes

Jump up^ Protection Policy
Jump up^ English Wikipedia's semi-protection policy
Jump up^ English Wikipedia's full protection policy
^ Jump up to:a b Birken, P. (December 14, 2008). "Bericht
Gesichtete Versionen" (in German).Wikide-l mailing list.
Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
Jump up^ William Henderson (December 10,
2012). "Wikipedia Has Figured Out A New Way To Stop
Vandals In Their Tracks". Business Insider.
Jump up^ Frewin, Jonathan (2010-06-15). "Wikipedia
unlocks divisive pages for editing". BBC News.
Retrieved 2014-08-21.
^ Jump up to:a b Kleinz, Torsten (February 2005). "World of
Knowledge" (PDF). Linux Magazine. Retrieved July
13, 2007. 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.
Jump up^ Wikipedia:New pages patrol
Jump up^ Andrea Ciffolilli, "Phantom authority, selfselective recruitment and retention of members in virtual
communities: The case of Wikipedia", First
Monday December 2003.
Jump up^ Link spamming Wikipedia for profit (2011)
Jump up^ Vandalism. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 6,
2012.
Jump up^ Fernanda B. Vigas, Martin Wattenberg, and
Kushal Dave (2004). "Studying Cooperation and Conflict
between Authors with History Flow
Visualizations" (PDF). Proceedings of the ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI) (Vienna, Austria: ACM SIGCHI): 575
582. doi:10.1145/985921.985953. ISBN 1-58113-702-8.
RetrievedJanuary 24, 2007.
Jump up^ Reid Priedhorsky, Jilin Chen, Shyong (Tony)
K. Lam, Katherine Panciera, Loren Terveen, and John
Riedl (GroupLens Research, Department of Computer
Science and Engineering,University of Minnesota)
(November 4, 2007). "Creating, Destroying, and Restoring
Value in Wikipedia" (PDF). Association for Computing
Machinery GROUP '07 conference proceedings (Sanibel
Island, Florida). Retrieved October 13, 2007.
^ Jump up to:a b c d Seigenthaler, John (November 29,
2005). "A False Wikipedia 'biography'". USA Today.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Jump up^ Friedman, Thomas L. (2007). The World is
Flat. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. p. 124.ISBN 978-0-37429278-2.
Jump up^ Buchanan, Brian J. (November 17,
2006). "Founder shares cautionary tale of libel in
cyberspace". archive.firstamendmentcenter.org. Archived

38.

39.
40.
41.

42.
43.

44.

45.

46.

47.
48.

49.
50.
51.

52.
53.

54.
55.
56.

57.
58.

from the original on December 21, 2012.

Retrieved November 17, 2012.
Jump up^ Helm, Burt (December 13, 2005). "Wikipedia:
"A Work in Progress"". BusinessWeek. Retrieved July
26, 2012.
Jump up^ "Who's behind Wikipedia?". PC World.
February 6, 2008. Retrieved February 7, 2008.
Jump up^ What Wikipedia is not. Retrieved April 1, 2010.
"Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide."
Jump up^ Notability. Retrieved February 13, 2008. "A
topic is presumed to be notable if it has received
significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are
independent of the subject."
Jump up^ No original research. February 13, 2008.
"Wikipedia does not publish original thought."
Jump up^ Verifiability. February 13, 2008. "Material
challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations,
must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
Jump up^ Cohen, Noam (August 9, 2011). "For inclusive
mission, Wikipedia is told that written word goes only so
far". International Herald Tribune. p. 18 via
vLex.(subscription required)
Jump up^ Neutral point of view. February 13, 2008. "All
Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be
written from a neutral point of view, representing
significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias."
Jump up^ Eric Haas (October 26, 2007). "Will Unethical
Editing Destroy Wikipedia's Credibility?". AlterNet.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Jump up^ Sanger, Larry (2005-04-18). "The Early History
of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir".Slashdot. Dice.
Jump up^ Kostakis, Vasilis (March 2010). "Identifying and
understanding the problems of Wikipedia's peer
governance: The case of inclusionists versus
deletionists". First Monday.
Jump up^ Ownership of articles
Jump up^ Avoiding Tragedy in the Wiki-Commons, by
Andrew George, 12 Va. J.L. & Tech. 8 (2007)
Jump up^ Dan Bricklin (October 12, 2006). "The
Cornucopia of the Commons: How to get volunteer
labor". bricklin.com. Retrieved December 28, 2011.
Jump up^ Wikipedia:Administrators
Jump up^ Mehegan, David (February 13, 2006). "Many
contributors, common cause". Boston Globe.
Retrieved March 25, 2007.
Jump up^ "Wikipedia:Administrators". Retrieved July
12, 2009.
Jump up^ "Wikipedia:RfA_Review/Reflect".
Retrieved September 24, 2009.
Jump up^ Meyer, Robinson (July 16, 2012). "3 Charts
That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of
Admins". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 2, 2012.
Jump up^ "edit war"
Jump up^ Dispute Resolution

59. Jump up^ Coldewey, Devin (June 21, 2012). "Wikipedia

is editorial warzone, says study".Technology. NBC News.
Retrieved October 29, 2012.
60. Jump up^ Hoffman, David A., Mehra, Salil K.
(2009). "Wikitruth through Wikiorder" (PDF). Emory Law
Journal (Emory University School of Law) 59 (1): 181.
61. Jump up^ Hoffman, David A., Mehra, Salil K.
(2009). "Wikitruth through Wikiorder" (PDF). Emory Law
Journal (Emory University School of Law) 59 (1): 151
210.
62. Jump up^ Fernanda B. Vigas; Martin M. Wattenberg;
Jesse Kriss; Frank van Ham (January 3, 2007). "Talk
Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia" (PDF).
Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research.
Retrieved June 27, 2008.
63. Jump up^ Arthur, Charles (December 15, 2005). "Log on
and join in, but beware the web cults".The
Guardian (London). Retrieved December 26, 2008.
64. Jump up^ Lu Stout, Kristie (August 4, 2003). "Wikipedia:
The know-it-all Web site". CNN. Retrieved December
26, 2008.
65. Jump up^ Larry Sanger (December 31, 2004). "Why
Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism".Kuro5hin, Op
Ed. There is a certain mindset associated with
unmoderated Usenet groups [] that infects the
collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react
strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not
(necessarily) on the troll. If you [] demand that
something be done about constant disruption by trollish
behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship,"
attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. []
The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for
expertise. There is a deeper problem [] which explains
both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a
community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of
respect for expertise. As a community, far from being
elitist, it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that
expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs
and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is one of my
failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's
first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support,
was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to
experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember
that I tried very hard.)
66. Jump up^ T. Kriplean, I. Beschastnikh et al.
(2008). "Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work
in Wikipedia through barnstars". Proceedings of the ACM.
p. 47.doi:10.1145/1460563.1460573. ISBN 978-1-60558007-4. |chapter= ignored (help)(Subscription required.)
67. Jump up^ Jean Goodwin (2009). "The Authority of
Wikipedia". Retrieved January 31, 2011.Wikipedia's
commitment to anonymity/pseudonymity thus imposes a
sort of epistemic agnosticism on its readers
68. Jump up^ Kittur, Aniket. "Power of the Few vs. Wisdom
of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the

69.
70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.
77.

78.

79.

