Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Harrystein (talk | contribs) (WIP) |
Harrystein (talk | contribs) (CE and rewriting) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
'''Wikipedia''' is an open source, free-to-edit [[Internet|online]] encyclopedia launched in 2001 by [[capitalist]] Jimmy ("Jimbo") Wales and his employee Larry Sanger. Sanger had the idea to apply the ''"wiki"'' concept to the encyclopedia format, allowing any user to edit and link pages easily, and the resulting project quickly took off. By January 2007, Wikipedia had reached the top ten most visited sites,<ref>https://ir.comscore.com/static-files/45b068e1-1cee-412a-b48f-21ec34e7b59d</ref> where it remains to this day.<ref>As of May 2023, Wikipedia was the seventh most visited website on the web. {{cite web | title=Top Websites Ranking - Most Visited Websites in April 2023 - Similarweb | website=Similarweb | date=2023-05-01 | url=https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/ | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230510154737/https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/ | archive-date=2023-05-10 | url-status=unfit | ref={{sfnref | Similarweb | 2023}} | access-date=2023-05-11}}</ref> Its model, in particular its version of the ''wiki'' format, has since been widely imitated, and it continues to exercise major influence on the dissemination of knowledge. Wikipedia's impressive growth and stability | '''Wikipedia''' is an open source, free-to-edit [[Internet|online]] encyclopedia launched in 2001 by [[capitalist]] Jimmy ("Jimbo") Wales and his employee Larry Sanger. Sanger had the idea to apply the ''"wiki"'' concept to the encyclopedia format, allowing any user to edit and link pages easily, and the resulting project quickly took off. By January 2007, Wikipedia had reached the top ten most visited sites,<ref>https://ir.comscore.com/static-files/45b068e1-1cee-412a-b48f-21ec34e7b59d</ref> where it remains to this day.<ref>As of May 2023, Wikipedia was the seventh most visited website on the web. {{cite web | title=Top Websites Ranking - Most Visited Websites in April 2023 - Similarweb | website=Similarweb | date=2023-05-01 | url=https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/ | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230510154737/https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/ | archive-date=2023-05-10 | url-status=unfit | ref={{sfnref | Similarweb | 2023}} | access-date=2023-05-11}}</ref> Its model, in particular its version of the ''wiki'' format, has since been widely imitated, and it continues to exercise major influence on the dissemination of knowledge. Wikipedia's impressive growth and stability since the early-2000s has sparked discussions about decentralization, [[anarchism|anarchic]] forms of administration, and the potential of the Internet. | ||
==History== | ==History== | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
===Anonymity=== | ===Anonymity=== | ||
Sitting members of the US Congress regularly make anonymous edits to Wikipedia.{{cn}} | Sitting members of the US Congress regularly make anonymous edits to Wikipedia.{{cn}} | ||
===Structure=== | ===Structure=== | ||
Wikipedia boasts that its structure allows for any user to make edits. In reality, getting an edit to stick is a time-consuming process which requires prior understanding of Wikipedia's procedures and internal politics and may involve a lengthy debate process on the article's Talk page. <!--Article or proof about top-down power of admins etc.--> | Wikipedia boasts that its structure allows for any user to make edits. In reality, getting an edit to stick is a time-consuming process which requires prior understanding of Wikipedia's procedures and internal politics and may involve a lengthy debate process on the article's Talk page. <!--Article or proof about top-down power of admins etc.--> | ||
===Bias and sources=== | ===Bias and sources=== | ||
<!--The nature of Wikipedia's source policy is such that...etc. | <!--The nature of Wikipedia's source policy is such that...etc. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 34: | ||
--> | --> | ||
Wikipedia has strict policies on the use of sources which have the effect of stifling views which breach the narrow confines of [[Western]] [[academic]] and media opinion. These include the following: | Wikipedia has strict policies on the use of sources which have the effect of stifling views which breach the narrow confines of [[Western]] [[academic]] and media opinion. These include the following: | ||
* "Academic consensus" only: Political and historical disagreements are | * "Academic consensus" only: Political and historical disagreements are treated like scientific disagreements, making "fringe" theories unaccepted by academics tantamount to pseudoscience. | ||
::Example: [[Conspiracy theory|Conspiracy theories]] surrounding [[Jeffrey Epstein]] or [[Seth Rich]] are stonewalled in the mainstream media, making them inadmissable on Wikipedia due to lack of mainstream sources. | |||
* No original research: Working outside the bounds of established institutions, even with quality sources or new evidence, is forbidden | * No original research: Working outside the bounds of established institutions, even with quality sources or new evidence, is forbidden. | ||
::Example: Citations from ancient Sovietologists like Service and Conquest stand on the same footing as recent works, ignoring the monumentous importance of the Soviet archives for the study of Soviet history. | |||
=== | ===Editors=== | ||
Wikipedia allows paid editors to contribute. The only stipulation is that these editors disclose their funding on their user Talk page. Paid edits in content articles have no indication that they were made by a paid editor. | Wikipedia allows paid editors to contribute. The only stipulation is that these editors disclose their funding on their user Talk page. Paid edits in content articles have no indication that they were made by a paid editor. | ||
=== | ====Philip Cross==== | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
<ref name="galloway">{{cite web | last=Trending | first=BBC | title=Galloway's war of words with a mystery Wikipedia editor | website=BBC News | date=2018-06-18 | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-44495696 | access-date=2023-05-11}}</ref> | <ref name="galloway">{{cite web | last=Trending | first=BBC | title=Galloway's war of words with a mystery Wikipedia editor | website=BBC News | date=2018-06-18 | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-44495696 | access-date=2023-05-11}}</ref> | ||
https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/Philip_Cross | https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/Philip_Cross | ||
--> | --> | ||
