Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia[c] is a free content online encyclopedia written and maintained by
Wikipedia
a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration
and the wiki software MediaWiki. Wikipedia is the largest and most-read
reference work in history,[3][4] and is consistently ranked among the ten most
visited websites; as of August 2024, it was ranked fourth by Semrush,[5] and
seventh by Similarweb.[6] Founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on
January 15, 2001, Wikipedia has been hosted since 2003 by the Wikimedia
Foundation, an American nonprofit organization funded mainly by donations
from readers.[7]
Initially only available in English, editions of Wikipedia in more than 300 other
The logo of Wikipedia, a globe featuring glyphs
languages have been developed. The English Wikipedia, with its almost
from various writing systems
6.9 million articles, is the largest of the editions, which together comprise more
than 63 million articles and attract more than 1.5 billion unique device visits Screenshot
and 13 million edits per month (about 5 edits per second on average) as of
April 2024.[W 1] In July 2024, over 25% of Wikipedia's traffic was from the
United States, followed by Japan at 6.2%, the United Kingdom at 5.8%, Russia
at 5.2%, Germany at 5%, and the remaining 51% split among other countries,
according to Similarweb.[8]
Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search
engine indexing. Language editions were created beginning in March 2001, with a total of
161 in use by the end of 2004.[W 8][W 9] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's Wikipedia founders Jimmy Wales
(left) and Larry Sanger (right)
servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into
Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia passed the mark of 2 million articles on September 9,
2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing the Yongle
Encyclopedia made in China during the Ming dynasty in 1408, which had held the record
for almost 600 years.[26]
Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control, users of the Spanish Wikipedia
forked from Wikipedia to create Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002.[W 10] Wales then
announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and changed Wikipedia's
domain from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org.[27][W 11]
After an early period of exponential growth,[28] the growth rate of the English Wikipedia in
terms of the numbers of new articles and of editors, appears to have peaked around early
2007.[29] The edition reached 3 million articles in August 2009. Around 1,800 articles were
added daily to the encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800.[W 12] A
team at the Palo Alto Research Center attributed this slowing of growth to "increased
coordination and overhead costs, exclusion of newcomers, and resistance to new edits".[28]
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.[30][31][32]
The Wikipedia home page on
In November 2009, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, Spain found December 20, 2001[d]
that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in
comparison, it lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.[33][34] The Wall
Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this
trend.[35] Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the study's methodology.[36] Two years
later, in 2011, he acknowledged a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to
35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, he also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable".[37] A 2013 MIT
Technology Review article, "The Decline of Wikipedia", questioned this claim, reporting that since 2007 Wikipedia had lost a
third of its volunteer editors, and suggesting that those remaining had focused increasingly on minutiae.[38] In July 2012, The
Atlantic reported that the number of administrators was also in decline.[39] In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York
magazine, Katherine Ward stated, "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis."[40]
The number of active English Wikipedia editors has since remained steady after a long period of decline.[41][42]
Milestones
In January 2007, Wikipedia first became one of the ten most popular websites in the United States, according to Comscore
Networks.[43] With 42.9 million unique visitors, it was ranked #9, surpassing The New York Times (#10) and Apple (#11).[43]
This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when Wikipedia ranked 33rd, with around 18.3 million unique
visitors.[44] In 2014, it received 8 billion page views every month.[W 13] On February 9, 2014, The New York Times reported that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#:~:text=Wikipedia was launched on January,in its first few months. 2/51
10/1/24, 5:41 PM Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Wikipedia had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month,
"according to the ratings firm comScore".[45] As of March 2023, it ranked 6th in popularity,
according to Similarweb.[46] Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows
a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that have accumulated improvements piecemeal
through "stigmergic accumulation".[47][48]
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests
against two proposed laws in the United States Congress—the Stop Online Piracy Act Cartogram showing number of
articles in each language as of
(SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)—by blacking out its pages for 24 hours.[49] More
March 2024. Languages with fewer
than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced its than 1,000,000 articles are
content.[50][W 14] represented by one circle.
Languages are grouped by region of
In January 2013, 274301 Wikipedia, an asteroid, was named after Wikipedia;[51] in October continent and each region of
2014, Wikipedia was honored with the Wikipedia Monument;[52] and, in July 2015, 106 of continent is presented by a separate
the 7,473 700-page volumes of Wikipedia became available as Print Wikipedia.[53] In April color.
2019, an Israeli lunar lander, Beresheet, crash landed on the surface of the Moon carrying a
copy of nearly all of the English Wikipedia engraved on thin nickel plates; experts say the
plates likely survived the crash.[54][55] In June 2019, scientists reported that all 16 GB of article text from the English Wikipedia
had been encoded into synthetic DNA.[56]
On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for The Economic Times indicated that not only had Wikipedia's growth stalled,
it "had lost nearly ten percent of its page views last year. There was 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 twelve
percent, those of German version slid by 17 percent and the Japanese version lost 9 percent."[57] Varma added, "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."[57] When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate
professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society said 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]."[57] By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was ranked the fifth most popular
website globally.[58]
As of January 2023, 55,791 English Wikipedia articles have been cited 92,300 times in scholarly journals,[59] from which cloud
computing was the most cited page.[60]
On January 18, 2023, Wikipedia debuted a new website redesign, called "Vector 2022".[61][62] It featured a redesigned menu
bar, moving the table of contents to the left as a sidebar, and numerous changes in the locations of buttons like the language
selection tool.[62][W 15] The update initially received backlash, most notably when editors of the Swahili Wikipedia unanimously
voted to revert the changes.[61][63]
Openness
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principle regarding
the security of its content, meaning that it waits until a problem arises to fix it.[64]
Restrictions
Due to Wikipedia's increasing popularity, some editions, including the English version, have
introduced editing restrictions for certain cases. For instance, on the English Wikipedia and
some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article.[W 16] On the Differences between versions of an
English Wikipedia, among others, particularly controversial, sensitive, or vandalism-prone article are highlighted
pages have been protected to varying degrees.[W 17][65] A frequently vandalized article can
be "semi-protected" or "extended confirmed protected", meaning that only "autoconfirmed"
or "extended confirmed" editors can modify it.[W 17] A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators
can make changes.[W 18] A 2021 article in the Columbia Journalism Review identified Wikipedia's page-protection policies as
"perhaps the most important" means at its disposal to "regulate its market of ideas".[66]
Review of changes
Although changes are not systematically reviewed, Wikipedia's software provides tools
allowing anyone to review changes made by others. Each article's History page links to each
revision.[e][70] On most articles, anyone can view the latest changes and undo others'
revisions by clicking a link on the article's History page. Registered users may maintain a
"watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of changes.[W 20] "New pages
patrol" is a process where newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.[W 21]
Wikipedia's editing interface
In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of
participating in a wiki created a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features
