Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

Search ten Wikipedias

Type of site	Online encyclopedia
Owner	Wikimedia Foundation
Created by	Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger
Commercial	No
Registration	Optional

Wikipedia (IPA: /ˌwɪkiːˈpiːdi.ə/, /ˌwiki-/ or /ˌwɪkə-/) is a multilingual Web-based free-content encyclopedia. It exists as a wiki, a website that allows visitors to edit its content; the word Wikipedia itself is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing articles to be changed by anyone with access to the website.

The project began on January 15, 2001 as a complement to the expert-written (and now defunct) Nupedia, and is now operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia has more than 4,300,000 articles in many languages, including more than 1,185,000 in the English-language version. There are over 200 language editions of Wikipedia, fourteen of which have more than 50,000 articles each. The German-language edition has been distributed on DVD-ROM, and there are also proposals for an English DVD or paper edition. Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity^[1] and has spawned several sister projects. According to Alexa, Wikipedia is ranked in the top 20 most visited websites, and many of its pages have been mirrored or forked by other sites.

Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, has called Wikipedia "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."^[2] However, there has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference for consensus or popularity over credentials. Nevertheless, its free distribution, constant updates, diverse and detailed coverage, and versions in numerous languages have made it one of the most-used reference resources on the Internet.

Wikipedia's slogan is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It is developed using a type of software called a "wiki", a term originally used for the WikiWikiWeb and derived from the Hawaiian wiki wiki, which means "quick". Jimmy Wales intends for Wikipedia ultimately to achieve a "Britannica or better" level of quality and be published in print.

Although other encyclopedia projects exist or have existed on the Internet, none have achieved Wikipedia's size or popularity. Traditional multilingual editorial policies and article ownership are used in some, such as the expert-written Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the now-defunct Nupedia, and the more casual h2g2 and Everything2. Projects such as Wikipedia, Susning.nu, Enciclopedia Libre and WikiZnanie are other wikis in which articles are developed by numerous authors, and there is no formal process of review. Wikipedia has become the largest such encyclopedic wiki by article and word count. Unlike many encyclopedias, it has licensed its content under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

Wikipedia has a set of policies identifying types of information appropriate for inclusion. These policies are often cited in disputes over whether particular content should be added, revised, transferred to a sister project, or removed. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that articles must be written from a "neutral point of view", relating all noteworthy perspectives on an issue without attempting to weigh in on the issue or determine the objective truth.

The GFDL, the license through which Wikipedia's articles are made available, is one of many "copyleft" copyright licenses that permit the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content, provided that its authors are attributed and this content remains available under the GFDL. When an author contributes original material to the project, the copyright over it is retained by them, but they agree to make the work available under the GFDL. Material on Wikipedia may thus be distributed multilingually to, or incorporated from resources which also use this license.

Wikipedia's content has been mirrored and forked by hundreds of resources from database dumps. Although all text is available under the GFDL, a significant percentage of Wikipedia's images and sounds are not free. Items such as corporate logos, song samples, or copyrighted news photos are used with a claim of fair use.^[3] Wikipedia content has also been used in academic studies, books and conferences, albeit much more rarely. Wikipedia was once used in a United States court case,^[4] and the Parliament of Canada website refers to Wikipedia's article on same-sex marriage in the "further reading" list of Civil Marriage Act.^[5] Some Wikipedia users, or Wikipedians, maintain (noncomprehensive) lists of such uses.^[6]

Wikipedia encompasses 132 "active" language editions (ones with 100+ articles) as of April 2006.^[8] In total, Wikipedia contains 229 language editions of varying states, with a combined 4 million articles.^[9]

Language editions operate independently of one another. Editions are not bound to the content of other language editions, nor are articles on the same subject required to be translations of each other. Automated translation of articles is explicitly disallowed, though multilingual editors of sufficient fluency are encouraged to manually translate articles. The various language editions are held to global policies such as "neutral point of view", though they may diverge on subtler points of policy and practice. Articles and images are shared between Wikipedia editions, the former through "InterWiki" links and pages to request translations, and the latter through the Wikimedia Commons repository. Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions.^[10]

The following is a list of the largest editions—the ones with 100,000+ articles—sorted by number of articles as of June 3, 2006. (Note that the article count, however, is a limited metric for comparing the editions, for a variety of reasons. In some Wikipedia versions, for example, nearly half of the articles are short articles created automatically by robots.^[9] Further, many editions that have more articles also have fewer contributors: although the Polish, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedish and Italian Wikipedias have more articles than the Spanish Wikipedia, they have fewer users.)