80.
81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

Bourgeoisie" (PDF). Viktoria Institute. Retrieved August

13, 2014.
^ Jump up to:a b c Blodget, Henry (3 January 2009). "Who
The Hell Writes Wikipedia, Anyway?".Business Insider.
Jump up^ Wilson, Chris (February 22, 2008). "The
Wisdom of the Chaperones". Slate. RetrievedAugust
13, 2014.
Jump up^ Swartz, Aaron (September 4, 2006). "Raw
Thought: Who Writes Wikipedia?". Retrieved February
23, 2008.
Jump up^ Mick, Jason (11 August 2014). "Wikipedia
Scores $140,000 in Bitcoin Donations in One Week". Daily
Tech. Retrieved 21 August 2014.
^ Jump up to:a b c Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The
Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review.
Retrieved November 30, 2013.
Jump up^ Panciera, Katherine (2009). "Wikipedians Are
Born, Not Made". Association for Computing Machinery,
Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Group
Work. pp. 51, 59.
Jump up^ Goldman, Eric. "Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze
and its Consequences" 8. Journal on Telecommunications
and High Technology Law.
Jump up^ Noveck, Beth Simone. "Wikipedia and the
Future of Legal Education" 57. Journal of Legal Education.
Jump up^ "Wikipedia "Good Samaritans" Are on the
Money". Scientific American. October 19, 2007.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Jump up^ Yair AmichaiHamburger, Naama Lamdan,
Rinat Madiel, Tsahi Hayat, Personality Characteristics of
Wikipedia Members, CyberPsychology & Behavior,
December 1, 2008, 11 (6): 679
681; doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0225.
Jump up^ "Wikipedians are 'closed' and
'disagreeable'". New Scientist. Retrieved July
13, 2010.(Subscription required.)
Jump up^ Giles, Jim (August 4, 2009). "After the boom, is
Wikipedia heading for bust?". New Scientist.
Jump up^ "Where Are the Women in Wikipedia? - Room
for Debate". NYTimes.com. 2011-02-02. Retrieved 201406-14.
Jump up^ Lam, Shyong; Anuradha Uduwage; Zhenhua
Dong; Shilad Sen; David R. Musicant; Loren Terveen;
John Riedl (35 October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An
Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance". WikiSym
2011. Retrieved 28 October 2013.
Jump up^ Cohen, Noam. "Define Gender Gap? Look Up
Wikipedia's Contributor List". The New York Times (The
New York Times Company). Retrieved 28 October 2013.
Jump up^ Chom, Noam (January 31, 2011). "Define
Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List". The
New York Times. p. B1. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
Jump up^ Basch, Linda (February 6, 2011). "MaleDominated Web Site Seeking Female Experts"(Letters to

the Editor). The New York Times. p. WK7. Retrieved May

9, 2012.
86. Jump up^ "OCAD to 'Storm Wikipedia' this fall". CBC
News. 27 August 2013. Retrieved21 August 2014.
87. Jump up^ "Wikipedia 'completely failed' to fix gender
imbalance". BBC News. RetrievedSeptember 9, 2014.
88. Jump up^ Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014). Common
Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford
University. ISBN 9780804791205.
89. Jump up^ [Special:Statistics "Statistics"]. English
Wikipedia. Retrieved June 21, 2008.
90. Jump up^ List of Wikipedias
91. ^ Jump up to:a b "Five-year Traffic Statistics for
Wikipedia.org". Alexa Internet. Retrieved August 10,2013.
92. Jump up^ "Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias". English
Wikipedia. Retrieved December 18, 2014.
93. Jump up^ List of Wikipedias Meta
94. Jump up^ "List of Wikipedias". Wikimedia Meta-Wiki.
Retrieved 18 December 2014.
95. Jump up^ [Wikipedia:Spelling "Spelling"]. Manual of
Style. Wikipedia. Retrieved May 19, 2007.
96. Jump
up^ [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
"Countering systemic bias"]. RetrievedMay 19, 2007.
97. Jump up^ "Fair use". Meta-Wiki. Retrieved July 14, 2007.
98. Jump up^ "Images on Wikipedia". Retrieved July
14, 2007.
99. Jump up^ Fernanda B. Vigas (January 3, 2007). "The
Visual Side of Wikipedia" (PDF). Visual Communication
Lab, IBM Research. Retrieved October 30, 2007.
100. Jump up^ Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <[email protected]>
101. Jump up^ "Meta-Wiki". Wikimedia Foundation.
Retrieved March 24, 2009.
102. Jump up^ "Meta-Wiki Statistics". Wikimedia Foundation.
Retrieved March 24, 2008.
103. Jump up^ "List of articles every Wikipedia should have".
Wikimedia Foundation. RetrievedMarch 24, 2008.
104. Jump up^ [Wikipedia:Translations "Wikipedia:
Translation"]. English Wikipedia. RetrievedFebruary
3, 2007.
105. Jump up^ Taha Yasseri, Robert Sumi, Jnos
Kertsz (January 17, 2012). "Circadian Patterns of
Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A Demographic
Analysis". PLOS ONE. Retrieved January 17,2012.
106. Jump up^ File:User - demography.svg|Estimation of
contributions shares from different regions in the world to
different Wikipedia editions
107. Jump up^ "Wikimedia Foundation 201112 Annual
Plan" (PDF). Wikimedia Foundation. p. 8.
108. ^ Jump up to:a b c "The future of Wikipedia: WikiPeaks?".
The Economist. 2014-03-01. Retrieved2014-03-11.

109. Jump up^ Andrew Lih. Wikipedia. Alternative edit

policies at Wikipedia in other languages.
110. ^ Jump up to:a b Richard M. Stallman (June 20,
2007). "The Free Encyclopedia Project". Free Software
Foundation. Retrieved January 4, 2008.
111. Jump up^ Jonathan Sidener (December 6,
2004). "Everyone's Encyclopedia". U-T San Diego.
Retrieved October 15, 2006.
112. Jump up^ Meyers, Peter (September 20, 2001). "FactDriven? Collegial? This Site Wants You".The New York
Times. Retrieved November 22, 2007. '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.
113. ^ Jump up to:a b c Sanger, Larry (April 18, 2005). "The
Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A
Memoir". Slashdot. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
114. Jump up^ Sanger, Larry (January 17, 2001). "Wikipedia
Is Up!". Archived from the original on May 6, 2001.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
115. Jump up^ "Wikipedia-l: LinkBacks?".
Retrieved February 20, 2007.
116. Jump up^ Sanger, Larry (January 10, 2001). "Let's
Make a Wiki". Internet Archive. Archived fromthe
original on April 14, 2003. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
117. Jump up^ "Wikipedia: HomePage". Archived from the
original on March 31, 2001. RetrievedMarch 31, 2001.
118. Jump up^ "point of view&oldid=102236018
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (January 21,
2007).
119. Jump up^ Finkelstein, Seth (2008-09-25). "Read me
first: Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever
Wales says". London: The Guardian.
120. Jump up^ "Wikipedia, August 8, 2001".
Web.archive.bibalex.org. 2001-08-08. Retrieved2014-0303.
121. Jump up^ "Wikipedia, September 25, 2001".
Web.archive.bibalex.org. Retrieved 2014-03-03.
122. Jump up^ [Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics "Multilingual
statistics"]. Wikipedia. March 30, 2005.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
123. Jump up^ "Encyclopedias and
Dictionaries". Encyclopdia Britannica 18 (15th ed.).
2007. pp. 257286.
124. Jump up^ "[long] Enciclopedia Libre:
msg#00008". Osdir. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
125. Jump up^ Clay Shirky (February 28, 2008). Here
Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without
Organizations. The Penguin Press via Amazon Online
Reader. p. 273. ISBN 1-59420-153-6.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.