such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favored "creative construction" over "creative destruction".[71]
Vandalism
Any change that deliberately compromises Wikipedia's integrity is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types
of vandalism include additions of obscenities and crude humor; it can also include advertising and other types of spam.[72]
Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing content or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism,
such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce
irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the article's underlying code,
or use images disruptively.[W 22]
Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to
detect and fix it is a few minutes.[73][74] However, some vandalism takes much longer to
detect and repair.[75]
Taha Yasseri of the University of Oxford examined editing conflicts and their resolution in a 2013 study.[91][92] Yasseri
contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of counterproductive work behavior
at Wikipedia. He relied instead on "mutually reverting edit pairs", where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then,
in sequence, returns to revert the first editor. The results were tabulated for several language versions of Wikipedia. The English
Wikipedia's three largest conflict rates belonged to the articles George W. Bush, anarchism, and Muhammad.[92] By
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#:~:text=Wikipedia was launched on January,in its first few months. 4/51
10/1/24, 5:41 PM Wikipedia - Wikipedia
comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the study were for the articles covering
Croatia, Scientology, and 9/11 conspiracy theories.[92] In 2020, researchers identified other measures of editor behaviors,
beyond mutual reverts, to identify editing conflicts across Wikipedia.[93]
Editors also debate the deletion of articles on Wikipedia, with roughly 500,000 such debates since Wikipedia's inception. Once
an article is nominated for deletion, the dispute is typically determined by initial votes (to keep or delete) and by reference to
topic-specific notability policies.[94]
The fundamental principles of the Wikipedia community are embodied in the "Five pillars",
while the detailed editorial principles are expressed in numerous policies and guidelines
intended to appropriately shape content.[W 29] The five pillars are:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Jimmy Wales (https://www.te
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
d.com/talks/jimmy_wales_the_bir
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
th_of_wikipedia?language=en),
Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility
The Birth of Wikipedia, 2006,
Wikipedia has no firm rules
TED talks, 20 minutes
The rules developed by the community are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors write
Katherine Maher (https://www.
and revise the website's policies and guidelines in accordance with community
youtube.com/watch?v=r2gsj0EE
consensus.[95] Editors can enforce the rules by deleting or modifying non-compliant
E3I), What Wikipedia Teaches Us
material.[W 30] Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on a
About Balancing Truth and
translation of the rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some
Beliefs, 2022, TED talks, 15
extent.[W 19] minutes
As Wikipedia policies changed over time, and became more complex, their number has grown. In 2008, there were 44 policy
pages and 248 guideline pages; by 2013, scholars counted 383 policy pages and 449 guideline pages.[97]
Governance
Administrators
Editors in good standing in the community can request extra user rights, granting them the technical ability to perform certain
special actions. In particular, editors can choose to run for "adminship",[100] which includes the ability to delete pages or
prevent them from being changed in cases of severe vandalism or editorial disputes.[W 38] 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 disruptive editors from
making unproductive edits.[W 38]
By 2012, fewer editors were becoming administrators compared to Wikipedia's earlier years, in part because the process of
vetting potential administrators had become more rigorous.[101] In 2022, there was a particularly contentious request for
adminship over the candidate's anti-Trump views; ultimately, they were granted adminship.[102]
Wikipedia has delegated some administrative functions to bots, such as when granting privileges to human editors. Such
algorithmic governance has an ease of implementation and scaling, though the automated rejection of edits may have
contributed to a downturn in active Wikipedia editors.[97]
Dispute resolution
Over time, Wikipedia has developed a semiformal dispute resolution process. To determine community consensus, editors can
raise issues at appropriate community forums, seek outside input through third opinion requests, or initiate a more general
community discussion known as a "request for comment".[W 23]
Wikipedia encourages local resolutions of conflicts, which Jemielniak argues is quite unique in organization studies, though
there has been some recent interest in consensus building in the field.[103] Joseph Reagle and Sue Gardner argue that the
approaches to consensus building are similar to those used by Quakers.[103]: 62 A difference from Quaker meetings is the
absence of a facilitator in the presence of disagreement, a role played by the clerk in Quaker meetings.[103]: 83
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.[104] Statistical analyses suggest that the English Wikipedia committee
ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted,[105] 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.[104] 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).[f] Commonly used solutions include cautions and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors
from articles (43%), subject matters (23%), or Wikipedia (16%).[104] Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to
instances of impersonation and anti-social behavior.[W 39] When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather edit
warring and other violations of editing policies, solutions tend to be limited to warnings.[104]
Community
Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated and dedicated "talk" page. These form the primary communication
channel for editors to discuss, coordinate and debate.[106]
Wikipedia's community has been described as cultlike,[107] although not always with entirely negative connotations.[108] Its
preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of credentials, has been referred to as "anti-
elitism".[W 40]
Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.[109] As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes
Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked there.[110] 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
The English Wikipedia has 6,889,453 articles, 48,044,597 registered editors, and 117,842 8:10
active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made one or more edits in the past
30 days.[W 41] Video of Wikimania 2005 – an
annual conference for users of
Wikipedia and other projects
Editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk page
operated by the Wikimedia
comments, may implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that
Foundation, was held in Frankfurt
Wikipedia insiders may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a Wikipedia am Main, Germany, August 4–8.
insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to 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".[114] Editors who do not log in
are in some sense "second-class citizens" on Wikipedia,[114] 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",[115] but the contribution
histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their IP addresses cannot be
attributed to a particular editor with certainty.[115]
A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others,[117] although a later
commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness and that the differences with the control
group and the samples were small.[118] According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia
community to new content".[119]
Diversity
Several studies have shown that most Wikipedia contributors are male. Notably, the results of a Wikimedia Foundation survey
in 2008 showed that only 13 percent of Wikipedia editors were female.[120] Because of this, universities throughout the United
States tried to encourage women to become Wikipedia contributors.[121] Similarly, many of these universities, including Yale
and Brown, gave college credit to students who create or edit an article relating to women in science or technology.[121] Andrew
Lih, a professor and scientist, said that the reason he thought the number of male contributors outnumbered the number of
females so greatly was because identifying as a woman may expose oneself to "ugly, intimidating behavior".[122] Data has shown
that Africans are underrepresented among Wikipedia editors.[123]
Language editions
There are currently 334 language editions of Wikipedia (also called language versions, or simply Wikipedias). As of October
2024, the six largest, in order of article count, are the English, Cebuano, German, French, Swedish, and Dutch Wikipedias.[W 43]
The second and fifth-largest Wikipedias owe their position to the article-creating bot Lsjbot, which as of 2013 had created about
half the articles on the Swedish Wikipedia, and most of the articles in the Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias. The latter are both
languages of the Philippines.