1. English (6,893,985)
2. German (409,431)
3. French (295,247)
4. Polish (239,248)
5. Japanese (219,199)
6. Dutch (202,772)
7. Swedish (164,785)
8. Italian (163,038)
9. Portuguese (142,875)
10. Spanish (123,686)

Almost all visitors may edit Wikipedia's content, and registered users can create new articles and have their changes instantly displayed. Wikipedia is built on the expectation that collaboration among users will improve articles over time, in much the same way that open-source software develops. Some of Wikipedia's editors have explained its editing process as a "socially Darwinian evolutionary process",^[11] but this description is not accepted by most Wikipedians.^{[citation needed]}

Although many visitors take advantage of Wikipedia's openness to add nonsense to the encyclopedia, most deliberately disruptive edits and comments are quickly found and deleted by other editors. This real-time, collaborative model allows editors to rapidly update existing topics as they develop and to introduce new ones as they arise. However, this collaboration also sometimes leads to "edit wars" and prolonged disputes when editors do not agree.^[12]

Articles are always subject to editing, unless the article is protected for a short time due to the aforementioned vandalism or revert wars; Wikipedia does not declare any of its articles to be "complete" or "finished". The authors of articles need not have any expertise or formal qualifications in the subjects that they edit, and users are warned that their contributions may be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" by anyone who wishes to do so. Its articles are not controlled by any particular user or editorial group; decisions on the content and editorial policies of Wikipedia are instead made largely through consensus decision-making and, occasionally, by vote. Jimmy Wales retains final judgement on Wikipedia policies and user guidelines.^[13]

Regular users often maintain a "watchlist" of articles of interest to them, so that they can easily keep tabs on all recent changes to those articles, including new updates, discussions, and vandalism. Most past edits to Wikipedia articles also remain viewable after the fact, and are stored on "edit history" pages sorted chronologically, making it possible to see former versions of any page at any time. The only exceptions are the entire histories of articles which have been deleted, and many individual edits which contain libelous statements, copyright violations, and other content which could incur legal liability or be otherwise detrimental to Wikipedia; these edits may only be viewed by Wikipedia administrators.

Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts through a formal process. Nupedia was founded on March 9, 2000 under the ownership of Bomis, Inc, a Web portal company. Its principal figures were Jimmy Wales, Bomis CEO, and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was described by Sanger as differing from existing encyclopedias in being open content, in not having size limitations, due to being on the Internet, and in being free of bias, due to its public nature and potentially broad base of contributors.^[14] Nupedia had a seven-step review process by appointed subject-area experts, but later came to be viewed as too slow for producing a limited number of articles. Funded by Bomis, there were initial plans to recoup its investment by the use of advertisements.^[14] It was initially licensed under its own Nupedia Open Content License, switching to the GFDL prior to Wikipedia's founding at the urging of Richard Stallman.

On January 10, 2001, Larry Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki alongside Nupedia. Under the subject "Let's make a wiki", he wrote:

No, this is not an indecent proposal. It's an idea to add a little feature to Nupedia. Jimmy Wales thinks that many people might find the idea objectionable, but I think not. (…) As to Nupedia's use of a wiki, this is the ULTIMATE "open" and simple format for developing content. We have occasionally bandied about ideas for simpler, more open projects to either replace or supplement Nupedia. It seems to me wikis can be implemented practically instantly, need very little maintenance, and in general are very low-risk. They're also a potentially great source for content. So there's little downside, as far as I can determine.^[15]

Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at http://www.wikipedia.com, and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.^[16] It had been, from January 10, a feature of Nupedia.com in which the public could write articles that could be incorporated into Nupedia after review. It was relaunched off-site after Nupedia's Advisory Board of subject experts disapproved of its production model.^[17] Wikipedia thereafter operated as a standalone project without control from Nupedia. Its policy of "neutral point-of-view" was codified in its initial months, though it is similar to Nupedia's earlier "nonbias" policy. There were otherwise few rules initially. Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and search engine indexing. It grew to approximately 20,000 articles, and 18 language editions, by the end of its first year. It had 26 language editions by the end of 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the end of 2004.^[18] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers went down, permanently, in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia.

Wales and Sanger attribute the concept of using a wiki to Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb or Portland Pattern Repository. Wales mentioned that he heard the concept first from Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee of Bomis who showed him the same wiki, in December 2000,^[19] but it was after Sanger heard of its existence in January 2001 from Ben Kovitz, a regular at the wiki,^[17] that he proposed the creation of a wiki for Nupedia to Wales and Wikipedia's history started. Under a similar concept of free content, though not wiki-based production, the GNUpedia project existed alongside Nupedia early in its history. It subsequently became inactive, and its creator, free-software figure Richard Stallman, lent his support to Wikipedia.^[20]

Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in a perceived English-centric Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002. Later that year, Wales announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and its website was moved to wikipedia.org. Various other projects have since forked from Wikipedia for editorial reasons, such as Wikinfo, which abandoned "neutral point-of-view" in favor of multiple complementary articles written from a "sympathetic point-of-view".

The Wikimedia Foundation was created from Wikipedia and Nupedia on June 20, 2003.^[21] Wikipedia and its sister projects thereafter operated under this non-profit organization. Wikipedia's first sister project, "In Memoriam: September 11 Wiki", had been created in October 2002 to detail the September 11, 2001 attacks;^[22] Wiktionary, a dictionary project, was launched in December 2002; Wikiquote, a collection of quotations, a week after Wikimedia launched; and Wikibooks, a collection of collaboratively-written free books, the next month. Wikimedia has since started a number of other projects, detailed below.

Wikipedia has traditionally measured its status by article count. In its first two years, it grew at a few hundred or fewer new articles per day; by 2004, this had accelerated to a total of 1,000 to 3,000 per day (counting all editions). The English Wikipedia reached its 100,000-article milestone on January 22, 2003.^[23] Wikipedia reached its one millionth article, among the 105 language editions that existed at the time, on September 20, 2004,^[24] while the English edition alone reached its 500,000th on March 18, 2005.^[25] This figure had doubled less than a year later, with the millionth article in the English edition being created on March 1, 2006^[26]; meanwhile, the millionth user registration had been made just 2 days before.^[27]

The Wikimedia Foundation applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark Wikipedia® on September 17, 2004. The mark was granted registration status on January 10, 2006. Trademark protection was accorded by Japan on December 16, 2004 and in the European Union on January 20, 2005. Technically a service mark, the scope of the mark is for: "Provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet".

There are currently plans to license the usage of the Wikipedia trademark for some products, such as books or DVDs.^[28] The German Wikipedia will be printed in its entirety by Directmedia, in 100 volumes of 800 pages each, beginning in October 2006, and publishing will finish in 2010.

Wikipedia is run by MediaWiki free software on a cluster of dedicated servers located in Florida and four other locations around the world. MediaWiki is Phase III of the program's software. Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki by Clifford Adams (Phase I). At first it required CamelCase for links; later it was also possible to use double brackets. Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database in January 2002. This software, Phase II, was written specifically for the Wikipedia project by Magnus Manske. Several rounds of modifications were made to improve performance in response to increased demand. Ultimately, the software was rewritten again, this time by Lee Daniel Crocker. Instituted in July 2002, this Phase III software was called MediaWiki. It was licensed under the GNU General Public License and used by all Wikimedia projects.

Wikipedia was served from a single server until 2003, when the server setup was expanded into a distributed multitier architecture. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache software, and seven Squid cache servers. By September 2005, its server cluster had grown to around 100 servers in four locations around the world.