126. Jump up^ Bobbie Johnson (August 12,

2009). "Wikipedia approaches its limits". The
Guardian(London). Retrieved March 31, 2010.
127. Jump
up^ Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth
128. Jump up^ "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth
of Wikipedia". The International Symposium on Wikis.
Orlando, Florida. 2009.
129. Jump up^ Evgeny Morozov (NovemberDecember
2009). "Edit This Page; Is it the end of Wikipedia". Boston
Review.
130. Jump up^ Cohen, Noam (March 28, 2009). "Wikipedia
Exploring Fact City". The New York Times. Retrieved April
19, 2011.
131. Jump up^ Austin Gibbons, David Vetrano, Susan
Biancani (2012). Wikipedia: Nowhere to grow
132. Jump up^ Jenny Kleeman (November 26,
2009). "Wikipedia falling victim to a war of words". The
Guardian (London). Retrieved March 31, 2010.
133. Jump up^ "Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis" (PDF).
Archived from the original on 3 April 2012.
134. Jump up^ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages, The
Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2009.
135. Jump up^ Barnett, Emma (November 26,
2009). "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales denies site is 'losing'
thousands of volunteer editors". The Daily
Telegraph (London). Retrieved March 31,2010.
136. ^ Jump up to:a b Kevin Rawlinson (August 8,
2011). "Wikipedia seeks women to balance its 'geeky'
editors". The Independent. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
137. Jump up^ "3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is
Running Out of Admins". The Atlantic. July 16, 2012.
138. Jump up^ Ward, Katherine. New York Magazine, issue
of 25 November 2013, p. 18.
139. Jump up^ "Wikipedia Breaks Into US Top 10 Sites".
PCWorld. February 17, 2007.
140. Jump up^ "Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report
Wikipedia Page Views Per Country". Wikimedia
Foundation. Retrieved August 11, 2013.
141. Jump up^ Walk, Hunter (February 5, 2011). "Please
Read: A Personal Appeal To Wikipedia Founder Jimmy
Wales". TechCrunch. Retrieved September 24, 2011.
142. Jump up^ Netburn, Deborah (January 19,
2012). "Wikipedia: SOPA protest led 8 million to look up
reps in Congress". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 201203-06.
143. Jump up^ "Wikipedia joins blackout protest at US antipiracy moves". BBC News. January 18, 2012.
Retrieved January 19, 2012.
144. Jump up^ "SOPA/Blackoutpage". Wikimedia
Foundation. Retrieved January 19, 2012.
145. Jump up^ Jeff Loveland and Joseph Reagle (January
15, 2013). "Wikipedia and encyclopedic production. New

Media & Society. Sage Journals". New Media &

Society 15 (8): 1294.doi:10.1177/1461444812470428.
146. Jump up^ Rebecca J. Rosen (Jan 30, 2013). "What If
the Great Wikipedia 'Revolution' Was Actually a
Reversion? The Atlantic". Retrieved 9 Feb 2013.
147. ^ Jump up to:a b c Varma, Subodh (2014-01-20). "Google
eating into Wikipedia page views?". The Economic
Times (Times Internet Limited). Retrieved 2014-02-10.
148. Jump up^ "User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org.
Retrieved 2014-06-14.
149. Jump up^ "Wikipediocracy".
150. Jump up^ Jemielniak, Dariusz (June 22, 2014). "The
Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia".Slate.
Retrieved August 18, 2014.
151. Jump up^ D. Jemielniak, Common Knowledge,
Stanford University Press, 2014.
152. Jump up^ (March 2007) The big question (Archived)
,Prospect (magazine) Retrieved October 21, 2014
153. Jump up^ Cohen, Noam (September 11, 2011) On
Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 'Edit Wars, The New York
Times Retrieved October 21, 2014
154. Jump up^ Chopra, Deepak (May 20, 2014) Wikipedia, A
New Perspective on an Old Problemdeepakchopra.com
Retrieved october 22, 2014
155. Jump up^ Josephson, Brian User talk:Brian
Josephson#Dean Radin, Wikipedia (User Page),
Retrieved October 21, 2014
156. Jump up^ Coppens, Philip (May 02, 2008) The Truth
and Lies of WikiWorld (page 13), Nexus
(magazine) Retrieved October 21, 2014
157. Jump up^ Sheldrake, Rupert Wikipedia Under
Threat sheldrake.org Retrieved October 21, 2014
158. Jump up^ Ullman, Dana (October 10,
2014) Dysfunction at Wikipedia on Homeopathic
Medicine,The Huffington Post Retrieved October 22, 2014
159. Jump up^ ACEP's Position Statement on
Wikipedia energypsych.org Retrieved October 22, 2014
160. Jump up^ Hay Newman, Lily (March 27, 2014) Jimmy
Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic
Healing Coverage, Slate (magazine) Retrieved October
22, 2014
161. Jump up^ Sifferlin, Alexandra (March 25,
2014) Wikipedia Founder Sticks It To 'Lunatic' Holistic
Healers, Time (magazine) Retrieved October 22, 2014
162. Jump up^ Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds |
Oliver Kamm Times Online (archive version 2011-0814) (Author's own copy)
163. Jump up^ Bauerlein, Mark (March 19, 2008) The
Wikipedia Syndrome, The Chronicle of Higher
Education Retrieved October 22, 2014
164. Jump up^ Citing Electronic Sources, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Retrieved October 21, 2014

165. Jump up^ Jim Giles (December 2005). "Internet

encyclopedias go head to head". Nature 438(7070): 900
901. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..900G. doi:10.1038/438900a
.PMID 16355180. Note: The study (that was not in itself
peer reviewed) was cited in several news articles; e.g.:
"Wikipedia survives research test". BBC News.
December 15, 2005.
166. Jump up^ Reagle, pp. 165-166.
167. Jump up^ Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on
encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature,
Encyclopdia Britannica, March 2006
168. Jump up^ "Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a
response" (PDF). Retrieved July 13, 2010.
169. Jump up^ "Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia
Britannica". Nature. March 30, 2006. Retrieved2012-0319.
170. Jump up^ See author acknowledged comments in
response to the citation of the Nature study, atPLoS One,
2014, "Citation of fundamentally flawed Nature quality
'study' ", In response to T. Yasseri et al. (2012) Dynamics
of Conflicts in Wikipedia, Published 20 June 2012, DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0038869, see [1], accessed 21 July
2014.
171. Jump up^ [Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
"Wikipedia:General disclaimer"]. English Wikipedia.
Retrieved April 22, 2008.
172. Jump up^ Public Information Research, Wikipedia
Watch
173. Jump up^ Raphel, JR. "The 15 Biggest Wikipedia
Blunders". PC World. Retrieved September 2,2009.
174. Jump up^ Cowen, Tyler (March 14, 2008). "Cooked
Books". The New Republic. Archived from the original on
March 18, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
175. Jump up^ Stacy Schiff (July 31, 2006). "Know It
All". The New Yorker.
176. Jump up^ Danah Boyd (January 4, 2005). "Academia
and Wikipedia". Many 2 Many: A GroupWeblog on Social
Software. Corante. Retrieved December 18, 2008. [The
author, Danah Boyd, describes herself as] an expert on
social media[,] [] a doctoral student in the School of
Information at the University of California, Berkeley [,] and
a fellow at theHarvard University Berkman Center for
Internet & Society [at Harvard Law School.]
177. Jump up^ Robert McHenry, "The Faith-Based
Encyclopedia", Tech Central Station, November 15, 2004.
178. Jump up^ "Inside Wikipedia - Attack of the PR
Industry". Deutsche Welle. June 30, 2014. Retrieved July
2, 2014.
179. Jump up^ "Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge
(longer version)". Citizendium. RetrievedOctober
10, 2006.
180. ^ Jump up to:a b Jun 16, 2014, "Wikipedia Strengthens
Rules Against Undisclosed Editing", By Jeff Elder, The
Wall Street Journal.