Distribution of the
63,736,703 articles in
different language
editions (as of October 1,
2024)[W 42]
English (10.8%)
Cebuano (9.6%)
German (4.6%)
French (4.1%)
Swedish (4.1%)
Dutch (3.4%)
Russian (3.1%)
Spanish (3.1%)
Most viewed editions of Wikipedia, 2008–2020 Italian (3%)
Polish (2.6%)
Egyptian Arabic (2.5%)
Chinese (2.3%)
Japanese (2.2%)
Ukrainian (2.1%)
Vietnamese (2%)
Waray (2%)
Arabic (1.9%)
Portuguese (1.9%)
Persian (1.6%)
Catalan (1.2%)
Other (31.9%)
English 6,889,453
Cebuano 6,116,916
German 2,946,484
French 2,638,530
Swedish 2,595,349
Dutch 2,168,482
Russian 2,001,991
Spanish 1,981,586
Italian 1,884,206
Polish 1,629,860
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.[W 48][125]
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".[W 49] 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 its projects (Wikipedia and others).[W 50] For instance, Meta-Wiki provides
important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia,[W 51] and it maintains a list of articles every Wikipedia should
have.[W 52] The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, and
mathematics.[W 52] 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 be available only in English, even when they meet
the notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects.[W 32]
In contrast, the trend analysis for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) shows success in retaining active
editors on a renewable and sustained basis, with their numbers remaining relatively constant at approximately 42,000. No
comment was made concerning which of the differentiated edit policy standards from Wikipedia in other languages (non-
Reception
Various Wikipedians have criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation, which includes more than fifty policies and
nearly 150,000 words as of 2014.[129][103]
Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias. In 2010, columnist and journalist Edwin Black described Wikipedia as
being a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".[130] Articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal
of Academic Librarianship have criticized Wikipedia's "undue-weight policy", concluding that Wikipedia explicitly is not
designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather focus on all the major viewpoints on the subject, give less
attention to minor ones, and creates omissions that can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[131][132][133]
Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black alleged (in 2010 and 2011 respectively) that articles are dominated by the loudest
and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic.[130][134] A 2008 article in Education Next
journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is subject to manipulation and spin.[135]
In 2020, Omer Benjakob and Stephen Harrison noted that "Media coverage of Wikipedia has radically shifted over the past two
decades: once cast as an intellectual frivolity, it is now lauded as the 'last bastion of shared reality' online."[136]
Multiple news networks and pundits have accused Wikipedia of being ideologically biased. In February 2021, Fox News accused
Wikipedia of whitewashing communism and socialism and having too much "leftist bias".[137] Wikipedia co-founder Sanger
said that Wikipedia has become a "propaganda" for the left-leaning "establishment" and warned the site can no longer be
trusted.[138] In 2022, libertarian John Stossel opined that Wikipedia, a site he financially supported at one time, appeared to
have gradually taken a significant turn in bias to the political left, specifically on political topics.[139] Some studies suggest that
Wikipedia (and in particular the English Wikipedia) has a "western cultural bias" (or "pro-western bias")[140] or "Eurocentric
bias",[141] reiterating, says Anna Samoilenko, "similar biases that are found in the 'ivory tower' of academic historiography".
Carwil Bjork-James proposes that Wikipedia could follow the diversification pattern of contemporary scholarship [142] and
Dangzhi Zhao calls for a "decolonization" of Wikipedia to reduce bias from opinionated White male editors.[143]
Accuracy of content
Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica are written by External audio
experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy.[144] However, a peer review The Great Book of Knowledge,
in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica by Part 1 (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/id
the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the eas/the-great-book-of-knowledge-
average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about part-1-1.2497560), Ideas with
three."[145] Joseph Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Paul Kennedy, CBC, January 15,
Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a 2014
random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."[146] Others raised similar
critiques.[147] The findings by Nature were disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[148][149]
and in response, Nature gave a rebuttal of the points raised by Britannica.[150] In addition to the point-for-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 × 101 articles compared, vs >105 and >106 set sizes for Britannica and the English Wikipedia, respectively).[151]
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.[W 54] Concerns have been raised by PC World in 2009 regarding the lack of
accountability that results from users' anonymity,[152] the insertion of false information,[153] 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 as well as relevant
information being 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.[154] Amy Bruckman has argued that, due to the number of
Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.[157]
Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.[158] Editors
of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an
encyclopedia.[159] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has claimed that Wikipedia has largely avoided the problem of "fake
news" because the Wikipedia community regularly debates the quality of sources in articles.[160]
Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, External videos
and various forms of paid advocacy seen as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral
Inside Wikipedia – Attack of
and verifiable online encyclopedia.[70][W 55] In response to paid advocacy editing and
the PR Industry (https://www.d
undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article in The Wall Street Journal to
w.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of
have strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.[162] The article stated that:
-the-pr-industry/av-17745881),
"Beginning Monday [from the date of the article, June 16, 2014], changes in Wikipedia's terms
Deutsche Welle, 7:13 mins[161]
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.' "[162][163][164][165][166] These
issues, among others, had been parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert
Report.[167]
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".[168]
Discouragement in education
Some university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[169]
some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.[170][171] Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate
to use as citable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.[172] 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.[173][174]
In February 2007, an article in The Harvard Crimson newspaper reported that a few of the professors at Harvard University
were including Wikipedia articles in their syllabi, although without realizing the articles might change.[175] In June 2007,
Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association, condemned Wikipedia, along with Google, 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".[176]
A 2020 research study published in Studies in Higher Education argued that Wikipedia could be applied in the higher
education "flipped classroom", an educational model where students learn before coming to class and apply it in classroom
activities. The experimental group was instructed to learn before class and get immediate feedback before going in (the flipped
classroom model), while the control group was given direct instructions in class (the conventional classroom model). The
groups were then instructed to collaboratively develop Wikipedia entries, which would be graded in quality after the study. The
results showed that the experimental group yielded more Wikipedia entries and received higher grades in quality. The study
concluded that learning with Wikipedia in flipped classrooms was more effective than in conventional classrooms,
demonstrating Wikipedia could be used as an educational tool in higher education.[177]
Medical information
On March 5, 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."[178] Beck continued to detail in this article new
programs of 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
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.[188] 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".[189]
An editorial in The Guardian in 2014 claimed that more effort went into providing references for a list of female porn actors
than a list of women writers.[192] Data has also shown that Africa-related material often faces omission; a knowledge gap that a
July 2018 Wikimedia conference in Cape Town sought to address.[123]
Systemic biases
Academic studies of Wikipedia have consistently shown that Wikipedia systematically over-represents a point of view (POV)
belonging to a particular demographic described as the "average Wikipedian", who is an educated, technically inclined, English
