developer, editor
60,576
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
http://www.wikipedia.org==Other SourceWatch Resources==*[[Citizendium]]
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia
*http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia
*http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_News
SW: →External links: add ref and links
Some aspects of wiki systems may be inherently unreliable. In wikis such as Wikipedia with no formal fact-checking process, it can be a matter of luck when explicit plagiarism or inaccurate statements are discovered. While advocates of Wikipedia have stated in news interviews their hope that the project's popularity will attract a large number of concerned users who will find content that doesn't serve the wiki's purpose, verification problems can be independent of the number of users if the percentage of erroneous entries remains proportional among a growing total number of users.
Although experts on a subject may edit a page, they ultimately have no more control over the content of that page than anyone else. Contributors with unique knowledge of unusual subjects may be mistrusted by editors with general knowledge , or to put it less diplomatically, little or no knowledge, who rely on searches of other Internet sites to review new information. Administrators or editors might analyze writing skills or rely on opinions about a contributor to inform decisions when they have no knowledge of the subject of an article, or on a poll of individuals as ill-informed about the subject at hand as they are, themselves.
Assembly of a public knowledge base by voluntary associations can offer easy access to knowledge for future generations. But with a lack of verifiability, and with obscene, opinionated or incorrect entries as on-going features, wikis such as Wikipedia might be self-limiting in their scope. At Wikipedia, fact checking is a constant process undertaken by anyone who chooses to get involved and represents themself as knowledgable.
Wales operated the project with volunteer assistance for several years on Bomis equipment, and for a year paid an employee to get the project going. In late 2003, the entire project was transferred from Bomis to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit organization founded by Wales.
The foundation's three original trustees were joint owners of [http://bomis.com Bomis.com]. [http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf] In May 2004, Jimmy Wales, chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors, announced that he is resigning as CEO of Bomis to more fully reflect that he spends most of his time working for the Wikimedia Foundation. Wales announced in May, 2004 that he envisions himself as eventually being paid to run Wikimedia Foundation. [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-May/012309.html]
Elections for the contributor and volunteer positions on the Wikimedia Foundation board were held in June 2004. [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation]
== Contact details ==
*http://www.wikipedia.org
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia
*http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia
*http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_News
== External links ==
*Sam Williams, "[http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/04/27/wikipedia/index_np.html Everyone is an editor]", ''Salon'', April 27, 2004.
*[http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/announcement.html The initial plan for a free encyclopedia.]
*[http://www.arena.org.ar/gnupedia-historia.html The history of the first free encyclopedia, GNUPedia.] (Spanish)
*Aaron Weiss, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/technology/circuits/10wiki.html The Unassociated Press]", ''New York Times'', February 10, 2005.
*Jim Regan, "[http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0211/p25s01-stin.html Wacky Wikipedia]", ''Christian Science Monitor'', February 11, 2005.
* Larry Sanger, "[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir]", ''Slashdot'', April 18, 2005.
* Larry Sanger, "[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95 The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: Part II]", ''Slashdot'', April 18, 2005.
*Joanna Glasner , "[http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,67286,00.html All the News That's Fit to Wiki]", ''Wired'', April 22, 2005. (A story on the challenges of Wikinews).
*Rob O'Neill, "[http://www.smh.com.au/news/icon/wikipedia-worries/2005/08/23/1124562860192.html Wikipedia worries]", Icon, ''Sydney Morning Herald'', August 27, 2005.
*John Seigenthaler, "[http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051130/cm_usatoday/afalsewikipediabiography;_ylt=AnfyGYWFlhu5_BcJ6ZCGP2Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI- A false Wikipedia 'biography']",Yahoo News, November 30, 2005.
*Katharine P, Seeyle, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html Rewriting History: Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar]", ''New York Times'', December 4, 2005.
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4502846.stm "Wikipedia tightens online rules,"] BBC, December 6, 2005: "Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has tightened its submission rules following a complaint."
*Daniel Terdiman, "[http://news.com.com/Is+Wikipedia+safe+from+libel+liability/2100-1025_3-5984880.html?tag=st.prev Is Wikipedia safe from libel liability?]", ''CNET News.com'', December 7, 2005.
*Anita Ramasastry, "[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html Is an Online Encyclopedia, Such as Wikipedia, Immune From Libel Suits?:] Under Current Law, the Answer Is Most Likely Yes, But that Law Should Change", ''FindLaw'', December 12, 2005.
*Suzanne Goldenberg, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1665974,00.html Wikipedia hoaxer apologises]", ''The Guardian', December 13, 2005.
*Jim Giles, "[http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html nternet encyclopaedias go head to head: Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds]", ''Nature'', December 14, 2005.
*"[http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html The peer review]", Nature, December 15, 2005. ("We chose 50 entries from the websites of Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica on subjects that represented a broad range of scientific disciplines ... Each pair of entries was sent to an expert for peer review. The reviewers, who were not told which article was which, were asked to look for three types of inaccuracy: factual errors, critical omissions and misleading statements.')
*Jimmy Wales, "[http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v438/n7070/nature-2005-12-15.mp3 Britannica vs. Wikipedia, origin of feathers, the earliest Europeans, life in the Louisiana wetlands, a resurgent Russian space programme and problems with Pokemon]", Nature, December 15, 2005. (This is a podcast file).
*Charles Arthur, "[http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/12/16/1134703607158.html Online, it's us or them]", ''Sydney Morning Herald'', December 17, 2005.
*Jonathan Dee, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html? All the News That’s Fit to Print Out]", ''New York Times'', July 1, 2007.
[[Category:Media]][[category:International]][[Category:Internet]]