181. Jump up^ Ahrens, Frank (July 9, 2006). "Death by

Wikipedia: The Kenneth Lay Chronicles". The Washington
Post. Retrieved November 1, 2006.
182. Jump up^ Kane, Margaret (January 30,
2006). "Politicians notice Wikipedia". CNET.
RetrievedJanuary 28, 2007.
183. Jump up^ Bergstein, Brian (January 23,
2007). "Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit". MSNBC.
Retrieved February 1, 2007.
184. Jump up^ Hafner, Katie (August 19, 2007). "Lifting
Corporate Fingerprints From the Editing of
Wikipedia". The New York Times. p. 1.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
185. ^ Jump up to:a b Stephen Colbert (July 30,
2006). "Wikiality". Retrieved December 26, 2008.
186. ^ Jump up to:a b Julie Beck. "Doctors' #1 Source for
Healthcare Information: Wikipedia". The Atlantic, 5 March
2014.
187. ^ Jump up to:a b Green, Emma (2014-05-07). "Can
Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text? - Julie
Beck". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2014-06-14.
188. Jump up^ "Wide World of Wikipedia". The Emory
Wheel. April 21, 2006. Retrieved October 17,2007.
189. Jump up^ Waters, N. L. (2007). "Why you can't cite
Wikipedia in my class". Communications of the
ACM 50 (9): 15. doi:10.1145/1284621.1284635. edit
190. Jump up^ Jaschik, Scott (January 26, 2007). "A Stand
Against Wikipedia". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved January
27, 2007.
191. Jump up^ Helm, Burt (December 14, 2005). "Wikipedia:
"A Work in Progress"". Bloomberg BusinessWeek.
Retrieved January 29, 2007.
192. Jump up^ "Jimmy Wales", Biography Resource Center
Online. (Gale, 2006.)
193. Jump up^ Child, Maxwell L., "Professors Split on Wiki
Debate", The Harvard Crimson, Monday, February 26,
2007.
194. Jump up^ Chloe Stothart, Web threatens learning
ethos, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 2007,
1799 (June 22), page 2
195. Jump up^ Cohen, Morris; Olson, Kent (2010). Legal
Research in a Nutshell (10th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesotta,
USA: Thomson Reuters. pp. 3234. ISBN 978-0-31426408-4.
196. ^ Jump up to:a b Roy Rosenzweig (June 2006). "Can
History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the
Past". The Journal of American History 93 (1): 117
146.doi:10.2307/4486062. JSTOR 4486062.
Retrieved August 11, 2006. (Center for History and New
Media.)
197. Jump up^ Rudolf den Hartogh (July 2014). The Future
of the Past: A Case Study on the Representation of the
Holocaust on Wikipedia, 20022014 (Master's).
Rotterdam: Erasmus School of History, Culture and

Communication (ESHCC) Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Retrieved 23 October 2014.
198. Jump up^ Andrew Orlowski (October 18,
2005). "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality
problems". The Register. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
199. Jump up^ "Cancer information on Wikipedia is
accurate, but not very readable, study finds".Science
Daily. June 2, 2010. Retrieved December 31, 2010.
200. Jump up^ "Fact or fiction? Wikipedia's variety of
contributors is not only a strength". The Economist. March
10, 2007. Retrieved December 31, 2010.
201. Jump up^ Wikipedia:PAPER
202. Jump up^ "The battle for Wikipedia's soul". The
Economist. March 6, 2008. Retrieved March 7,2008.
203. Jump up^ Douglas, Ian (November 10,
2007). "Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart".The
Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved November 23, 2010.
204. Jump up^ Sophie Taylor (April 5, 2008). "China allows
access to English Wikipedia". Reuters. Retrieved July
29, 2008.
205. Jump up^ Bruilliard, Karin (May 21, 2010). "Pakistan
blocks YouTube a day after shutdown of Facebook over
Muhammad issue". The Washington Post.
Retrieved October 24, 2011.
206. Jump up^ "Wikipedia child image censored". BBC
News. December 8, 2008. RetrievedDecember 8, 2008.
207. ^ Jump up to:a b Kittur, A., Chi, E. H., and Suh, B.
2009. What's in Wikipedia? Mapping Topics and Conflict
Using Socially Annotated Category Structure. In
Proceedings of the 27th international Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston,
Massachusetts, USA, April 4 9, 2009). CHI '09. ACM,
New York, USA, 15091512.
208. Jump up^ Petrusich, Amanda (October 20,
2011). "Wikipedia's Deep Dive Into a Library
Collection". The New York Times. Retrieved October
28, 2011.
209. Jump up^ Lam, Shyong; Anuradha Uduwage; Zhenhua
Dong; Shilad Sen; David R. Musicant; Loren Terveen;
John Riedl (35 October 2011). "WP: Clubhouse? An
Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imblance". WikiSym
2011: 4.
210. Jump up^ "Mapping the Geographies of Wikipedia
Content". Mark Graham Oxford Internet Institute.
ZeroGeography. Retrieved November 16, 2009.
211. ^ Jump up to:a b Quilter, Laura (October 24,
2012). "Systemic Bias in Wikipedia: What It Looks Like,
and How to Deal with It". University of Massachusetts
Amherst. RetrievedNovember 26, 2012.
212. Jump up^ "Edit Wars Reveal the 10 Most Controversial
Topics on Wikipedia", MIT Technology Review, 17 July
2013.
213. ^ Jump up to:a b c "The Most Controversial Topics in
Wikipedia: A Multilingual and Geographical Analysis by

Taha Yasseri, Anselm Spoerri, Mark Graham, Janos

Kertesz :: SSRN". Papers.ssrn.com. May 23,
2013. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2269392. Retrieved 2014-06-14.
214. Jump up^ Sanger, Larry. "What should we do about
Wikipedia's porn problem?". RetrievedJuly 26, 2012.
215. Jump up^ Metz, Cade (December 7, 2008). "Brit ISPs
censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover". The
Register. Retrieved May 10, 2009.
216. Jump up^ Raphael, JR (December 10,
2008). "Wikipedia Censorship Sparks Free Speech
Debate". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 10, 2009.
217. Jump up^ Farrell, Nick (April 29, 2010). "Wikipedia
denies child abuse allegations: Co-founder grassed the
outfit to the FBI". The Inquirer. Retrieved October 9, 2010.
218. ^ Jump up to:a b Metz, Cade (April 9, 2010). "Wikifounder
reports Wikiparent to FBI over 'child porn'". The Register.
Retrieved April 19, 2010.
219. Jump up^ "Wikipedia blasts co-founder's accusations of
child porn on website". The Economic Times (India). April
29, 2010. Retrieved April 29, 2010.
220. ^ Jump up to:a b "Wikipedia blasts talk of child porn at
website". Agence France-Presse. April 28, 2010.
Retrieved April 29, 2010.
221. Jump up^ "Wikimedia pornography row deepens as
Wales cedes rights". BBC News. May 10, 2010.
Retrieved May 19, 2010.
222. Jump up^ Gray, Lila (September 17, 2013). "Wikipedia
Gives Porn a Break". XBIZ.com. RetrievedNovember
10, 2013.
223. Jump up^ Andrew McStay, 2014, Privacy and
Philosophy: New Media and Affective Protocol, New York
Peter Lang.
224. Jump up^ Heise Gericht weist einstweilige Verfgung
gegen Wikimedia Deutschland ab[Update], by Torsten
Kleinz, February 9, 2006.
225. Jump up^ "IT Service Management Software".
OTRS.com. Retrieved 9 June 2012.
226. Jump up^ Walker, Tim (16 August 2012). "What has
Wikipedia's army of volunteer editors got against Kate
Middleton's wedding gown?". The Independent.
227. Jump up^ Bosch, Torie (13 July 2012). "How Kate
Middleton's Wedding Gown Demonstrates Wikipedia's
Woman Problem.". Slate.
228. Jump up^ Cowles, Charlotte (16 July 2012). "Does
Wikipedia Have a Fashion Problem?". New York
Magazine.
229. Jump up^ "Kate Middleton Wedding Dress Causes
Wikipedia Controversy". Huffington Post. 15 July 2012.
230. ^ Jump up to:a b c von Rohr, Mathieu (19 April 2010). "Im
Innern des Weltwissens". Der Spiegel (in German).
231. Jump
up^ [Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Poorly_written
"Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Poorly written

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"]. English Wikipedia.