speaking white male, aged 15–49 from a developed Christian country in the northern hemisphere.[193] This POV is over-
represented in relation to all existing POVs.[194][195] This systemic bias in editor demographic results in cultural bias, gender
bias, and geographical bias on Wikipedia.[196][197] There are two broad types of bias, which are implicit (when a topic is
omitted) and explicit (when a certain POV is over-represented in an article or by references).[194]
Interdisciplinary scholarly assessments of Wikipedia articles have found that while articles are typically accurate and free of
misinformation, they are also typically incomplete and fail to present all perspectives with a neutral point of view.[196] In 2011,
Wales claimed that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, citing for example "biographies
of famous women through history and issues surrounding early childcare".[37] The October 22, 2013, essay by Tom Simonite in
MIT's Technology Review titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and policy creep on the
downward trend in the number of editors.[38]
Explicit content
Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information about graphic content.[198] Articles depicting what some critics have
called objectionable content (such as feces, cadaver, human penis, vulva, and nudity) contain graphic pictures and detailed
information easily available to anyone with access to the internet, including children.[W 58]
The Wikipedia article about Virgin Killer—a 1976 album from the German rock band Scorpions—features a picture of the
album's original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent 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 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) decided the album cover was a potentially
illegal indecent image and added the article's URL to a "blacklist" it supplies to British internet service providers.[199]
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.[200][201] 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.[202] That law
bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are obscene under American law.[202]
Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.[203] Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay
Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation,[204] saying that Wikipedia did not have "material we would deem to be illegal. If
we did, we would remove it."[204] Following the complaint by Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the
community. After some editors who volunteered 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".[205] Critics, including
Wikipediocracy, noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.[206]
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.[207][g] It is a battle between the right to be anonymous in cyberspace and the right to be
anonymous in real life. The Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy states, "we believe that you shouldn't have to provide
personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement", and states that "personal information" may be shared
"For legal reasons", "To Protect You, Ourselves & Others", or "To Understand & Experiment".[W 60]
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.[208]
Wikipedia has a "Volunteer Response Team" that uses Znuny, a free and open-source software fork of OTRS[W 61] 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.[W 62]
In late April 2023, Wikimedia Foundation announced that Wikipedia will not submit to any age verifications that may be
required by the Online Safety Bill. Rebecca MacKinnon of the Wikimedia Foundation said that such checks would run counter
to the website's commitment to minimal data collection on its contributors and readers.[209]
Sexism
Wikipedia was described in 2015 as harboring a battleground culture of sexism and harassment.[210][211] The perceived
tolerance of abusive language was a reason put forth in 2013 for the gender gap in Wikipedia editorship.[212] Edit-a-thons have
been held to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.[213]
In May 2018, a Wikipedia editor rejected a submitted article about Donna Strickland due to lack of coverage in the
media.[W 63][214] Five months later, Strickland won a Nobel Prize in Physics "for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser
physics", becoming the third woman to ever receive the award.[214][215] Prior to winning the award, Strickland's only mention
on Wikipedia was in the article about her collaborator and co-winner of the award Gérard Mourou.[214] Her exclusion from
Wikipedia led to accusations of sexism, but Corinne Purtill writing for Quartz argued that "it's also a pointed lesson in the
hazards of gender bias in media, and of the broader consequences of underrepresentation."[216] Purtill attributes the issue to
the gender bias in media coverage.[216]
Operation
In May 2014, Wikimedia Foundation named Lila Tretikov as its second executive director,
Katherine Maher, the third executive
taking over for Sue Gardner.[W 67] The Wall Street Journal reported on May 1, 2014, that director of Wikimedia, served from
Tretikov's information technology background from her years at University of California 2016 to 2021.
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."[219][220] 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.[219]
Following the departure of Tretikov from Wikipedia due to issues concerning the use of the "superprotection" feature which
some language versions of Wikipedia have adopted,[W 68] Katherine Maher became the third executive director of the
Wikimedia Foundation in June 2016.[W 69] Maher stated that one of her priorities would be the issue of editor harassment
endemic to Wikipedia as identified by the Wikipedia board in December. She said to Bloomberg Businessweek regarding the
harassment issue that: "It establishes a sense within the community that this is a priority ... [and that correction requires that] it
has to be more than words."[122]
Maher served as executive director until April 2021.[221] Maryana Iskander was named the incoming CEO in September 2021,
and took over that role in January 2022. She stated that one of her focuses would be increasing diversity in the Wikimedia
community.[222]
Wikipedia is also supported by many organizations and groups that are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation but
independently-run, called Wikimedia movement affiliates. These include Wikimedia chapters (which are national or sub-
national organizations, such as Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia France), thematic organizations (such as Amical
Wikimedia for the Catalan language community), and user groups. These affiliates participate in the promotion, development,
and funding of Wikipedia.[W 70]
In April 2005, a Lucene extension[W 76][W 77] was added to MediaWiki's built-in search and Wikipedia switched from MySQL to
Lucene for searching. Lucene was later replaced by CirrusSearch which is based on Elasticsearch.[W 78]
In July 2013, after extensive beta testing, a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) extension, VisualEditor, was opened to
public use.[223][224][225] It was met with much rejection and criticism, and was described as "slow and buggy".[226] The feature
was changed from opt-out to opt-in afterward.[W 79]
Automated editing
Computer programs called bots have often been used 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.[W 80][227][228] One controversial contributor, Sverker Johansson, created articles with his bot Lsjbot, which was reported
to create up to 10,000 articles on the Swedish Wikipedia on certain days.[229] Additionally, there are bots designed to
automatically notify editors when they make common editing errors (such as unmatched quotes or unmatched
parentheses).[W 81] Edits falsely identified by bots as the work of a banned editor can be restored by other editors. An anti-
vandal bot is programmed to detect and revert vandalism quickly.[227] Bots are able to indicate edits from particular accounts or
IP address ranges, as occurred at the time of the shooting down of the MH17 jet in July 2014 when it was reported that edits
were made via IPs controlled by the Russian government.[230] Bots on Wikipedia must be approved before activation.[W 82]
According to Andrew Lih, the current expansion of Wikipedia to millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the
use of such bots.[231]
Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of Linux servers running the Debian
operating system.[W 84] By January 22, 2013, Wikipedia had migrated its primary data
center to an Equinix facility in Ashburn, Virginia.[W 85][233] In 2017, Wikipedia installed a
caching cluster in an Equinix facility in Singapore, the first of its kind in Asia.[W 86] In 2022,
a caching data center was opened in Marseille, France.[W 87] As of February 2023, caching
clusters are located in Amsterdam, San Francisco, Singapore, and Marseille.[W 25][W 88]
Access to content
The handling of media files (e.g. image files) varies across language editions. Some language editions, such as the English
Wikipedia, include non-free image files under fair use doctrine,[W 98] 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.[W 99] 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.[242]
The Wikimedia Foundation is not a licensor of content on Wikipedia or its related projects but merely a hosting service for
contributors to and licensors of Wikipedia, a position which was successfully defended in 2004 in a court in France.[243][244]
Methods of access
Because Wikipedia content is distributed under an open license, anyone can reuse or re-distribute it at no charge.[W 100] The
content of Wikipedia has been published in many forms, both online and offline, outside the Wikipedia website.