===Authoritative position=== | |||
Wikipedia has shown clear strengths in certain areas, such as for retrieving statistics and dates, reading on STEM-related topics, and for collecting sources on a topic. However, the site's informal reputation as being authoritative has led to overreliance and a lack of due skepticism towards its contents. Reporters and media outlets have been caught stealing content from Wikipedia on several occasions,{{cn}} including uncited material. In such cases, the article in question may even be used to support the original claim on Wikipedia, a phenomenon known to Wiki editors as "citogenesis".<ref>{{cite web | title=Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents | website=Wikipedia | date=2016-11-22 | url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents | ref={{sfnref | Wikipedia | 2016}} | access-date=2023-05-14}}</ref> In addition, unlike a source written by one author or institution, Wikipedia articles do not disclose the positions or biases of their editors, allowing articles to claim to represent all viewpoints on an issue without clarifying the positions of the author. | |||
==Strategy== | |||
Wikipedia, as a free-to-edit information source which shapes the opinions of millions of users around the world, presents itself as an obvious target for an [[entryism|entryist]] campaign, and some leftists advocate such a strategy. There are precedents which could be cited in support: in the mid 2010s, users of the [[white supremacist]] site Stormfront launched "Swarmfront", a targeted and highly coordinated propaganda campaign to spread racist rhetoric on [[4chan]] and [[Reddit]]. The campaign coincided with the rise of the [[alt-right]], making it difficult to measure its actual influence, but its unique rhetoric was noticeable in the discourse on both websites at the time.<ref>{{cite web | title=Who or what is Stormfront, and how are they ruining Reddit? | website=Reddit | date=2015-05-01 | url=https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/34knda/who_or_what_is_stormfront_and_how_are_they/ | ref={{sfnref | Reddit | 2015}} | access-date=2023-05-11}}</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 20:29, 14 May 2023
Wikipedia is an open source, free-to-edit online encyclopedia launched in 2001 by capitalist Jimmy ("Jimbo") Wales and his employee Larry Sanger. Sanger had the idea to apply the "wiki" concept to the encyclopedia format, allowing any user to edit and link pages easily, and the resulting project quickly took off. By January 2007, Wikipedia had reached the top ten most visited sites,[1] where it remains to this day.[2] Its model, in particular its version of the wiki format, has since been widely imitated, and it continues to exercise major influence on the dissemination of knowledge. Wikipedia's impressive growth and stability since the early-2000s has sparked discussions about decentralization, anarchic forms of administration, and the potential of the Internet.
History
Jimmy Wales and Bomis
Issues
Anonymity
Sitting members of the US Congress regularly make anonymous edits to Wikipedia.[citation needed]
Structure
Wikipedia boasts that its structure allows for any user to make edits. In reality, getting an edit to stick is a time-consuming process which requires prior understanding of Wikipedia's procedures and internal politics and may involve a lengthy debate process on the article's Talk page.
Bias and sources
Wikipedia has strict policies on the use of sources which have the effect of stifling views which breach the narrow confines of Western academic and media opinion. These include the following:
- "Academic consensus" only: Political and historical disagreements are treated like scientific disagreements, making "fringe" theories unaccepted by academics tantamount to pseudoscience.
- Example: Conspiracy theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein or Seth Rich are stonewalled in the mainstream media, making them inadmissable on Wikipedia due to lack of mainstream sources.
- No original research: Working outside the bounds of established institutions, even with quality sources or new evidence, is forbidden.
- Example: Citations from ancient Sovietologists like Service and Conquest stand on the same footing as recent works, ignoring the monumentous importance of the Soviet archives for the study of Soviet history.
Editors
Wikipedia allows paid editors to contribute. The only stipulation is that these editors disclose their funding on their user Talk page. Paid edits in content articles have no indication that they were made by a paid editor.
Philip Cross
Authoritative position
Wikipedia has shown clear strengths in certain areas, such as for retrieving statistics and dates, reading on STEM-related topics, and for collecting sources on a topic. However, the site's informal reputation as being authoritative has led to overreliance and a lack of due skepticism towards its contents. Reporters and media outlets have been caught stealing content from Wikipedia on several occasions,[citation needed] including uncited material. In such cases, the article in question may even be used to support the original claim on Wikipedia, a phenomenon known to Wiki editors as "citogenesis".[3] In addition, unlike a source written by one author or institution, Wikipedia articles do not disclose the positions or biases of their editors, allowing articles to claim to represent all viewpoints on an issue without clarifying the positions of the author.
Strategy
Wikipedia, as a free-to-edit information source which shapes the opinions of millions of users around the world, presents itself as an obvious target for an entryist campaign, and some leftists advocate such a strategy. There are precedents which could be cited in support: in the mid 2010s, users of the white supremacist site Stormfront launched "Swarmfront", a targeted and highly coordinated propaganda campaign to spread racist rhetoric on 4chan and Reddit. The campaign coincided with the rise of the alt-right, making it difficult to measure its actual influence, but its unique rhetoric was noticeable in the discourse on both websites at the time.[4]
References
- ↑ https://ir.comscore.com/static-files/45b068e1-1cee-412a-b48f-21ec34e7b59d
- ↑ As of May 2023, Wikipedia was the seventh most visited website on the web. "Top Websites Ranking - Most Visited Websites in April 2023 - Similarweb". Similarweb. 2023-05-01. Archived from the original on 2023-05-10. Retrieved 2023-05-11.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) - ↑ "Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents". Wikipedia. 2016-11-22. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
- ↑ "Who or what is Stormfront, and how are they ruining Reddit?". Reddit. 2015-05-01. Retrieved 2023-05-11.