Retrieved2012-07-05.
232. Jump up^ "Plagiarism by Wikipedia editors". Wikipedia
Watch. October 27, 2006. Archived fromthe original on
November 25, 2009.
233. Jump up^ Ayers, Phoebe (2008). How Wikipedia
Works. San Francisco: No Starch Press. p. 213.ISBN 159327-176-X.
234. Jump up^ "Wikimedia Foundation Financial
Statements June 30, 2011 and 2010". Wikimedia
Foundation.
235. Jump up^ "Wikimedia Foundation IRS Form 990".
Retrieved 14 October 2014.
236. Jump up^ "Press releases/WMF announces new ED
Lila Tretikov". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 2014-0614.
237. ^ Jump up to:a b Jeff Elder, The Wall Street Journal, 1
May 2014, "Wikipedia's New Chief: From Soviet Union to
World's Sixth-Largest Site".
238. ^ Jump up to:a b Naom Cohen (May 1, 2014). "Media:
Open-Source Software Specialist Selected as Executive
Director of Wikipedia". The New York Times.
239. Jump up^ Mark Bergman. "Wikimedia
Architecture" (PDF). Wikimedia Foundation.
RetrievedJune 27, 2008.
240. Jump up^ "Version: Installed extensions".. Retrieved
August 18, 2014.
241. Jump up^ Michael Snow. "Lucene search: Internal
search function returns to service". Wikimedia Foundation.
Retrieved February 26, 2009.
242. Jump up^ Brion Vibber. "[Wikitech-l] Lucene search".
Retrieved February 26, 2009.
243. Jump up^ "Extension:Lucene-search". Wikimedia
Foundation. Retrieved August 31, 2009.
244. Jump up^ "mediawiki Revision 55688:
/branches/lucene-search-2.1/lib". Wikimedia Foundation.
Retrieved August 31, 2009.
245. Jump up^ Emil Protalinski (2013-07-02). "Wikimedia
rolls out WYSIWYG visual editor for logged-in users
accessing Wikipedia articles in English". The Next Web.
Retrieved 2013-07-06.
246. Jump up^ Curtis, Sophie (23 July 2013). "Wikipedia
introduces new features to entice editors". The Daily
Telegraph. Retrieved 18 August 2013.
247. Jump up^ L.M. (2011-12-13). "Changes at Wikipedia:
Seeing things". The Economist. Retrieved2013-07-28.
248. Jump up^ Lucian Parfeni (2013-07-02). "Wikipedia's
New VisualEditor Is the Best Update in Years and You
Can Make It Better". Softpedia. Retrieved 2013-07-30.
249. ^ Jump up to:a b Orlowski, Andrew (1 August
2013). "Wikipedians say no to Jimmy's 'buggy' WYSIWYG
editor". The Register. Retrieved 18 August 2013.
250. Jump up^ Wikipedia Bot Information

251. ^ Jump up to:a b Daniel Nasaw (July 24, 2012). "Meet the
'bots' that edit Wikipedia". BBC News.
252. Jump up^ Halliday, Josh; Arthur, Charles (July 26,
2012). "Boot up: The Wikipedia vandalism police, Apple
analysts, and more". The Guardian. Retrieved September
5, 2012.
253. Jump up^ Jervell, Ellen Emmerentze (July 13,
2014). "For This Author, 10,000 Wikipedia Articles Is a
Good Day's Work". The Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved August 18, 2014.
254. Jump up^ "Wikipedia signpost: Abuse Filter is enabled".
English Wikipedia. March 23, 2009. Retrieved July
13, 2010.
255. Jump up^ Aljazeera, 21 July 2014, "MH17 Wikipedia
entry edited from Russian Government IP Address". [2]
256. Jump up^ Wikipedia's policy on bots
257. Jump up^ Andrew Lih (2009). The Wikipedia
Revolution, chapter Then came the Bots, pp. 99-106.
258. Jump up^ "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial
Team/Assessment". Retrieved October 28, 2007.
259. Jump up^ "Comparing featured article groups and
revision patterns correlations in Wikipedia".First Monday.
Retrieved July 13, 2010.
260. Jump up^ Fernanda B. Vigas, Martin Wattenberg, and
Matthew M. McKeon (July 22, 2007). "The Hidden Order
of Wikipedia" (PDF). Visual Communication Lab, IBM
Research. Retrieved October 30, 2007.
261. Jump up^ Poderi, Giacomo, Wikipedia and the
Featured Articles: How a Technological System Can
Produce Best Quality Articles, Master thesis, University of
Maastricht, October 2008.
262. Jump up^ David Lindsey. "Evaluating quality control of
Wikipedia's featured articles". First Monday.
263. ^ Jump up to:a b Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial
Team/Statistics Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
264. Jump up^ "Monthly request statistics", Wikimedia.
Retrieved October 31, 2008.
265. Jump up^ Domas Mituzas. "Wikipedia: Site internals,
configuration, code examples and management
issues" (PDF). MySQL Users Conference 2007.
Retrieved June 27, 2008.
266. Jump up^ Guido Urdaneta, Guillaume Pierre and
Maarten van Steen. "Wikipedia Workload Analysis for
Decentralized Hosting". Elsevier Computer Networks 53
(11), pp. 18301845, June 2009.
267. Jump up^ Weiss, Todd R. (October 9,
2008). "Wikipedia simplifies IT infrastructure by moving to
one Linux vendor". Computerworld. Retrieved November
1, 2008.
268. Jump up^ Paul, Ryan (October 9, 2008). "Wikipedia
adopts Ubuntu for its server infrastructure". Ars Technica.
Retrieved November 1, 2008.
269. Jump up^ "Server roles at wikitech.wikimedia.org".
Retrieved December 8, 2009.[dead link]

270. Jump up^ Guillaume Palmier. "Wikimedia sites to move

to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia". WMF.
271. Jump up^ Jason Verge. "It's Official: Ashburn is
Wikipedia's New Home". Data Center Knowledge.
272. Jump up^ Simonite, T. (2013). MIT Technology Review.
273. Jump up^ Frederic M. Scherer and David Ross, [1970]
1990. Industrial Market Structure and Economic
Performance, 3rd ed. Houghton-Mifflin. Description and
1st ed. reviewextract.
Google Scholar search of Frederic M. Scherer.
274. Jump up^ Simonite, T. (2013) MIT Technology Review.
275. ^ Jump up to:a b Patents, Citations, and Innovations, by
Adam B. Jaffe, Manuel Trajtenberg, pp 89-153.
276. ^ Jump up to:a b c Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive
Advantage, Free Press, New York, 1985.
277. ^ Jump up to:a b Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive
Strategy, Free Press, New York, 1980.
278. Jump up^ Markides, Constantinos (2005). Fast Second,
Wiley&Sons Inc., San Francisco, 2005
279. Jump up^ Cohen, Noam (March 5, 2007). "A
Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side".The New
York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2008.
280. Jump up^ Wikipedia:Copyrights
281. Jump up^ Walter Vermeir (2007). "Resolution:License
update". Wikizine. Retrieved December 4,2007.
282. Jump up^ Wikimedia
283. Jump up^ "Licensing update/Questions and
Answers". Wikimedia Meta. Wikimedia Foundation.
Retrieved February 15, 2009.
284. Jump up^ "Licensing_update/Timeline". Wikimedia
Meta. Wikimedia Foundation. RetrievedApril 5, 2009.
285. Jump up^ "Wikimedia community approves license
migration". Wikimedia Foundation. RetrievedMay
21, 2009.
286. Jump up^ Cohen, Noam (July 19, 2009). "Wikipedia
May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". New
York Times. Retrieved March 9, 2013.
287. Jump up^ "Wikipedia cleared in French defamation
case". Reuters. November 2, 2007. RetrievedNovember
2, 2007.
288. Jump up^ Anderson, Nate (May 2, 2008). "Dumb idea:
suing Wikipedia for calling you "dumb"". Ars Technica.
Retrieved May 4, 2008.
289. Jump up^ "With Bing Reference". Retrieved September
9, 2014.
290. Jump up^ "Wikipedia on DVD". Linterweb. Retrieved
June 1, 2007. "Linterweb is authorized to make a
commercial use of the Wikipedia trademark restricted to
the selling of the Encyclopedia CDs and DVDs".
291. Jump up^ "Wikipedia 0.5 Available on a CDROM". Wikipedia on DVD. Linterweb. "The DVD or CDROM version 0.5 was commercially available for
purchase." Retrieved June 1, 2007.