Thousands of "mirror sites" exist that republish content from Wikipedia; two prominent ones that also include content from
other reference sources are Reference.com and Answers.com.[245][246] Another example is Wapedia, which began to display
Wikipedia content in a mobile-device-friendly format before Wikipedia itself did.[W 101] Some web search engines make special
Collections of Wikipedia articles have been published on optical discs. An English version released in 2006 contained about
2,000 articles.[W 102] The Polish-language version from 2006 contains nearly 240,000 articles,[W 103] the German-language
version from 2007/2008 contains over 620,000 articles,[W 104] and the Spanish-language version from 2011 contains 886,000
articles.[W 105] Additionally, "Wikipedia for Schools", the Wikipedia series of CDs / DVDs produced by Wikipedia and SOS
Children, is a free selection from Wikipedia designed for education towards children eight to seventeen.[W 106]
There have been efforts to put a select subset of Wikipedia's articles into printed book form.[248][W 107] Since 2009, tens of
thousands of print-on-demand books that 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.[249]
The website DBpedia, begun in 2007, extracts data from the infoboxes and category declarations of the English-language
Wikipedia.[250] Wikimedia has created the Wikidata project with a similar objective of storing the basic facts from each page of
Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects and make it available in a queryable semantic format, RDF.[W 108] As of
February 2023, it has over 101 million items.[W 109] WikiReader is a dedicated reader device that contains an offline copy of
Wikipedia, which was launched by OpenMoko and first released in 2009.[W 110]
Obtaining the full contents of Wikipedia for reuse presents challenges, since direct cloning via a web crawler is
discouraged.[W 111] Wikipedia publishes "dumps" of its contents, but these are text-only; as of 2023, there is no dump available
of Wikipedia's images.[W 112] Wikimedia Enterprise is a for-profit solution to this.[251]
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 percent.[252]
Mobile access
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 February 9,
2014, quoted Erik Möller, 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. The article in The New York Times 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." In 2014 The New York Times reported that Möller
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 online encyclopedia attracts to edit and
maintain its content in a mobile access environment.[45] By 2023, the Wikimedia
Foundation's staff had grown to over 700 employees.[7]
A mobile version showing the
Access to Wikipedia from mobile phones was possible as early as 2004, through the English Wikipedia's Main Page, on
Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), via the Wapedia service. [W 101] In June 2007, August 3, 2019
Wikipedia launched en.mobile.wikipedia.org, an official website for wireless devices. In
2009, a newer mobile service was officially released, located at en.m.wikipedia.org, which
caters to more advanced mobile devices such as the iPhone, Android-based devices, or WebOS-based devices.[W 113] Several
other methods of mobile access to Wikipedia have emerged since. Many devices and applications optimize or enhance the
display of Wikipedia content for mobile devices, while some also incorporate additional features such as use of Wikipedia
metadata like geoinformation.[253][254]
The Android app for Wikipedia was released in January 2012, to over 500,000 installs and generally positive reviews, scoring
over four of a possible five in a poll of approximately 200,000 users downloading from Google.[W 114][W 115] The version for iOS
was released on April 3, 2013, to similar reviews.[W 116]
Andrew Lih and Andrew Brown both maintain editing Wikipedia with smartphones is difficult and this discourages new
potential contributors.[256][257] Lih states that the number of Wikipedia editors has been declining after several years,[256] and
Tom Simonite of MIT Technology Review claims the bureaucratic structure and rules are a factor in this. Simonite alleges some
Wikipedians use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and those editors have a vested interest in keeping
the status quo.[38] Lih alleges there is a serious disagreement among existing contributors on how to resolve this. Lih fears for
Wikipedia's long-term future while Brown fears problems with Wikipedia will remain and rival encyclopedias will not replace
it.[256][257]
Chinese access
Access to Wikipedia has been blocked in mainland China since May 2015.[16][258][259] This was done after Wikipedia started to
use HTTPS encryption, which made selective censorship more difficult.[260]
Cultural influence
Readership
In February 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia was 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."[45] However, its ranking dropped to 13th globally by June 2020 due mostly
to a rise in popularity of Chinese websites for online shopping.[262] The website has since recovered its ranking as of April
2022.[263]
In addition to logistic growth in the number of its articles,[W 118] Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference
website since its inception in 2001.[264] The number of readers of Wikipedia worldwide reached 365 million at the end of
2009.[W 119] The Pew Internet and American Life project found that one third of US Internet users consulted Wikipedia.[265] In
2011, Business Insider gave Wikipedia a valuation of $4 billion if it ran advertisements.[266]
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 percent of Wikipedia readers do not realize that Wikipedia is a
non-profit organization.[W 120]
As of February 2023, Wikipedia attracts around 2 billion unique devices monthly, with the English Wikipedia receiving
10 billion pageviews each month.[W 1]
COVID-19 pandemic
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Wikipedia's coverage of the pandemic and fight against misinformation received international
media attention, and brought an increase in Wikipedia readership overall.[267][268][269][270] Noam Cohen wrote in Wired that
Wikipedia's effort to combat misinformation related to the pandemic was different from other major websites, opining, "Unless
Twitter, Facebook and the others can learn to address misinformation more effectively, Wikipedia will remain the last best
Cultural significance
Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court
cases.[W 121][274][275] The Parliament of Canada's website refers to Wikipedia's article on
same-sex marriage in the "related links" section of its "further reading" list for the Civil
Marriage Act.[276] The encyclopedia's assertions are increasingly used as a source by
organizations such as the US federal courts and the World Intellectual Property
Organization[277]—though mainly for supporting information rather than information
decisive to a case.[278] Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and
referenced in some US intelligence agency reports.[279] In December 2008, the scientific
journal RNA 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.[280]
Wikipedia has also been used as a source in journalism,[281][282] often without attribution,
and several reporters have been dismissed for plagiarizing from
[283][284][285][286]
Wikipedia.