Page requests are processed by first passing to a front-end layer of Squid caching servers. Requests that cannot be served from the Squid cache are sent to two load-balancing servers running the Perlbal software, which then pass the request to one of the Apache web servers for page-rendering from the database. The web servers serve pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the Wikipedias. To increase speed further, rendered pages for anonymous users are cached in a filesystem until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses. Wikimedia has begun building a global network of caching servers with the addition of three such servers in France. A new Dutch cluster is also online now. In spite of all this, Wikipedia page load times remain quite variable. The ongoing status of Wikipedia's website is posted by users at a status page on OpenFacts.

Wikipedia is funded through the Wikimedia Foundation. Its 4th Quarter 2005 costs were US$321,000 with hardware making up almost 60% of the budget.^[29]

Bomis, an online advertising company that hosts mostly adult-oriented web rings, played a significant part in the early development of Wikipedia and the network itself.

Wikipedia has become increasingly controversial as it has gained prominence and popularity, with many critics alleging that Wikipedia's open nature makes it unauthoritative and unreliable, that it exhibits severe systemic bias and inconsistency, and that the group dynamics of its community are hindering its goals. Wikipedia has also been criticized for its use of dubious sources, its disregard for credentials, and its vulnerability to vandalism and special interest groups. Critics of Wikipedia include Wikipedia editors themselves, ex-editors, representatives of other encyclopedias, and even subjects of articles.

A recent survey addresses the reliability and coverage of the Wikipedia. Fifty people accepted an open invitation to assess an article. Of those, thirty-eight agreed or strongly agreed that the article was accurate, and twenty-three agreed or strongly agreed that it was complete. Of the fifty, eighteen compared the article they reviewed to the article on the same topic in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Six of those people found the Britannica article more or substantially more accurate and seven found the Britannica article to be more or substantially more complete. The survey did not attempt random selection of the participants.^[30]

Wikipedia has been both praised and criticized for being open to editing by anyone. Proponents contend that open editing improves quality over time, while critics allege that non-expert editing undermines quality.

Wikipedia has been criticized for a perceived lack of reliability, comprehensiveness, and authority. It is considered to have no or limited utility as a reference work among many librarians, academics, and the editors of more formally written encyclopedias. Many university lecturers discourage their students from using any encyclopedia as a reference in academic work, preferring primary sources instead.^[31] A website called Wikipedia Watch has been created to denounce Wikipedia as having "…a massive, unearned influence on what passes for reliable information."^[32]

Some argue that allowing anyone to edit makes Wikipedia an unreliable work. Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking, and the editors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about. In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, librarian Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and is "not aware of a single librarian who would". The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."^[33] Although Wikipedia has a policy of citing primary sources, this is only sometimes adhered to. Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's executive editor, Ted Pappas, was quoted in The Guardian as saying: "The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven."^[34] On October 24, 2005, The Guardian published an article "Can you trust Wikipedia?" where a group of experts critically reviewed entries for their fields. Discussing Wikipedia as an academic source, Danah Boyd said in 2005 that "[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes."^[35]

Academic circles have not been exclusively dismissive of Wikipedia as a reference. Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in Science. The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light",^[36] and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. However, these links are offered as background sources for the reader, not as sources used by the writer, and the "enhanced perspectives" are not intended to serve as reference material themselves.

Some critics have suggested that Wikipedia cannot justifiably be called an "encyclopedia", a term which (it is claimed) implies a high degree of reliability and authority that Wikipedia, due to its open editorial policies, may not be able to maintain. However, Wikipedia does meet all the criteria for the basic definition of the word encyclopedia.