292. Jump up^ "Polish Wikipedia on DVD".

Retrieved December 26, 2008.
293. Jump up^ [:de:Wikipedia:Wikipedia-Distribution
"Wikipedia:DVD"]. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
294. Jump up^ "CDPedia (Python Argentina)".
Retrieved July 7, 2011.
295. Jump up^ Wikipedia CD Selection. Retrieved
September 8, 2009.
296. Jump up^ "Wikipedia turned into book". The Daily
Telegraph (London: Telegraph Media Group). June 16,
2009. Archived from the original on September 8, 2009.
RetrievedSeptember 8, 2009.
297. Jump up^ "Wikipedia Selection for Schools".
Retrieved 2012-07-14.
298. Jump up^ Thiel, Thomas (September 27,
2010). "Wikipedia und Amazon: Der Marketplace soll es
richten". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (in
German). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Retrieved December 6, 2010.
299. Jump up^ Wikipedia policies on data download
300. Jump up^ Data dumps: Downloading
Images, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
301. Jump up^ "Wikipedia Reference Desk".
Retrieved September 9, 2014.
302. Jump up^ Brad Stone, "How Google's Android chief,
Sundar Pichai, became the most powerful man in mobile,"
June 30-July 6, 2014, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, pp. 4751.
303. Jump up^ "Wikipedia - Android Apps on Google Play".
Play.google.com. Retrieved 2014-08-21.
304. Jump up^ "Wikipedia Mobile on the App Store on
iTunes". Itunes.apple.com. 2014-08-04. Retrieved 201408-21.
305. Jump up^ "Wikimedia Mobile is Officially
Launched". Wikimedia Technical Blog. June 30, 2009.
Retrieved July 22, 2009.
306. Jump up^ "Local Points Of Interest In Wikipedia". May
15, 2011. Retrieved May 15, 2011.
307. Jump up^ "iPhone Gems: Wikipedia Apps". November
30, 2008. Retrieved July 22, 2008.
308. Jump up^ Ellis, Justin (2013-01-17). "Wikipedia plans to
expand mobile access around the globe with new funding
" Nieman Journalism Lab". niemanlab.org.
Retrieved 2013-04-22.
309. Jump up^ [Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth
"Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth"].
Retrieved December 22, 2007.
310. Jump up^ "694 Million People Currently Use the
Internet Worldwide According To comScore Networks".
comScore. May 4, 2006. Archived from the original on July
30, 2008. Retrieved December 16, 2007. Wikipedia has
emerged as a site that continues to increase in popularity,
both globally and in the US

311. Jump up^ "Google Traffic To Wikipedia up 166% Year

over Year". Hitwise. February 16, 2007.
Retrieved December 22, 2007.
312. Jump up^ "Wikipedia and Academic Research".
Hitwise. October 17, 2006. Retrieved February 6,2008.
313. Jump up^ Wikipedia's Evolving Impact, by Stuart West,
slideshow presentation at TED2010.
314. Jump up^ Rainie, Lee; Bill Tancer (December 15,
2007). "Wikipedia users" (PDF). Pew Internet & American
Life Project. Pew Research Center. Archived from the
original on March 6, 2008. Retrieved December
15, 2007. 36% of online American adults consult
Wikipedia. It is particularly popular with the well-educated
and current college-age students.
315. Jump up^ SAI (2011-10-07). "The World's Most
Valuable Startups". Business Insider. Retrieved2014-0614.
316. Jump up^ "Research:Wikipedia Readership Survey
2011/Results Meta". Wikimedia. 2012-02-06.
Retrieved 2014-04-16.
317. Jump up^ [Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_the_media
"Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media"]. Wikipedia.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
318. Jump up^ "Bourgeois et al. v. Peters et al." (PDF).
Retrieved February 6, 2007.
319. Jump up^ "Wikipedian Justice" (PDF). Retrieved June
9, 2009.
320. Jump up^ "LEGISinfo House Government Bill C-38
(381)". Retrieved September 9, 2014.
321. Jump up^ Arias, Martha L. (January 29,
2007). "Wikipedia: The Free Online Encyclopedia and its
Use as Court Source". Internet Business Law Services.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.(The name "World
Intellectual Property Office" should however read "World
Intellectual Property Organization" in this source.)
322. Jump up^ Cohen, Noam (January 29, 2007). "Courts
Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively". The New York Times.
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
323. Jump up^ Aftergood, Steven (March 21, 2007). "The
Wikipedia Factor in US Intelligence". Federation of
American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy.
Retrieved April 14,2007.
324. Jump up^ Butler, Declan (December 16, 2008).
"Publish in Wikipedia or perish". Nature
News.doi:10.1038/news.2008.1312.
325. Jump up^ Shaw, Donna (FebruaryMarch
2008). "Wikipedia in the Newsroom". American Journalism
Review. Retrieved February 11, 2008.
326. Jump up^ Lexington (September 24,
2011). "Classlessness in America: The uses and abuses
of an enduring myth". The Economist.
Retrieved September 27, 2011. Socialist Labour Party of
America [] though it can trace its history as far back as

1876, when it was known as the Workingmen's Party, no

less an authority than Wikipedia pronounces it "moribund".
327. Jump up^ "Shizuoka newspaper plagiarized Wikipedia
article". Japan News Review. July 5, 2007.
328. Jump up^ "Express-News staffer resigns after
plagiarism in column is discovered" at the Wayback
Machine (archived October 15, 2007), San Antonio
Express-News, January 9, 2007.
329. Jump up^ Frank Bridgewater. "Inquiry prompts
reporter's dismissal". Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Retrieved September 9, 2014.
330. Jump up^ Grossman, Lev (December 13,
2006). "Time's Person of the Year: You". Time (Time).
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
331. Jump up^ "Radio 4 documentary, BBC".[dead link]
332. Jump up^ "Comunicato stampa. On. Franco Grillini.
Wikipedia. Interrogazione a Rutelli. Con "diritto di
panorama" promuovere arte e architettura contemporanea
italiana. Rivedere con urgenza legge copyright" [Press
release. Honorable Franco Grillini. Wikipedia. Interview
with Rutelli about the "right to view" promoting
contemporary art and architecture of Italy. Review with
urgency copyright law] (in Italian). October 12, 2007.
RetrievedDecember 26, 2008.[dead link]
333. Jump up^ Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17,
2007). "On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every
Facet". The Washington Post. Retrieved December
26, 2008.
334. Jump up^ Jennifer Ablan (October 22,
2007). "Wikipedia page the latest status symbol". Reuters.
Retrieved October 24, 2007.
335. Jump up^ Witzleb, Normann (2009). "Engaging with the
World: Students of Comparative Law Write for
Wikipedia" 19 (1 and 2). Legal Education Review. pp. 83
98.
336. Jump up^ "Trophy box", Meta-Wiki (March 28, 2005).
337. Jump up^ "Webby Awards 2004". The International
Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences. 2004. Archived
from the original on July 22, 2011.
338. Jump up^ Zumpano, Anthony (January 29,
2007). "Similar Search Results: Google Wins". Interbrand.
Retrieved January 28, 2007.
339. Jump up^ "Die Quadriga Award 2008".
Retrieved December 26, 2008.
340. Jump up^ "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of
American Independence". The Onion. July 26, 2006.
Retrieved October 15, 2006.
341. Jump up^ "'L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874
Times Today". The Onion. November 24, 2010.
342. Jump up^ Bakken, Janae. "My Number One
Doctor"; Scrubs; ABC; December 6, 2007.
343. Jump up^ "Professor Wikipedia CollegeHumor
Video". CollegeHumor. November 17, 2009.
Retrieved April 19, 2011.

344. Jump up^ "Dilbert comic strip for 05/08/2009 from the
official Dilbert comic strips archive". Universal Uclick. May
8, 2009. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
345. Jump up^ "Interview With Nick Doody and Matt
Kirshen". British Comedy Guide. RetrievedJuly 31, 2009.
346. Jump up^ "Your Wikipedia Entries". Tosh.0. February 3,
2010. Retrieved September 9, 2014.
347. Jump up^ "Wikipedia Updates". Tosh.0. February 3,
2010. Retrieved September 9, 2014.
348. Jump up^ Emily Flake (August 23,
2013). "Manning/Wikipedia cartoon". Retrieved August
26,2013.
349. Jump up^ "Announcement of Wiktionary's creation".
meta.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2012-07-14.
350. Jump up^ "Our projects", Wikimedia Foundation.
Retrieved January 24, 2007.
351. Jump up^ After 244 Years, Encyclopdia Britannica
Stops the Presses, Nytimes.com
352. Jump up^ "Encyclopedia Britannica Dies At The Hands
Of Wikipedia, Gizmocrazed.com (withstatista infographic
from NYTimes.com)". Gizmocrazed.com. 2012-03-20.
Retrieved2014-06-14.
353. Jump up^ Christopher Caldwell (14 June 2013). "A
chapter in the Enlightenment closes". ft.com. Retrieved 15
June 2013. Bertelsmann did not resort to euphemism this
week when it announced the end of the Brockhaus
encyclopedia brand. Brockhaus had been publishing
reference books for two centuries when the media group
bought it in 2008. [] The internet has finished off
Brockhaus altogether. [] What Germans like is
Wikipedia.
354. Jump up^ "The amorality of Web 2.0". Rough Type.
October 3, 2005. Retrieved July 15, 2006.
355. Jump up^ "Technical solutions: Wisdom of the
crowds". Nature. Retrieved October 10, 2006.
356. Jump up^ Alison Flood. "Alison Flood: Should
traditional biography be buried alongside Shakespeare's
breakfast?". The Guardian. Retrieved 2014-06-14.
357. Jump up^ Rada Mihalcea and Andras Csomai
(2007). Wikify! Linking Documents to Encyclopedic
Knowledge. Proc. CIKM.
358. Jump up^ David Milne and Ian H. Witten (2008).
Learning to link with Wikipedia. Proc. CIKM.
359. Jump up^ Sisay Fissaha Adafre and Maarten de
Rijke (2005). Discovering missing links in Wikipedia. Proc.
LinkKDD.
360. Jump up^ Heart Internet. "Website discussing the
emulator of the Domesday Project User Interface".
Retrieved September 9, 2014.
361. Jump up^ Orlowski, Andrew (September 18,
2006). "Wikipedia founder forks Wikipedia, More experts,
less fiddling?". The Register. Retrieved June
27, 2007. Larry Sanger describes the Citizendium project

as a "progressive or gradual fork," with the major

difference that experts have the final say over edits.
362. Jump up^ Lyman, Jay (September 20,
2006). "Wikipedia Co-Founder Planning New ExpertAuthored Site". LinuxInsider. Retrieved June 27, 2007.

Notes
1. Jump up^ Registration is required for certain tasks such
as editing protected pages, creating pages in the English
Wikipedia, and uploading files.
2. Jump up^ Revisions with libelous content, criminal
threats, or copyright infringements may be removed
completely.
3. Jump up^ See "Libel" by David McHam for the legal
distinction

Further reading
Academic studies
Main article: Academic studies about Wikipedia

Leitch, Thomas. Wikipedia U: Knowledge, authority, and a

liberal education in the digital age (2014)
Jensen, Richard. "Military History on the Electronic Frontier:
Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812", The Journal of Military
History 76#4 (October 2012): 523556; online version.
Yasseri, Taha; Robert Sumi; Jnos Kertsz (2012). Szolnoki,
Attila, ed. "Circadian Patterns of Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A
Demographic Analysis". PLoS ONE 7 (1):
e30091.arXiv:1109.1746. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...7E0091Y. doi
:10.1371/journal.pone.0030091. PMC 3260192. PMID 222722
79.
Goldman, Eric (2010). "Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its
Consequences". Journal of Telecommunications and High
Technology Law 8. (A blog post by the author.)
Nielsen, Finn (August 2007). "Scientific Citations in
Wikipedia". First Monday 12 (8). doi:10.5210/fm.v12i8.1997.
Retrieved February 22, 2008.
Pfeil, Ulrike; Panayiotis Zaphiris; Chee Siang Ang
(2006). "Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of
Wikipedia". Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 12 (1): 88.doi:10.1111/j.10836101.2006.00316.x. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Priedhorsky, Reid, Jilin Chen, Shyong (Tony) K. Lam,
Katherine Panciera, Loren Terveen, and John Riedl. "Creating,
Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia". Proc. GROUP
2007;doi:10.1145/1316624.1316663
Reagle, Joseph (2007). "WikiSym '07: Proceedings of the
2007 International Symposium on Wikis". Montreal, Canada:
ACM. Retrieved December 26, 2008. |chapter= ignored
(help)
Rosenzweig, Roy. Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia
and the Future of the Past. (Originally published in The Journal
of American History 93.1 (June 2006): 11746.)

Wilkinson, Dennis M.; Bernardo A. Huberman (April

2007). "Assessing the Value of Cooperation in
Wikipedia". First Monday 12 (4). doi:10.5210/fm.v12i4.1763.
Retrieved February 22, 2008.
Aaron Halfaker, R. Stuart Geiger, Jonathan T. Morgan, John
Riedl (2012). "The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration
Community". American Behavioral Scientist 57 (5):
664.doi:10.1177/0002764212469365. Retrieved August
30, 2012.

Books
Main article: List of books about Wikipedia

Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (September

2008). How Wikipedia Works: And How You Can Be a Part of
It. San Francisco: No Starch Press. ISBN 978-1-59327-176-3.
Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia The Missing Manual.
O'Reilly Media. ISBN 0-596-51516-2. (See book review by
Baker, as listed hereafter.)
Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia Reader's Guide.
Sebastopol: Pogue Press. ISBN 0-596-52174-X.
Dalby, Andrew (2009). The World and Wikipedia: How We are
Editing Reality. Siduri. ISBN 978-0-9562052-0-9.
Keen, Andrew (2007). The Cult of the Amateur.
Doubleday/Currency. ISBN 978-0-385-52080-5. (Substantial
criticisms of Wikipedia and other web 2.0 projects.)
Listen to:
Keen, Andrew (June 16, 2007). "Does the Internet
Undermine Culture?". National Public Radio,
USA. The NPR interview with A. Keen, Weekend
Edition Saturday, June 16, 2007.
Lih, Andrew (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch
of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia. New
York: Hyperion. ISBN 978-1-4013-0371-6.
O'Sullivan, Dan (September 24, 2009). Wikipedia: a new
community of practice?. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-07546-7433-7.
Sheizaf Rafaeli & Yaron Ariel (2008). "Online motivational
factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in
Wikipedia." In Barak, A. Psychological aspects of cyberspace:
Theory, research, applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 243267.
Reagle, Joseph Michael Jr. (2010). Good Faith Collaboration:
The Culture of Wikipedia. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA:
the MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01447-2.

Book reviews and other articles

Baker, Nicholson. "The Charms of Wikipedia". The New York

Review of Books, March 20, 2008. Retrieved December 17,
2008. (Book rev. of The Missing Manual, by John Broughton,
as listed previously.)

Crovitz, L. Gordon. "Wikipedia's Old-Fashioned Revolution:

The online encyclopedia is fast becoming the best." (Originally
published in Wall Street Journal online April 6, 2009.)

Learning resources

Wikiversity list of learning resources. (Includes related

courses, Web-based seminars, slides, lecture notes, text
books, quizzes, glossaries, etc.)
The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1: A Wiki is a Kind of
Bus, Ideas, with Paul Kennedy, CBC Radio One, originally
broadcast January 15, 2014. Webpage includes a link to the
archived audio program (also found here). The radio
documentary discusses Wikipedia's history, development and
its place within the broader scope of the trend to democratized
knowledge. It also includes interviews with several key
Wikipedia staff and contributors, including Kat Walsh and Sue
Gardner (audio, 53:58, Flash required).

Other media coverage

See also: List of films about Wikipedia

See Who's Editing Wikipedia Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign ,

WIRED, August 14, 2007.
Balke, Jeff (March 2008). "For Music Fans: Wikipedia;
MySpace". Houston Chronicle (blog). Retrieved December
17, 2008.
Dee, Jonathan (July 1, 2007). "All the News That's Fit to Print
Out". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved February
22, 2008.
Giles, Jim (September 20, 2007). "Wikipedia 2.0 Now with
Added Trust". New Scientist. Retrieved January 14, 2008.
Miliard, Mike (December 2, 2007). "Wikipedia Rules". The
Phoenix. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
Poe, Marshall (September 1, 2006). "The Hive". The
Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved March 22, 2008.
Rosenwald, Michael S. (October 23, 2009). "Gatekeeper of
D.C.'s entry: Road to city's Wikipedia page goes through a
DuPont Circle bedroom". The Washington Post.
Retrieved October 22,2009.
Runciman, David (May 28, 2009). "Like Boiling a
Frog". London Review of Books. Retrieved June 3, 2009.
Taylor, Chris (May 29, 2005). "It's a Wiki, Wiki World". Time.
Retrieved February 22, 2008.
"Technological Quarterly: Brain Scan: The Free-knowledge
Fundamentalist". The Economist Web and Print. June 5, 2008.
Retrieved June 5, 2008. Jimmy Wales changed the world with
Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia that anyone
can edit. What will he do next?
Is Wikipedia Cracking Up? The Independent, February 3,
2009.
Wikipedia probe into paid-for 'sockpuppet' entries , BBC News,
October 21, 2013.

The Decline of Wikipedia , MIT Technology Review, October

22, 2013.

External links
Find more about
Wikipedia
at Wikipedia's sister projects

Definitions from Wiktionary

Media from Commons
News stories from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Source texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Travel guide from Wikivoyage
Learning resources from
Wikiversity
Database entry Q52 on Wikidata
Discussion from Meta-Wiki
Documentation on
Wikipedia from MediaWiki

Official website (Mobile) multilingual portal (contains links

to all language editions)
Wikipedia on Twitter
Wikipedia on Facebook
Wikipedia at DMOZ
Wikitrends: Wikipedia articles most visited today
Wikipedia collected news and commentary at The Guardian
Wikipedia topic page at The New York Times
Video of TED talk by Jimmy Wales on the birth of Wikipedia
Audio of interview with Jimmy Wales about Wikipedia in
general on the EconTalk podcast

Wikipedia and why it matters Larry Sanger's 2002 talk

at Stanford University; video archive and transcript of the
talk
"Intelligence in Wikipedia" Google TechTalk on YouTube,
describing an intelligence project utilizing Wikipedia, and
how Wikipedia articles could be auto-generated from web
content
Community Performance Optimization: Making Your People
Run as Smoothly as Your Site, talk presented
at OOPSLA 2009 by theWikimedia Foundation's
senior software architect and former chief technology
officer Brion Vibber, comparing the challenges of a large
community of editors with those of a large community of
software developers
WikiPapers compilation of conference papers, journal
articles, theses, books, datasets and tools about Wikipedia
and wikis
[show]

Wikipedia

[show]

Wikimedia Foundation

[show]

List of Wikipedias by article count

[show]

Wikis

Categories:

Wikipedia

Collaborative projects

Creative Commons-licensed websites

Free encyclopedias

General encyclopedias

Internet properties established in 2001

Multilingual websites

Internet encyclopedias

Open content projects

Social information processing

Virtual communities

Wikimedia projects

Wikis

2001 establishments in the United States

American websites

Navigation menu
Create account
Log in

Read
View source
View history
Go

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop
Interaction
Help

About Wikipedia
Community portal

Upload file

Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes

Article
Talk

Special pages
Permanent link
Page information

Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF

Printable version
Languages
Ach

Afrikaans
Akan

Bahasa Banjar
Bn-lm-g

Bikol Central
Bislama

Alemannisch

nglisc

Aragons

Armneashti
Arpetan

Asturianu
Avae'

Aymar aru
Azrbaycanca
Bamanankan

Basa Banyumasan

( )

Boarisch
Bosanski
Brezhoneg

Catal

Cebuano
etina
Chamoru

Chavacano de Zamboanga

/Hak-k-ng

Corsu
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deitsch
Deutsch
Dolnoserbski
Eesti

Emilin e rumagnl

Espaol
Esperanto
Estremeu
Euskara

Froyskt
Franais
Frysk
Fulfulde
Furlan
Gaeilge
Gaelg
Gagauz
Gidhlig
Galego

Gky

Hausa
Hawai`i

Hornjoserbsce
Hrvatski

Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua

Ido
Igbo
Ilokano

Interlingue

/inuktitut

Kapampangan
-

Kaszbsczi

Malti

Iupiak

IsiZulu
slenska
Italiano

Basa Jawa
Kalaallisut

Kernowek
Kiswahili
Kreyl ayisyen
Kurd

Ladino

Latgau
Latina
Latvieu
Ltzebuergesch
Lietuvi
Ligure
Limburgs
Lingla
Lojban
Luganda
Lumbaart
Magyar

Malagasy

Mori

Bahasa Melayu
Baso Minangkabau
M ng-d ng-ng
Mirands

Nhuatl
Dorerin Naoero
Nederlands
Nedersaksies

Oshiwambo
Ozbekcha

Plzisch
Pangasinan

Napulitano

Nordfriisk
Norfuk / Pitkern
Norsk bokml
Norsk nynorsk
Nouormand
Novial
Occitan

Papiamentu


Picard
Piemontis
Tok Pisin
Plattdtsch
Polski

Portugus
Qafr af
Qaraqalpaqsha
Qrmtatarca
Reo tahiti

Ripoarisch

Sng
Sardu

Taqbaylit
Tarandne

Romn
Romani
Rumantsch
Runa Simi

Smegiella
Gagana Samoa

Scots
Seeltersk
Sesotho sa Leboa
Setswana
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English

SiSwati
Slovenina
Slovenina
/
lnski
Soomaaliga

Sranantongo
/ srpski
Srpskohrvatski /
Basa Sunda
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog

/tatara

Tetun

Tsetshesthese

Tshivenda
Trke
Trkmene
Twi

/ Uyghurche
Vahcuengh
Vneto
Vepsn kel
Ting Vit
Volapk
Vro
Walon

West-Vlams
Winaray
Wolof

Xitsonga

Yorb

Zazaki
Zeuws
emaitka

Edit links

This page was last modified on 15 December 2014 at 20:31.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Mobile view