In 2006, Time magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation (along with YouTube, Reddit,
MySpace, and Facebook) in the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by Wikipedia Monument in Słubice,
millions of people worldwide. [287] On September 16, 2007, The Washington Post reported Poland, by Mihran Hakobyan (2014)
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."[288] 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.[289]
One of the first times Wikipedia was involved in a governmental affair was on September 28, 2007, when 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.[290]
A working group led by Peter Stone (formed as a part of the Stanford-based project One
Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence) in its report called Wikipedia "the best-
known example of crowdsourcing ... that far exceeds traditionally-compiled information
sources, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, in scale and depth".[291][292]
In a 2017 opinion piece for Wired, Hossein Derakhshan describes Wikipedia as "one of the
last remaining pillars of the open and decentralized web" and contrasted its existence as a
Wikipedia, an introduction –
text-based source of knowledge with social media and social networking services, the latter
Erasmus Prize 2015
having "since colonized the web for television's values". For Derakhshan, Wikipedia's goal as
an encyclopedia represents the Age of Enlightenment tradition of rationality triumphing
over emotions, a trend which he considers "endangered" due to the "gradual shift from a typographic culture to a photographic
one, which in turn mean[s] a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment". Rather than "sapere aude"
(lit. 'dare to know'), social networks have led to a culture of "dare not to care to know". This is while Wikipedia faces "a more
concerning problem" than funding, namely "a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website".
Consequently, the challenge for Wikipedia and those who use it is to "save Wikipedia and its promise of a free and open
collection of all human knowledge amid the conquest of new and old television—how to collect and preserve knowledge when
nobody cares to know."[293]
Awards
In 2015, Wikipedia was awarded both the annual Erasmus Prize, which recognizes
exceptional contributions to culture, society or social sciences,[297] and the Spanish Princess
of Asturias Award on International Cooperation.[298] Speaking at the Asturian Parliament in
Oviedo, the city that hosts the awards ceremony, Jimmy Wales praised the work of the
Asturian Wikipedia users.[299]
Satire
Many parodies target Wikipedia's openness and susceptibility to inserted inaccuracies, with Wikipedia team visiting the
characters vandalizing or modifying the online encyclopedia project's articles. Parliament of Asturias
In an April 2007 episode of the American television comedy The Office, office manager
(Michael Scott) is shown relying on a hypothetical Wikipedia article for information on Wikipedians meeting after the 2015
negotiation tactics to assist him in negotiating lesser pay for an employee.[302] Viewers of Asturias awards ceremony
the show tried to add the episode's mention of the page as a section of the actual Wikipedia
article on negotiation, but this effort was prevented by other users on the article's talk
page.[303]
"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 Perry Cox reacts to a patient who says that a Wikipedia article indicates that the
raw food diet reverses the effects of bone cancer by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article also wrote the
Battlestar Galactica episode guide.[304]
In 2008, the comedy 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.[305]
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."[306]
In July 2009, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a comedy series called Bigipedia, which was set on a website which was a parody of
Wikipedia.[307] Some of the sketches were directly inspired by Wikipedia and its articles.[308]
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?"[309] The cartoon referred to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning
(born Bradley Edward Manning), an American activist, politician, and former United States Army soldier who had recently
come out as a trans woman.[310]
In June 2024, the Futures section of nature.com published a fictional Wikipedia Talk page under the title "Plastic-eating fungus
caused doomsday[2][3] A collaborative effort" by Emma Burnett.[312] The Talk page concerned a (fictional) article describing
unintended consequences the release of a plastic-eating fungus to clean up an oil spill. The article contained Talk page topics
one might find on Wikipedia, like discussions of changes in the articles priority level combined with seemingly desperate posts
about death tolls and bunkers. Concluding commentary said the article was motivated by stories of technological solutions that
themselves become a problem.
Publishing
The most obvious economic effect of Wikipedia has been the death of commercial
encyclopedias, especially printed versions like Encyclopædia Britannica, which were unable
to compete with a product that is essentially free.[316][317][318] Nicholas Carr's 2005 essay
"The amorality of Web 2.0" criticizes 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."[319] Others dispute the notion that Wikipedia, or similar efforts, will entirely A group of Wikimedians of the
Wikimedia DC chapter at the 2013
displace traditional publications. Chris Anderson, the former editor-in-chief of Wired, wrote DC Wikimedia annual meeting
in Nature that the "wisdom of crowds" approach of Wikipedia will not displace top scientific standing in front of the
journals with rigorous peer review processes.[320] Encyclopædia Britannica (back left)
at the US National Archives
Wikipedia's influence on the biography publishing business has been a concern for some.
Book publishing data tracker Nielsen BookScan stated in 2013 that biography sales were
dropping "far more sharply".[321] Kathryn Hughes, professor of life writing at the University of East Anglia and author of two
biographies wrote, "The worry is that, if you can get all that information from Wikipedia, what's left for biography?"[321]
Research use
Wikipedia has been widely used as a corpus for linguistic research in computational linguistics, information retrieval and
natural language processing.[322][323] In particular, it commonly serves as a target knowledge base for the entity linking
problem, which is then called "wikification",[324] and to the related problem of word-sense disambiguation.[325] Methods
similar to wikification can in turn be used to find "missing" links in Wikipedia.[326]
In 2015, French researchers José Lages of the University of Franche-Comté in Besançon and Dima Shepelyansky of Paul
Sabatier University in Toulouse published a global university ranking based on Wikipedia scholarly citations.[327][328][329] They
used PageRank, CheiRank and similar algorithms "followed by the number of appearances in the 24 different language editions
of Wikipedia (descending order) and the century in which they were founded (ascending order)".[329][330] The study was
updated in 2019.[331]
A 2017 MIT study suggests that words used on Wikipedia articles end up in scientific publications.[332][333]
In February 2022, civil servants from the UK's Department for Leveling Up, Housing and Communities were found to have
used Wikipedia for research in the drafting of the Leveling Up White Paper after journalists at The Independent noted that
parts of the document had been lifted directly from Wikipedia articles on Constantinople and the list of largest cities throughout
history.[338]
Related projects
Several 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 more than a 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.[339]
Several free-content, collaborative encyclopedias were created around the same period as Wikipedia (e.g. Everything2),[340]
with many later being merged into the project (e.g. GNE).[W 129] One of the most successful early online encyclopedias
incorporating entries by the public was h2g2, which was created by Douglas Adams in 1999. The h2g2 encyclopedia is relatively
lighthearted, focusing on articles which are both witty and informative.[341]
Subsequent collaborative knowledge websites have drawn inspiration from Wikipedia. Others use more traditional peer review,
such as Encyclopedia of Life and the online wiki encyclopedias Scholarpedia and Citizendium.[342][343] The latter was started
by Sanger in an attempt to create a reliable alternative to Wikipedia.[344][345]
See also
Democratization of knowledge Network effect
Internet portal
Interpedia, an early proposal for a Outline of Wikipedia – guide to the subject of
collaborative Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia presented as a tree structured list of Wikipedia portal
List of films about Wikipedia its subtopics; for an outline of the contents of
List of online encyclopedias Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines
List of Wikipedia controversies QRpedia – multilingual, mobile interface to
Wikipedia
List of wikis
Wikipedia Review
Notes
a. Registration is required for certain tasks, such as editing protected pages, creating pages on the English Wikipedia, and
uploading files.
