Wikipedia, online suppository of child pornography, libels, paid editing, sockpuppetry, impersonation, and anarchy
This entry describes an online encyclopedia. For Wikipedia's other meanings, see Wikipedia Sucks
This is a school homework project (c)2017-(all rights reserved) by Akshay in fulfilment of requirements of an IB diploma. WARNING: This is a user's work-in-progress, likely to contain errors and circulated "in-draft" to seek suggestions from wikipedia critics.
WIKIPEDIA
Wikipedia - repository of child pornography, libels and anarchy

A chair of the Wikimedia UK
URL www.wikipedia.org
Founder Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wells
Co-founder Angela Beesley
Founded on 15-Jan-2001
Website details
Web type Bulletin Board impersonating as encyclopedia
Editors 376 active editors
Summary Suppository of child pornography, libels and anarchy

Overview


On January 13, 2001 the dual co-operation developed website service of Jimmy Wells and Larry Sanger was first launched on the Internet, and in January 15 was officially launched the network encyclopedia of the Nupedia[1]. Which Sanger also combined with site collaboration core "wiki" software and 'pedia' meaning "encyclopedia", and coined a new word "Wikipedia".

Wikipedia home page 2001Wikipedia home page 2001

At the time of its founding, Wikipedia's goal was to provide a free encyclopedia to all mankind, and hope that people used a language of their choice to participate in editing articles. The other existing written encyclopedias are printed and are mostly edited by experts and then sold by the publisher after printing. Wikipedia is, by its nature, known as a global knowledge body of work that is freely accessible and editable, which means that, in addition to traditional encyclopedia's, Wikipedia is also able to include non-academic content, but still have a certain degree of attention to dynamic media events.

Time magazine in 2006, describing the era as "you the people" mentioned that millions of people from all over the world were collaborating and interacting together to promote the rapid growth of Wikipedia in that year. Other important sites also included YouTube, MySpace and Facebook[2]. Wikipedia emphasizes 'Copyleft' free content, Collaborative Editing, and multilingual versions of the Internet encyclopedia, and is expanded into a worldwide encyclopedia collaboration program based on a development of Wiki technology.

The profit-making Wikimedia Foundation (whose income exceeds its website expenses by a factor of 50) is responsible for the development of related issues. Wikipedia is made up of volunteers from all over the world, with a total of more than 30 million entries, of which Wikipedia ranks more than 4.5 million entries in number. Wikipedia allows any user who visits the site to use the web browser to freely view and modify the contents of most pages[3], according to statistics in Wikipedia about 35,000,000 registered users[4], of which there are 100,000 positive contributors Long-term participation in the editorial work[5], and the total number of editor-in-chief of the site is more than one billion times[6][7].

As of August 2012, Wikipedia has a total of 285 separate language versions, and has been widely considered to be the largest and most popular web tool encyclopedia[8][9][10][11][12].

According to the well-known Alexa Internet, its network traffic statistics indicate that there are nearly 365 million people in the world using Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is also the world's sixth largest number of visitors (the highest ranking is ranked fifth) But also the world's largest advertising site [8][11][12]. According to estimates, Wikipedia every month there are nearly 270 million Americans visit the site[13].

Because Wikipedia is able to sort out information related to recent events and anyone can sort out the information quickly, many people have gradually seen Wikipedia as a source of news [14][15]. At the same time in order to facilitate browsing by general students or masses to simply understand the contents of the article, most of the Wikipedia articles will be as simple as possible to explain the difficult concept[18].

With the popularity of Wikipedia in the community, users also productively continue to contribute to the inclusion of Wikipedia's siblings, like Wikibooks and other siblings. However, while Wikipedia has firmly supported the two requirements for verification and neutrality in its official policy, Wikipedia has been criticized by many people in the community for anyone to be able to change the editorial features, and the quality of the editor's entry, the accuracy of the presentation, the objectivity of attitudes, and the inability to provide consistent and accurate content[19].

Another part of the alleged problem is that Wikipedia uses wiki technology, which makes them think that anyone can edit Wikipedia, content itself in the largest Wikipedia and can not change the shortcomings[20], in this case the vandal can easily add fictional content to political and religious entries that can easily lead to disputes, remove the right information, or add your own prejudices altogether[21]. Including the Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wells and the University of Oxford Professor Jonathan Zittrain (Jonathan Zittrain) and other intellectuals for the accuracy of the dispute, that to a certain extent, is derived from others for Wikipedia bias[22][23][24].

