Changes

After experiementing experimenting with Nupedia, which relied on approved editors for quality control, Wikipedia founder Jim Jimmy Wales concluded methodical fact checking that a top-down "cathedral" development model would not allow the project to develop as quickly as he preferredbe successful. Under Wales leadership Instead, the project turned toward casual a method had to be found whereby methodical fact-checkingcould be undertaken by thousands of users simultaneously. Wiki software, which allows the easiest possible access to editing by even casual users, and was Wikipedia's solution to the problems presented by the Nupedia model. Wikipedia soon developed a cadre large group of administrators regular users who often attempt to weed out unqualified or unwanted contibutorsexercise quality control by reviewing recent changes and individual watch-lists.

Some argue that wiki systems are inherently unreliable. In wikis such as Wikipedia with no formal fact-checking process, it can be a matter reversal of luck when explicit plagiarism or inaccurate statements are discovered. While advocates of Wikipedia have stated the Nupedia model, 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 purposewhich edit privileges were difficult to come by, 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. In additionat Wikipedia, although experts on a subject may everyone has edit a pageprivileges by default, 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 who rely on searches of other Internet sites to review new information. Administrators or editors might analyze writing skills or rely on opinions about and only extraordinary cases result in a contributor to inform decisions when they have no knowledge loss of the subject of an articleedit privileges.

Assembly of a public knowledge base by a voluntary collectivity collective can offer easy access to knowledge for future generations. But with a lack of verifiability, and with obscene, opinionated or incorrect entries as recurring an occassional feature, 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.

Nonethelss Nonetheless, Wikipedia, more so than other wiki service in early 2004, had become a main source for encyclopedic content redistributed by other sites. While this means that a much greater body of Internet content is freely available, it also means that any errors in Wikipedia are reproduced across the Internet to multiple sites.

Discussions of both policy and content at Wikipedia are open to discussion and debate at the discretion of a cadre of admistratorson unmoderated mailing lists, wiki pages, and web forums. Users Even users who have not contributed to articles are routinely blocked from participating have the right to enage in in policy discussions. Users critical of the project are sometimes never blocked from discussionsfor that reason alone. One potential criticism of Wikipedia's is that "power (Some users" who spend several hours a day making edits or who use software to quickly review a large number , however are very critical of pages may dominate discussions and the project after being blocked for unrelated behavioral reasons. Even in such cases, Wales makes it very clear that people who so long as they are qualified or interested in administrative functions may hold different interests from the people who polite and thoughtful, they are welcome to join the best contributorsmailing lists to comment on policy. )

One potential criticism of Wikipedia's volunteer administration executes policy with ad hoc technical interventions, derision of unwanted contributors and, for more accepted is that "power users, brief votes open " who spend several hours a day making edits or who use software to whomever adminstrators choose to allow, quickly review a mediation process and an arbitrary committee process based on public airing large number of whatever accused pages may dominate discussions and accusers choose to calls evidencethat people who are qualified or interested in administrative functions may hold different interests from the people who are the best contributors.

The publicly licensed work of contributors to Wikipedia under ownership of Bomis.com was adapted in late 2003 by a non-profit foundation Wale's created. After several years of operation under the control of Walesvolunteer administration executes policy with technical interventions, who declared himself "God King" of Wikipediaand brief votes open to all users, Wikipedia is currently operated by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation under a board of directors currently consisting of owners in [[Bomis.com]], mediation process and relies an arbitration committee process based on Bomis.com for in-kind support. The foundations three original board members were partners in ownership public airing of [http://bomisevidence about various grievances.com Bomis.com]. In May, 2003, Jimmy Wales, chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors, announced that he is resigning as CEO of Bomis, though he apparently retains his full fiscal interest as a founding partner of Bomis. Wikimedia Foundations bylaws assure the Bomis partners continued control of the foudations' board of directors. [http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylawsThe mediation and arbitration committees are entirely constituted by volunteers.pdf]

In addition late 2003, the entire project was transferred from Bomis to representing itself as building the world's largest human edited Internet directoryWikimedia Foundation, BomisInc.com produces , a softnonprofit organization founded by Wales. Bomis still provides some in-porn site titled Bomis Babe Report kind support. The foundations three original board members were partners in ownership of [http://babesbomis.bomiscom Bomis.com]. Until at least In May 10, 20042003, Bomis ran a blog it described as libertarian titled Jerk Sauce and which featured links to several right-wing sites. On May 10Jimmy Wales, Wales stated thatchairman of the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors, regardless a JerkSauce FAQ announced that stated "Jerk Sauce he is a web log, or blog, resigning as CEO of Bomis to more fully reflect that is run by he spends most of his time working for the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia Foundations bylaws assure the Bomis" partners continued control of the blog is a private function foudations' board of Wikipedia trustee and Bomis partner Tim Shelldirectors. [http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws. pdf]

Wales also announced in May, 2004 that he envisions himself as eventually being paid to "run" Wikimedia Foundation. Plans have been announced to hold open elections that will allow Wikipedia contributors or the Wikimedia Foundation to elect two Foundation members to the five member board. No plans have been announced to hold open elections that would allow Wikipedia contributors or the Wikimedia Foundation to select their own board of directors, to allow the foundation to develop outside of Wale's control or to wean the non-profit from dependence on Bomis.com as the primary financial contributor.