b. To be considered active, a user must make at least one edit or other action in a given month.
c. Pronounced /ˌwɪkɪˈpiːdiə/ WIK-ih-PEE-dee-ə or /ˌwɪki-/ WIK-ee-PEE-dee-ə
d. Now available as an archive at the Nostalgia Wikipedia
e. Revisions with libelous content, criminal threats, or copyright infringements may be removed completely.
f. The committee may directly rule that a content change is inappropriate, but may not directly rule that certain content is
inappropriate.
g. See "Libel" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101130081035/https://texaspress.com/index.php/publications/law-media/731-law
-a-the-media-in-texas--libel-cases) by David McHam for the legal distinction
References
1. Sidener, Jonathan (December 6, 2004). "Everyone's Encyclopedia" (https://web.archive.org/web/20071011150228/https://si
gnonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html). U-T San Diego. Archived from the original (https://www.
signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html) on October 11, 2007. Retrieved October 15, 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#:~:text=Wikipedia was launched on January,in its first few months. 22/51
10/1/24, 5:41 PM Wikipedia - Wikipedia
2. "Developer hub" (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_hub). MediaWiki. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
3. "Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher" (https://archive.today/20210107163155/https://www.economist.c
om/international/2021/01/09/wikipedia-is-20-and-its-reputation-has-never-been-higher). The Economist. January 9, 2021.
Archived from the original (https://www.economist.com/international/2021/01/09/wikipedia-is-20-and-its-reputation-has-neve
r-been-higher) on January 7, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2021.
4. Anderson, Chris (May 8, 2006). "Jimmy Wales – The 2006 Time 100" (https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/articl
e/0,28804,1975813_1975844_1976488,00.html). Time. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221012001311/https://cont
ent.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1975813_1975844_1976488,00.html) from the original on October 12,
2022. Retrieved November 11, 2017.
5. "Most Visited Websites in Worldwide 2024" (https://www.semrush.com/trending-websites/global/all). Semrush. August 2024.
Retrieved September 14, 2024.
6. "Most viewed website" (https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/). Similarweb. Retrieved September 14, 2024.
7. Seitz-Gruwell, Lisa (October 23, 2023). "7 reasons you should donate to Wikipedia" (https://archive.today/20231227155753/
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/10/23/7-reasons-you-should-donate-to-wikipedia/). Wikimedia Foundation.
Archived from the original (https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/11/03/7-reasons-you-should-donate-to-wikipedia/) on
December 27, 2023. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
8. "wikipedia.org" (https://www.similarweb.com/website/wikipedia.org/#geography). similarweb.com. Archived (https://web.arch
ive.org/web/20200605091241/https://www.similarweb.com/website/wikipedia.org#geography) from the original on June 5,
2020. Retrieved November 8, 2023.
9. Noor, Poppy (July 29, 2018). "Wikipedia biases" (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/29/the-five-wikipedia-bia
ses-pro-western-male-dominated). The Guardian. Retrieved May 31, 2024.
10. Hern, Alex (September 15, 2015). "Wikipedia's view of the world is written by the west" (https://www.theguardian.com/techn
ology/2015/sep/15/wikipedia-view-of-the-world-is-still-written-by-the-west). The Guardian. Retrieved May 31, 2024.
11. "Happy Birthday, Wikipedia" (https://web.archive.org/web/20230101031816/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/01/09/
happy-birthday-wikipedia). The Economist. January 9, 2021. Archived from the original (https://www.economist.com/leaders/
2021/01/09/happy-birthday-wikipedia) on January 1, 2023. Retrieved January 22, 2023.
12. Cooke, Richard (February 17, 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet" (https://web.archive.org/web/202212
17081500/https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/). Wired. Archived from the
original (https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/) on December 17, 2022. Retrieved
October 13, 2020.
13. Hughes, Taylor; Smith, Jeff; Leavitt, Alex (April 3, 2018). "Helping People Better Assess the Stories They See in News Feed
with the Context Button" (https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/news-feed-fyi-more-context/). Meta. Archived (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20230111152311/https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/news-feed-fyi-more-context/) from the original on January
11, 2023. Retrieved January 23, 2023.
14. Cohen, Noam (April 7, 2018). "Conspiracy videos? Fake news? Enter Wikipedia, the 'good cop' of the Internet" (https://web.
archive.org/web/20180614045810/https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/conspiracy-videos-fake-news-enter-wikipedia-t
he-good-cop-of-the-internet/2018/04/06/ad1f018a-3835-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html). The Washington Post.
Archived from the original (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/conspiracy-videos-fake-news-enter-wikipedia-the-good
-cop-of-the-internet/2018/04/06/ad1f018a-3835-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html) on June 14, 2018.
15. Treisman, Rachel (April 1, 2022). "Russia threatens to fine Wikipedia if it doesn't remove some details about the war" (http
s://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090279187/russia-wikipedia-fine). NPR. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202212022158
44/https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090279187/russia-wikipedia-fine) from the original on December 2, 2022. Retrieved
January 22, 2023.
16. Skipper, Ben (December 7, 2015). "China's government has blocked Wikipedia in its entirety again" (https://www.ibtimes.co.
uk/chinas-government-has-blocked-wikipedia-its-entirety-again-1532138). International Business Times UK. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20180503111142/https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinas-government-has-blocked-wikipedia-its-entirety-a
gain-1532138) from the original on May 3, 2018. Retrieved May 2, 2018.
17. Kelly, Samantha Murphy (May 20, 2022). "Meet the Wikipedia editor who published the Buffalo shooting entry minutes after
it started" (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/wikipedia-editors-breaking-news/index.html). CNN. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20221012001310/https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/wikipedia-editors-breaking-news/index.html) from
the original on October 12, 2022. Retrieved May 24, 2022.