In a 2004 piece called "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia," former Britannica editor Robert McHenry criticized the wiki approach, writing:

[H]owever closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler… The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.^[37]

In response to this criticism, proposals have been made to provide various forms of provenance for material in Wikipedia articles.^[38] The idea is to provide source provenance on each interval of text in an article and temporal provenance as to its vintage. In this way a reader can know "who has used the facilities before him" and how long the community has had to process the information in an article to provide calibration on the "sense of security". However, these proposals for provenance are quite controversial. Aaron Krowne wrote a rebuttal article in which he criticized McHenry's methods, and labeled them "FUD", the marketing technique of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".^[39]

Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having, according to Sanger, an "anti-elitist" philosophy of active contempt for expertise.^[40]

The English-language website also suffers from frequent timeouts, server errors and occasional downtime due to heavy user traffic. These problems have had a negative impact on Wikipedia's desired image as a fast and reliable source of information.

At the end of 2005, controversy erupted after journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. found that his biography had been written largely as a hoax about Seigenthaler. This led to the decision to restrict the ability to start articles to registered users.

Wikipedia's editing process assumes that exposing an article to many users will result in accuracy. Referencing Linus' law of open-source development, Sanger stated earlier: "Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow."^[41] Technology figure Joi Ito wrote on Wikipedia's authority, "[a]lthough it depends a bit on the field, the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived."^[42] Conversely, in an informal test of Wikipedia's ability to detect misinformation, its author remarked that its process "isn't really a fact-checking mechanism so much as a voting mechanism", and that material which did not appear "blatantly false" may be accepted as true.^[43]

Wikipedia has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg has argued that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. The entry on Hurricane Frances was five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."^[34] (As of December 2005, this is no longer the case.) Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger stated in 2004, "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven."^[40]

Wikipedia has been praised for making it possible for articles to be updated or created in response to current events. For example, the then-new article on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on its English edition was cited often by the press shortly after the incident. Its editors have also argued that, as a website, Wikipedia is able to include articles on a greater number of subjects than print encyclopedias may.^[44]

The German computing magazine c't performed a comparison of Brockhaus Multimedial, Microsoft Encarta, and Wikipedia in October 2004: Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In overall score, Wikipedia was rated 3.6 out of 5 points ("B-")^[45] In an analysis of online encyclopedias, Indiana University professors Emigh and Herring wrote that "Wikipedia improves on traditional information sources, especially for the content areas in which it is strong, such as technology and current events."^[46]. The journal Nature reported in 2005 that science articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those in Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia had an average of four mistakes per article; Britannica contained three.^[47] On March 24, 2006, Britannica provided a rebuttal labeling the study "fatally flawed".^[48] However, Kenneth Kister's Kister's Best Encyclopedias, 2nd edition (1994) compared the accuracy of Britannica to several other encyclopedias. Britannica — although more accurate than many — was ranked lower than Encyclopedia Americana, World Book Encyclopedia, and Compton's Encyclopedia, all of which received perfect scores. It is unclear how Wikipedia would fare if compared to those works.

The Wikipedia community consists of users who are proportionally few, but highly active. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices."^[46] Editors on Wikinfo, a fork of Wikipedia, similarly argue that new or controversial editors to Wikipedia are often unjustly labeled "trolls" or "problem users" and blocked from editing.^[49] Its community has also been criticized for responding to complaints regarding an article's quality by advising the complainer to fix the article (a common complaint about open-source software development as well).^[50] It has also been described as "cult-like".^{[51][52][53][54]}

In a page on researching with Wikipedia, its authors argue that Wikipedia is valuable for being a social community. That is, authors can be asked to defend or clarify their work, and disputes are readily seen.^[55] Wikipedia editions also often contain reference desks in which the community answers questions.

During December 2005, Wikipedia had about 27,000 users who made at least five edits that month; 17,000 of these active users worked on the English edition.^[56] A more active group of about 4,000 users made more than 100 edits per month, over half of these users having worked in the English edition. According to Wikimedia, one-quarter of Wikipedia's traffic comes from users without accounts, who are less likely to be editors.^[57]

Maintenance tasks are performed by a group of volunteer developers, stewards, bureaucrats, and administrators, which number in the hundreds. Administrators are the largest such group, privileged with the ability to prevent articles from being edited, delete articles, or block users from editing in accordance with community policy. Many users have been temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vandalism or the minor infraction of policies may result in a warning or temporary block, while long-term or permanent blocks for prolonged and serious infractions are given by Jimmy Wales or, on its English edition, an elected Arbitration Committee.

Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger has said that having the GFDL license as a "guarantee of freedom is a strong motivation to work on a free encyclopedia."^[58] In a study of Wikipedia as a community, economics professor Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in wiki software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a "creative construction" approach encourages participation.^[59] Wikipedia has been viewed as a social experiment in anarchy, democracy, or communism. Its founder has replied that it is not intended as one, though that is a consequence.^[60] Critics of Wikipedia have also viewed it as an oligarchy which is controlled primarily by its administrators, stewards, and bureaucrats, or simply by a small number of its contributors. Daniel Brandt of Wikipedia Watch has referred to Jimbo Wales as the "dictator" of Wikipedia; however, most Wikipedia users either do not consider Wales to be a dictator, or consider him to be one who rarely gives non-negotiable orders.^[61]

Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004:^[62] The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities, awarded by Prix Ars Electronica; this came with a EU€10,000 grant and an invitation to present at the PAE Cyberarts Festival in Austria later that year. The second was a Judges' Webby award for the "community" category. Wikipedia was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby. In September 2004, the Japanese Wikipedia was awarded a Web Creation Award from the Japan Advertisers Association. This award, normally given to individuals for great contributions to the Web in Japanese, was accepted by a long-standing contributor on behalf of the project. Wikipedia has received plaudits from sources including BBC News, Washington Post, The Economist, Newsweek, Los Angeles Times, Science, The Guardian, Chicago Sun-Times, The Times (London), Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, The Financial Times, Time Magazine, Irish Times, Reader's Digest, and The Daily Telegraph. Founder Jimmy Wales was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by TIME Magazine in 2006.

See Wikimedia in popular culture

• Internet encyclopedia project
• List of encyclopedias
• Open Site

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• Wikipedia FAQ
• Fernanda B. Viegas, Martin Wattenberg, and Kushal Dave, "Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations", CHI 2004 April 24–April 29, 2004. Preliminary report "History Flow" available on the IBM website.
• Wikipedia in academic studies
• Wikipedia press releases
• Press coverage of Wikipedia
• Why Wikipedia is not so great
• Replies to common objections
• Statistics
• Open Directory Project: Wikipedia
• OpenFacts: Copies of Wikipedia content
• SourceWatch: Wikipedia[1]

Listen to this article
(2 parts, 33 minutes)

2. Part 2

These audio files were created from a revision of this article dated

Error: no date provided

, and do not reflect subsequent edits.

(Audio help · More spoken articles)

• wikipedia.org, multi-lingual portal
  • en.wikipedia.org, English language edition
• One of many Wikipedia mirrors
• Wikipedia Video Tutorial
• Meta-Wiki, policy-related and technical discussions regarding Wikimedia
• Wikimedia Foundation, parent organization of Wikipedia
• Larry Sanger on the origins of Wikipedia from Slashdot and Open Sources 2.0
• Larry Sanger about the origins of Wikipedia
• BBC article regarding Wikipedia flaws
• Guardian UK article
• Interview with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales," nPost, November 1, 2005.
• Wikipedia Signpost, newspaper about the English Wikipedia
• Wikipedia in the news. Aggregated news and rss-feed. (Multilingual)
• Why Wikipedia will survive the storm, from News.com
• Nature comparison between Wikipedia and Britannica
• Britannica's response to Nature's study on Wikipedia
• Critical Review Of Wikipedia
• Can Wikipedia Survive Its Own Success?, Wharton School
• Who Owns Your Wikipedia Biography?, The Register
• The Wiki Watch
• Uncyclopedia and Wickerpedia, Wikipedia parodies
• The Wikipedia FAQK, Q&A by Lore Sjöberg in Wired.
• The Wikipedia Main Page from Dec 02,2003 (Internet Archive Wayback Machine)
• This exact page from Dec 10, 2002 (Internet Archive Wayback Machine)

Template:Link FA