Wikipedia

From Encyc

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-like reference work on the internet. It runs on wiki software, and can be edited by most people. It is not available today.

Contents 1 Origins 2 Control systems 2.1 Secret communications 2.2 Reliable sources 3 History 4 Safe environment for young people? 5 Privacy for Wikipedia editors 6 See also 7 Notes 8 External links

Origins

Ben Kovitz had the idea to apply a wiki to an encyclopedia at a taco stand. Jimmy Wales hired Larry Sanger to implement it. Jimmy at the time was running Bomis, a search engine. He also had started Nupedia, a traditional encyclopedia written by experts. Wikipedia was originally intended to be a feeder project, where content would be generated and then refined before inclusion in Nupedia. It took off on its own and eventually Nupedia was discontinued.

Control systems

Secret communications

Sophisticated control systems are in place to make sure that the content on Wikipedia remains aligned with Jimbo Wales' vision. Superficially, Wikipedia appears to be very transparent, with visitors being able to see contribution histories and talk pages of every user. There are large areas of Wikipedia devoted to mock judicial proceedings and various processes, policies, discussions.

However, behind the scenes, Jimbo and a small group of administrators control the site through the use of mailing lists. The Arbitration Committee has a private mailing list, and there are the Wikimedia "internal-l" and "private-l" mailing lists. There is also the IRC "admins" channel. One administrator, Durova, became famous when her "sleuthing" mailing list became exposed. On it, Wikipedians attempted to identify users of multiple accounts by poring over the personal information of users of the site.

Reliable sources

One of the most-often things said on Wikipedia is that you can't write something unless it's based on "reliable sources". A gaggle of rules have been created surrounding this concept. Intentionally uneven application of these rules allows the powers that be to control Wikipedia.

Milton Roe explains^[1]:

Here's the basic hypocrisy of WP (and I'm amazed I'm explaining this to you). The media reports an awful lot of crap, some of it as fact, and some of it as simply reporting reports of reports, without comment. Wikipedia picks this up, because it's sourced. Now, what to do with it with the pile of crap, much of it from tabloids? If editors with WP-juice look at the subject and decide WP:ILIKEIT, it's going to be extensively written-about and documented, per WP:V, WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOTPAPER and the usual inclusionist arguments. Soon, the ARS people will be involved. It will then expand like Jimbo's meat-place article about Mzoli's, and screw you on the issue of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. On the other hand, if some editors of a powerful clique look at the issue and decide WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's going to get {prod}ed per WP:NOTABLE, WP:POV, WP:COATRACK, WP:RS, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and so on and so on. The usual deletionist arguments. If the PROD fails, it will be re-written, watered down, shortened for conciseness, retitled, stubbified, orphaned, and finally merged down a rabbithole with something else vaguely related. Following which, inevitably somebody at the other large article will notice that it doesn't add that much, and delete what vestigially remains of it, in the interests of keeping a 100 K article length down below manageable limits

And later^[2]

...there's something twisted in asking for the use of "reliable sources" from a group of people whose education has not equipped them to tell what a reliable source is

History

Wikipedia began initially as an offshoot of Nupedia, as a way to quickly get a lot of articles created for the more serious Nupedia project.

It was the brainchild of Ben Kovitz, who on 2 January 2001 suggested the idea of using a wiki to write Nupedia to friend Larry Sanger over dinner. After dinner Larry Sanger called his Nupedia boss Jimbo Wales, who loved the idea and on 10 January 2001 a new project, Wikipedia was launched.

Whilst it could be argued that Ben Kovitz was the founder, at least in terms of ideas, in fact Ben Kovitz does not wish to acknowledge ownership in any form. Since Bomis, who in the early days funded Wikipedia, fired Larry Sanger as their paid editor-in-chief (but allowed him to remain as an unpaid volunteer, which he continued in for a short period of time), Larry Sanger has tried to suggest that he, along with Jimbo Wales, should be more correctly described as co-founders of Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales has refused to acknowledge that Larry Sanger was anything more than an employee of Bomis and hence of Wikipedia, and refers to himself as sole founder. Jimbo Wales has famously changed facts in relation to this issue.

In comparison to Wikipedia Review, it would be argued that Igor Alexander = Ben Kovitz, who had the idea to run Wikipedia Review/Wikipedia, Blissyu2 = Jimbo Wales, who bought Wikipedia Review and ran it from the sidelines, whilst Somey / Selina = Larry Sanger, editor in chief, who claims to be the co-founder / owner. A slight difference is that Larry Sanger never actually tried to steal Wikipedia from Jimbo Wales (although he did start 2 competitor sites, first Digital Universe and later Citizendium). In this and many other things, Wikipedia's history has paralleled that of its greatest critic, Wikipedia Review.

Wikipedia has quickly become incredibly popular, and it wasn't long before Bomis stopped funding Wikipedia, Nupedia was closed down, and Wikipedia became a non-profit organisation who relied on donations. Wikipedia's status as a non-profit organisation, especially in relation to their sister project Wikia has constantly come under question from critic sites (led by Thekohser on Wikipedia Review).

Wikipedia now has over 2 million articles, far more than any paper encyclopaedia, and is the top hit in most internet searches using the search engine Google. Google changed their algorithm to give Wikipedia higher ratings - this and other related issues form the bulk of the criticism leveled by Daniel Brandt and his site Wikipedia Watch.

Wikipedia now exists in many languages, and has many side projects, and is forever growing larger and larger. School students are using it more than they ever were before, and even newspapers and TV stations are using it. There have been a number of cases where Wikipedia was used as a source, to present false information in important news cases and court cases. This formed the primary aspect of Blissyu2's criticism of Wikipedia, especially in relation to their inaccurate article on the Port Arthur massacre.

Wikipedia has been compared to a game, or even to popular online games like World of Warcraft, a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG). Wikipedians have developed sophisticated strategies and tactics to compete.

Safe environment for young people?

Wikipedia claims that it can be used in schools by young people ^[3][4], yet it contains gruesome hardcore pornography with titles like Entrails of a Virgin^[5], Rope Hell^[6], and Serial Rape: Perverted Experiment^[7]. (*WARNING* - these references lead directly to the Wikipedia pages and are not suitable for schools, children, or work, despite assurances from Wikipedia that they would be. If you are under 18 please do not click on the links.)

Privacy for Wikipedia editors

Wikipedia's administrators are usually anonymous, and they collect personal information about users such as their real names, locations, IP addresses, places of employment, and family members. This information is discussed in semi-private mailing lists, where it is easily leaked. In at least one case (FT2's infamous "Anvil" email), a Wikipedia "functionary" with checkuser status has directly threatened a fellow user of the website, with the blessing of the Arbitration Committee, Jimmy Wales, and others at the Wikimedia Foundation.

See also

• Criticism of Wikipedia
• Things that Wikipedians like to say
• Things that Wikipedians like to discuss
• Encyc

Notes

External links

• Wikipedia