18. McNamee, Kai (September 15, 2022). "Fastest 'was' in the West: Inside Wikipedia's race to cover the queen's death" (http
s://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1122943829/wikipedia--queen-elizabeth-ii-death-deaditors-editors-article). NPR. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20230115033202/https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1122943829/wikipedia--queen-elizabeth-ii-death-
deaditors-editors-article) from the original on January 15, 2023. Retrieved January 22, 2023.
19. Garber, Megan (October 12, 2011). "The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias
failed?" (https://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclope
dias-failed/). Nieman Lab. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114540/https://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-c
ontribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/) from the original on February 10,
2023. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
Further reading
Balke, Jeff (March 2008). "For Music Fans: Wikipedia; MySpace" (https://web.archive.org/web/20081229164945/http://blog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#:~:text=Wikipedia was launched on January,in its first few months. 48/51
10/1/24, 5:41 PM Wikipedia - Wikipedia
s.chron.com/brokenrecord/2008/03/for_music_fans_wikipedia_myspa.html). Houston Chronicle. Broken Record (blog).
Archived from the original (https://blogs.chron.com/brokenrecord/2008/03/for_music_fans_wikipedia_myspa.html) on
December 29, 2008. Retrieved December 17, 2008.
Borland, John (August 14, 2007). "See Who's Editing Wikipedia – Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign" (https://www.wired.com/20
07/08/wiki-tracker/). Wired. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20151116134820/https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiki-trac
ker/) from the original on November 16, 2015. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
Dee, Jonathan (July 1, 2007). "All the News That's Fit to Print Out" (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKI
PEDIA-t.html). The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
Giles, Jim (September 20, 2007). "Wikipedia 2.0 – Now with Added Trust" (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1952622
6.200). New Scientist. Retrieved January 14, 2008.
Miliard, Mike (December 2, 2007). "Wikipedia Rules" (https://thephoenix.com/Boston/Life/52864-Wikipedia-rules). The
Phoenix. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
Poe, Marshall (September 1, 2006). "The Hive" (https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia). 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" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204715.html?hpid
=topnews). The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
Runciman, David (May 28, 2009). "Like Boiling a Frog" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090527013530/http://www.lrb.co.uk/v
31/n10/runc01_.html). London Review of Books. Archived from the original (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html) on
May 27, 2009. Retrieved June 3, 2009.
Taylor, Chris (May 29, 2005). "It's a Wiki, Wiki World" (https://web.archive.org/web/20050602012551/https://www.time.com/ti
me/magazine/article/0,9171,1066904-1,00.html). Time. Archived from the original (https://www.time.com/time/magazine/arti
cle/0,9171,1066904-1,00.html) on June 2, 2005. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
"Technological Quarterly: Brain Scan: The Free-knowledge Fundamentalist" (https://www.economist.com/science/tq/display
story.cfm?story_id=11484062). The Economist. 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?"
"Wikipedia probe into paid-for 'sockpuppet' entries" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24613608), BBC News,
October 21, 2013.
"The Decline of Wikipedia" (https://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/) Archived (htt
p://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20131023135648/https://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the%2Ddecline%2Do
f%2Dwikipedia/) October 23, 2013, at the Library of Congress Web Archives, MIT Technology Review, October 22, 2013
"Edits to Wikipedia pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo traced to 1 Police Plaza" (https://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2
015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-traced-1-police-plaza) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2015
0313150951/https://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-trac
ed-1-police-plaza) March 13, 2015, at the Wayback Machine (March 2015), Capital
Angola's Wikipedia Pirates Are Exposing Problems (https://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics
-angola-pirates-zero-rating) (March 2016), Motherboard
"Dark Side of Wikipedia" (https://web.archive.org/web/20160804110601/https://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-
wikipedia). Archived from the original (https://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-wikipedia) on August 4, 2016.
Retrieved April 17, 2016. Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, April 17, 2016. (Includes video.)
Wales, Jimmy (December 9, 2016). "How Wikipedia Works" (https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/how-wikipe
dia-works). Cato Institute. "Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, discusses the site, how it's treated by governments, and
how it's fueled by its users."
The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1: A Wiki is a Kind of Bus (https://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2014/01/15/the-great-boo
k-of-knowledge-part-1/), Ideas, with Paul Kennedy, CBC Radio One, originally broadcast January 15, 2014. The webpage
includes a link to the archived audio program (also found here (https://www.cbc.ca/ideas/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2430203
709)). 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).
"So Is Wikipedia Cracking Up?" (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/is-wikipedia-cracking-u
p-1543527.html) The Independent, February 3, 2009.
Wikipedia's Year-End List Shows What the Internet Needed to Know in 2019 (https://gizmodo.com/wikipedias-yearend-list-s
hows-what-the-internet-needed-1840690794). Alyse Stanley, December 27, 2019, Gizmodo.
Academic studies
Leitch, Thomas (2014). Wikipedia U: Knowledge, authority, and a liberal education in the digital age. JHU Press. ISBN 978-
1-4214-1535-2.
Jensen, Richard (October 2012). "Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812" (https://web.
archive.org/web/20121021042738/https://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF) (PDF). The Journal
of Military History. 76 (4): 523–556. Archived from the original (https://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH18
12.PDF) (PDF) on October 21, 2012.
Books
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?" (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/s
tory.php?storyId=11131872). National Public Radio, US. The NPR interview with A. Keen, Weekend Edition Saturday,
June 16, 2007.
Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (2008). How Wikipedia Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It (https://arch
ive.org/details/howwikipediawork00ayer_0). San Francisco: No Starch Press. ISBN 978-1-59327-176-3.
Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia – The Missing Manual. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-0-596-51516-4. (See book review by
Baker, as listed hereafter.)
Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia Reader's Guide (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780596521745). Sebastopol: Pogue
Press. ISBN 978-0-596-52174-5.
Rafaeli, Sheizaf; Ariel, Yaron (2008). "Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia".
In Barak, A. (ed.). Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications (https://archive.org/details/psycholog
icalasp00bara). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 243 (https://archive.org/details/psychologicalasp00bara/p
age/n261)–267. ISBN 978-0-521-69464-3.
External links
Official website (https://wikipedia.org/) – multilingual portal (contains links to all language editions)
Wikipedia (https://x.com/Wikipedia) on Twitter
Wikipedia (https://curlie.org/Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/Wikipedia) at Curlie
Wikipedia (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/wikipedia) collected news and commentary at The Guardian
Wikipedia (https://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/wikipedia) topic page at The New York Times
Video of TED talk by Jimmy Wales on the birth of Wikipedia (https://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_wales_the_birth_of_wikipedi
a)