In order to solve all the questions about the quality of the entries as much as possible, Wikipedia has also put forward a number of corresponding rules and guidelines to protect the quality of the article, but also hope that collaborative editing can be listed for others to verify, review and confirm the source. But critics also mention that the vast majority of Wikipedia's vast majority of information is made up of people who like things from popular culture and other people to edit their favorite projects[25], but it also means that in many cases the site is easy[26][27][28]; and critics point out that even if some reports confirm that many articles are often deleted immediately after being destroyed, Wikipedia still contains a large number of articles with unconfirmed or contradictory information[29].

However, in a 2005 survey, Wikipedia argues that Wikipedia has a similar precision in the field of scientific essays and the Encyclopedia Britannica, a traditional encyclopedia, but both have a certain degree of "seriously nissing" content[30][31].

References


  1. ^ : Mike Miliard. Wikipediots: Who are these devoted, even obsessive contributors to Wikipedia? "Salt Lake City Weekly." February 20, 2008.
  2. ^ : Lev Grossman. You - Yes, You - Are TIME's Person of the Year, "Time Magazine", December 5, 2006.
  3. ^ : Paul Vale. Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales Speaks Out On China And Internet Freedom, "Huffington Post", August 29, 2011.
  4. ^ : Wikipedia: Wikipedia Language List
  5. ^ : According to Wikipedia's internal statistics, there are about 1.3 million registered users who are long-term participation, but may include more than 10 times the number of people who visit the site and modify them.
  6. ^ : " Daily Telegraph". Technology can topple tyrants': Jimmy Wales an eternal optimist, November 7, 2011
The problem with Wikipedia is that it is infested with Wikipedians. In normal times, external pressure on a cult would be a corrective for a situation such as this. But the current web bubble mentality, and the easy money behind it, simply reinforces this runaway Wikipedia behavior. Wikipedia has to be dismantled and reconstructed. If there were smart people at Wikipedia, they'd already be forking off the best articles that are totally noncontroversial (such as technical articles or trivia articles), in anticipation of a collapse of the current Wikipedia. - "Danile Brandt" (wikipediareview forum)-

A vintage archived proboards wikipedia review's fair dealing recirculation for updated wikipedia criticism and review. (The original authors are presently anonymous).

Re: So what should we DO about Wikipedia?


caldecott « Reply #8 on Dec 31, 2005, 12:28pm

It's not just Wikipedia, although they're at the top Kether position of a triangulated crossfire of web-lousey:

  1. Wikipedia.
  2. Google.
  3. Scraper-spammers.

These three entities, acting in tandem, have a synergetic effect on the web in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And not just because it makes search engines cluttered.

Misinformation and disinformation are being amplified and scattered to such a high degree on the web nowadays, it's like the pink stuff in "The Cat in the Hat Comes Back" that gets so disseminated that there's no way to get rid of it all, short of the explosion contained under the hat of little cat Z.

Wikipedia is the biggest force for misinformation and disinformation on the web today. The scrapers copy it and create an army of clones of it, and Google spreads it high and low. The false information ends up in news stories, magazines, college papers, gossip, other web sites, wherever. The much-vaunted "Collective Intelligence" we're hearing so much about lately is just another way of saying "lowest common denominator". It is literally dumbing down the human race, and the WWW in the bargain.


Danile Brandt « Reply #10 on Jan 1, 2006, 1:15pm »
An American soldier in the 1960s said about a Vietnamese village, "We had to destroy it in order to save it." He presumed that the village was infested with commies instead of populated by peasants.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it is infested with Wikipedians. In normal times, external pressure on a cult would be a corrective for a situation such as this. But the current web bubble mentality, and the easy money behind it, simply reinforces this runaway Wikipedia behavior.

Wikipedia has to be dismantled and reconstructed. If there were smart people at Wikipedia, they'd already be forking off the best articles that are totally noncontroversial (such as technical articles or trivia articles), in anticipation of a collapse of the current Wikipedia. But I don't think there are any smart people at Wikipedia.


CC 4.0 licence mage attribution: