DOCSLIB.ORG

Wikipedia from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia This Article Is About the Internet Encyclopedia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wikipedia from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia This Article Is About the Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the Internet encyclopedia. For other uses, see Wikipedia ( disambiguation). For Wikipedia's non-encyclopedic visitor introduction, see Wikipedia:About. Page semi-protected Wikipedia A white sphere made of large jigsaw pieces, with letters from several alphabets shown on the pieces Wikipedia wordmark The logo of Wikipedia, a globe featuring glyphs from several writing systems, mo st of them meaning the letter W or sound "wi" Screenshot Main page of the English Wikipedia Main page of the English Wikipedia Web address wikipedia.org Slogan The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit Commercial? No Type of site Internet encyclopedia Registration Optional[notes 1] Available in 287 editions[1] Users 73,251 active editors (May 2014),[2] 23,074,027 total accounts. Content license CC Attribution / Share-Alike 3.0 Most text also dual-licensed under GFDL, media licensing varies. Owner Wikimedia Foundation Created by Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger[3] Launched January 15, 2001; 13 years ago Alexa rank Steady 6 (September 2014)[4] Current status Active Wikipedia (Listeni/?w?k?'pi?di?/ or Listeni/?w?ki'pi?di?/ wik-i-pee-dee-?) is a free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non -profit Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who can access the site[5] can edit almost any of its articles. Wikipedia is the sixth-most popular website[4] and constitu tes the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.[6][7][8] As of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique vis itors each month.[9] Wikipedia has more than 22 million accounts, out of which t here were over 73,000 active editors globally as of May 2014.[2] Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia on January 15, 2001. Sanger[10] coined its name,[11] a portmanteau of wiki (from the Hawaiian word for "quick")[ 12] and encyclopedia. Although Wikipedia's content was initially only in English , it quickly became multilingual, through the launch of versions in different la nguages. All versions of Wikipedia are similar, but important differences exist in content and in editing practices. The English Wikipedia is now one of more th an 200 Wikipedias, but remains the largest one, with over 4.6 million articles. A 2005 survey of Wikipedia published in Nature based on a comparison of 42 scien ce articles with Encyclopædia Britannica found that Wikipedia's level of accuracy approached Encyclopædia Britannica?'?s, and both had similar low rates of "serious errors".[13] Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, and tha t its group dynamics hinder its goals. Most academics, historians, teachers and journalists reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for being a mix ture of truths, half truths, and some falsehoods,[14] and that as a resource abo ut controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and sp in.[15] Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies have been repeatedly cri ticised by prominent scholarly sources for undermining freedom of thought and le ading to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[16][17][18][19] The casu al reader is not aware of these controversial policies because he/she assumes Wi kipedia has no restrictions on freedom of information.[20] The Academic Integrit y at MIT handbook for students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology states: "Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Academic Source: The bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not a ssume that these sources are reliable use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replace ment for your own research."[21] Contents 1 Openness 1.1 Restrictions 1.2 Review of changes 1.3 Vandalism 2 Policies and laws 2.1 Content policies 3 Governance 3.1 Administrators 3.2 Dispute resolution 4 Community 4.1 Diversity 5 Language editions 6 History 7 Critical reception 7.1 Accuracy of content 7.2 Quality of writing 7.3 Coverage of topics and systemic bias 7.4 Explicit content 7.5 Privacy 7.6 Wikipedia conflicts in the media 8 Operation 8.1 Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters 8.2 Software operations and support 8.3 Automated editing 8.4 Wikiprojects and assessment of importance 8.5 Hardware operations and support 8.6 Internal research and operational development 8.7 Internal news publications 9 Access to content 9.1 Content licensing 9.2 Methods of access 10 Impact 10.1 Readership 10.2 Cultural significance 10.3 Sister projects Wikimedia 10.4 Publishing 10.5 Scientific use 11 Related projects 12 See also 13 References 13.1 Notes 13.2 Further reading 14 External links Openness Differences between versions of an article are highlighted as shown Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principl e[clarify] regarding the security of its content;[22] it started almost entirely openanyone could create articles, and any Wikipedia article could be edited by a ny reader, even those who did not have a Wikipedia account. Modifications to all articles would immediately become available. As a result, all articles could co ntain inaccuracies, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant text until an editor would correct these issues. Restrictions Over time, the English Wikipedia and some other Wikipedias gradually restricted modifications. For example, in the English Wikipedia and some other language edi tions, only registered users may create a new article.[23] On the English Wikipe dia and some others, some particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages ar e now "protected" to some degree.[24] A frequently vandalized article can be sem i-protected, meaning that only certain editors are able to modify it.[25] A part icularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make changes.[26] In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles,[27] which have passed certain reviews. Following protract ed trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pendin g changes" system in December 2012.[28] Under this system, new users' edits to c ertain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication".[29] The editing interface of Wikipedia Review of changes Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikip edia provides certain tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. Th e "History" page of each article links to each revision.[notes 2][30] On most ar ticles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's hist ory page. Anyone can view the latest changes to articles, and anyone may maintai n a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of any ch anges. "New pages patrol" is a process whereby newly created articles are checke d for obvious problems.[31] In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in a wiki create a catalyst for collaborative developmen t, and that features such as easy access to past versions of a page favor "creat ive construction" over "creative destruction".[32] Vandalism Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia Any edit that changes content in a way that deliberately compromises the integri ty of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of va ndalism include insertion of obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also inc lude advertising language and other types of spam.[33] Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false info rmation to an article, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce ir relevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categoriz ation, manipulate the underlying code of an article, or use images disruptively. [34] White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium. American journalist John Seigenthaler (19272014), subject of the Seigenthaler inc ident Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from wiki articles; the median tim e to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes.[35][36] However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair.[37] In the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure John Seigenth aler in May 2005. Seigenthaler was falsely presented as a suspect in the assassi nation of John F. Kennedy.[37] The article remained uncorrected for four months. [37] Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of t he Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikiped ia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contri buted the misinformation. Wales replied that he did not, although the perpetrato r was eventually traced.[38][39] After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wiki pedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[37] This incident led to po licy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiabil ity of biographical articles of living people.[40] Policies and laws See also: Wikipedia:Five Pillars Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, the copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of Virginia, where the majority of Wi kipedia's servers are located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and guide lines intended to appropriately shape content.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 15 July 2011 Page 1 of 17
    Radio 4 Listings for 9 – 15 July 2011 Page 1 of 17 SATURDAY 09 JULY 2011 events company Endurance Life in partnership with Natural Edwards had barely arrived in Montserrat in 1995 when the England to allow runners to take up the challenge of a long volcanic eruptions took place that were to cover most of the SAT 00:00 Midnight News (b0128qd7) distance route whenever they want to rather than as part of a island in ash. He went back 16 years later to see how life has The latest national and international news from BBC Radio 4. large event. The aim is to run as far as they would like to go, changed for both visitors and residents. Language teacher Followed by Weather. whenever they choose, and enter an electronic timing tag into Elisabeth Smith tells Sandi why the British are so bad at boxes fitted at points along the way which records their speaking foreign languages when travelling - and what they can progress. The scheme is currently operating on several of our do about it. SAT 00:30 Book of the Week (b0128l70) national trails and the organisers say that this has been created Constance: The Tragic and Scandalous Life of Mrs Oscar Wilde by a team of trail runners who feel that the joy of running is Producer: Harry Parker. increased greatly when it takes place in a stunning landscape. Episode 5 But walkers and outdoor enthusiasts are questioning the need for this scheme. Many people are concerned about the SAT 10:30 Found in Translation (b012f5qj) Written by Franny Moyle.
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation of a Swiss German Dialect Corpus and Its Application to Pos Tagging
    Compilation of a Swiss German Dialect Corpus and its Application to PoS Tagging Nora Hollenstein Noemi¨ Aepli University of Zurich University of Zurich [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Swiss German is a dialect continuum whose dialects are very different from Standard German, the official language of the German part of Switzerland. However, dealing with Swiss German in natural language processing, usually the detour through Standard German is taken. As writing in Swiss German has become more and more popular in recent years, we would like to provide data to serve as a stepping stone to automatically process the dialects. We compiled NOAH’s Corpus of Swiss German Dialects consisting of various text genres, manually annotated with Part-of- Speech tags. Furthermore, we applied this corpus as training set to a statistical Part-of-Speech tagger and achieved an accuracy of 90.62%. 1 Introduction Swiss German is not an official language of Switzerland, rather it includes dialects of Standard German, which is one of the four official languages. However, it is different from Standard German in terms of phonetics, lexicon, morphology and syntax. Swiss German is not dividable into a few dialects, in fact it is a dialect continuum with a huge variety. Swiss German is not only a spoken dialect but increasingly used in written form, especially in less formal text types. Often, Swiss German speakers write text messages, emails and blogs in Swiss German. However, in recent years it has become more and more popular and authors are publishing in their own dialect. Nonetheless, there is neither a writing standard nor an official orthography, which increases the variations dramatically due to the fact that people write as they please with their own style.
    [Show full text]
  • Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance
    Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance Andrea Forte1, Vanessa Larco2 and Amy Bruckman1 1GVU Center, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology {aforte, asb}@cc.gatech.edu 2Microsoft [email protected] This is a preprint version of the journal article: Forte, Andrea, Vanessa Larco and Amy Bruckman. (2009) Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance. Journal of Management Information Systems. 26(1) pp 49-72. Publisher: M.E. Sharp www.mesharpe.com/journals.asp Abstract How does “self-governance” happen in Wikipedia? Through in-depth interviews with twenty individuals who have held a variety of responsibilities in the English-language Wikipedia, we obtained rich descriptions of how various forces produce and regulate social structures on the site. Our analysis describes Wikipedia as an organization with highly refined policies, norms, and a technological architecture that supports organizational ideals of consensus building and discussion. We describe how governance on the site is becoming increasingly decentralized as the community grows and how this is predicted by theories of commons-based governance developed in offline contexts. We also briefly examine local governance structures called WikiProjects through the example of WikiProject Military History, one of the oldest and most prolific projects on the site. 1. The Mechanisms of Self-Organization Should a picture of a big, hairy tarantula appear in an encyclopedia article about arachnophobia? Does it illustrate the point, or just frighten potential readers? Reasonable people might disagree on this question. In a freely editable site like Wikipedia, anyone can add the photo, and someone else can remove it. And someone can add it back, and the process continues.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia 03-11-09 12:04
    Tea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 03-11-09 12:04 Tea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Tea is the agricultural product of the leaves, leaf buds, and internodes of the Camellia sinensis plant, prepared and cured by various methods. "Tea" also refers to the aromatic beverage prepared from the cured leaves by combination with hot or boiling water,[1] and is the common name for the Camellia sinensis plant itself. After water, tea is the most widely-consumed beverage in the world.[2] It has a cooling, slightly bitter, astringent flavour which many enjoy.[3] The four types of tea most commonly found on the market are black tea, oolong tea, green tea and white tea,[4] all of which can be made from the same bushes, processed differently, and in the case of fine white tea grown differently. Pu-erh tea, a post-fermented tea, is also often classified as amongst the most popular types of tea.[5] Green Tea leaves in a Chinese The term "herbal tea" usually refers to an infusion or tisane of gaiwan. leaves, flowers, fruit, herbs or other plant material that contains no Camellia sinensis.[6] The term "red tea" either refers to an infusion made from the South African rooibos plant, also containing no Camellia sinensis, or, in Chinese, Korean, Japanese and other East Asian languages, refers to black tea. Contents 1 Traditional Chinese Tea Cultivation and Technologies 2 Processing and classification A tea bush. 3 Blending and additives 4 Content 5 Origin and history 5.1 Origin myths 5.2 China 5.3 Japan 5.4 Korea 5.5 Taiwan 5.6 Thailand 5.7 Vietnam 5.8 Tea spreads to the world 5.9 United Kingdom Plantation workers picking tea in 5.10 United States of America Tanzania.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikimania 2006 Invited Speaker Biographies
    Wikimania 2006 Invited Speaker has been a forceful advocate for open science and open access scientific publishing - the free release of the Biographies material and intellectual product of the scientific research. He is co-Founder of Public Library of Science Yochai Benkler is Professor of Law at Yale Law (PLoS). He serves on the PLoS board, and is an advisor School. His research focuses on commons-based to Science Commons. approaches to managing resources in networked environments. His publications include “The Wealth of Rishab Aiyer Ghosh first developed and sold free Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets” and software in 1994. He switched from writing in C and “Freedom and Coase’s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the assembly to English, and has been writing about the Firm”. economics of free software and collaborative production since 1994. He is the Founding Karen Christensen is the CEO of Berkshire International and Managing Editor of First Monday, the Publishing group, a reference work publisher known for most widely read peer-reviewed on-line journal of the specialty encyclopedias. Her primary responsibility is Internet, and Senior Researcher at the Maastricht bringing together global teams and building Economic Research Institute on Innovation and relationships with experts and organizations around the Technology (MERIT) at the University of Maastricht world. Karen has also served as an encyclopedia editor; and United Nations University, the Netherlands. In as coeditor on the “Berkshire Encyclopedia of World Sport” 2000 he coordinated the European Union -funded (June 2005) and “Global Perspectives on the United States” FLOSS project, the most comprehensive early study of (three volumes, forthcoming), and as senior editor of free/libre/open source users and developers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Culture of Wikipedia
    Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia Good Faith Collaboration The Culture of Wikipedia Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. Foreword by Lawrence Lessig The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Web edition, Copyright © 2011 by Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. CC-NC-SA 3.0 Purchase at Amazon.com | Barnes and Noble | IndieBound | MIT Press Wikipedia's style of collaborative production has been lauded, lambasted, and satirized. Despite unease over its implications for the character (and quality) of knowledge, Wikipedia has brought us closer than ever to a realization of the centuries-old Author Bio & Research Blog pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia is a rich ethnographic portrayal of Wikipedia's historical roots, collaborative culture, and much debated legacy. Foreword Preface to the Web Edition Praise for Good Faith Collaboration Preface Extended Table of Contents "Reagle offers a compelling case that Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself — rather, it's the collaborative culture that underpins it: brawling, self-reflexive, funny, serious, and full-tilt committed to the 1. Nazis and Norms project, even if it means setting aside personal differences. Reagle's position as a scholar and a member of the community 2. The Pursuit of the Universal makes him uniquely situated to describe this culture." —Cory Doctorow , Boing Boing Encyclopedia "Reagle provides ample data regarding the everyday practices and cultural norms of the community which collaborates to 3. Good Faith Collaboration produce Wikipedia. His rich research and nuanced appreciation of the complexities of cultural digital media research are 4. The Puzzle of Openness well presented.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Contributions to Wikipedia from Tor
    Are anonymity-seekers just like everybody else? An analysis of contributions to Wikipedia from Tor Chau Tran Kaylea Champion Andrea Forte Department of Computer Science & Engineering Department of Communication College of Computing & Informatics New York University University of Washington Drexel University New York, USA Seatle, USA Philadelphia, USA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Benjamin Mako Hill Rachel Greenstadt Department of Communication Department of Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington New York University Seatle, USA New York, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—User-generated content sites routinely block contri- butions from users of privacy-enhancing proxies like Tor because of a perception that proxies are a source of vandalism, spam, and abuse. Although these blocks might be effective, collateral damage in the form of unrealized valuable contributions from anonymity seekers is invisible. One of the largest and most important user-generated content sites, Wikipedia, has attempted to block contributions from Tor users since as early as 2005. We demonstrate that these blocks have been imperfect and that thousands of attempts to edit on Wikipedia through Tor have been successful. We draw upon several data sources and analytical techniques to measure and describe the history of Tor editing on Wikipedia over time and to compare contributions from Tor users to those from other groups of Wikipedia users. Fig. 1. Screenshot of the page a user is shown when they attempt to edit the Our analysis suggests that although Tor users who slip through Wikipedia article on “Privacy” while using Tor. Wikipedia’s ban contribute content that is more likely to be reverted and to revert others, their contributions are otherwise similar in quality to those from other unregistered participants and to the initial contributions of registered users.
    [Show full text]
  • © 2020 Xiaoman Pan CROSS-LINGUAL ENTITY EXTRACTION and LINKING for 300 LANGUAGES
    © 2020 Xiaoman Pan CROSS-LINGUAL ENTITY EXTRACTION AND LINKING FOR 300 LANGUAGES BY XIAOMAN PAN DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2020 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Dr. Heng Ji, Chair Dr. Jiawei Han Dr. Hanghang Tong Dr. Kevin Knight ABSTRACT Information provided in languages which people can understand saves lives in crises. For example, language barrier was one of the main difficulties faced by humanitarian workers responding to the Ebola crisis in 2014. We propose to break language barriers by extracting information (e.g., entities) from a massive variety of languages and ground the information into an existing Knowledge Base (KB) which is accessible to a user in their own language (e.g., a reporter from the World Health Organization who speaks English only). The ambitious goal of this thesis is to develop a Cross-lingual Entity Extraction and Linking framework for 1,000 fine-grained entity types and 300 languages that exist in Wikipedia. Given a document in any of these languages, our framework is able to identify entity name mentions, assign a fine-grained type to each mention, and link it to an English KB if it is linkable. Traditional entity linking methods rely on costly human annotated data to train supervised learning-to-rank models to select the best candidate entity for each mention. In contrast, we propose a novel unsupervised represent-and-compare approach that can accurately capture the semantic meaning representation of each mention, and directly compare its representation with the representation of each candidate entity in the target KB.
    [Show full text]
  • Ebook Free John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme: Series 6: BBC
    Ebook Free John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme: Series 6: BBC Radio 4 Comedy Sketch Show The award-winning BBC Radio 4 sketch show returns, written by and starring John Finnemore. Winner of the 2015 BBC Audio Drama Award for 'Best Scripted Comedy with Live Audience', the programme was described as 'one of the most consistently funny sketch shows for quite some time' by The Guardian. The sketches and skits feature Margaret Cabourn-Smith, Simon Kane, Lawry Lewin and Carrie Quinlan. Duration: 2 hours 50 mins approx. Series: John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme Audio CD: 1 pages Publisher: BBC Books; Unabridged edition (June 1, 2017) Language: English ISBN-10: 1785295950 ISBN-13: 978-1785295959 Product Dimensions: 4.9 x 0.9 x 5.6 inches Shipping Weight: 5 ounces (View shipping rates and policies) Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars 1 customer review Best Sellers Rank: #746,866 in Books (See Top 100 in Books) #145 in Books > Books on CD > Radio Shows #360 in Books > Humor & Entertainment > Radio > General Broadcasting #663 in Books > Humor & Entertainment > Humor > Comedy "One of the most consistently funny sketch shows for quite some time" -- Tom Meltzer The Guardian "Combination of witty writing and fine performers" -- Lisa Martland The Stage "Sparklingly clever" The Daily Telegraph John Finnemore is a British comedy writer and actor, best known for his radio sitcom Cabin Pressure and his radio sketch show John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme, as well as for frequent appearances on other BBC Radio 4 comedy shows such as The Now Show.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Approaches in Natural Language Processing
    Cover:Layout 1 02.08.2010 13:38 Seite 1 10th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS) g n i s Semantic Approaches s e c o in Natural Language Processing r P e g a u Proceedings of the Conference g n a on Natural Language Processing 2010 L l a r u t a This book contains state-of-the-art contributions to the 10th N n Edited by conference on Natural Language Processing, KONVENS 2010 i (Konferenz zur Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache), with a focus s e Manfred Pinkal on semantic processing. h c a o Ines Rehbein The KONVENS in general aims at offering a broad perspective r on current research and developments within the interdiscipli - p p nary field of natural language processing. The central theme A Sabine Schulte im Walde c draws specific attention towards addressing linguistic aspects i t of meaning, covering deep as well as shallow approaches to se - n Angelika Storrer mantic processing. The contributions address both knowledge- a m based and data-driven methods for modelling and acquiring e semantic information, and discuss the role of semantic infor - S mation in applications of language technology. The articles demonstrate the importance of semantic proces - sing, and present novel and creative approaches to natural language processing in general. Some contributions put their focus on developing and improving NLP systems for tasks like Named Entity Recognition or Word Sense Disambiguation, or focus on semantic knowledge acquisition and exploitation with respect to collaboratively built ressources, or harvesting se - mantic information in virtual games. Others are set within the context of real-world applications, such as Authoring Aids, Text Summarisation and Information Retrieval.
    [Show full text]
  • Reliability of Wikipedia 1 Reliability of Wikipedia
    Reliability of Wikipedia 1 Reliability of Wikipedia The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English language version), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia. [1] Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its Vandalism of a Wikipedia article reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly — so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[2] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[3] A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that "42% of damage is repaired almost immediately... Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views."[4] Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature suggested that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[5] This study was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica.[6] By 2010 reviewers in medical and scientific fields such as toxicology, cancer research and drug information reviewing Wikipedia against professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a very high standard, often comparable in coverage to physician databases and considerably better than well known reputable national media outlets.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting Undisclosed Paid Editing in Wikipedia
    Detecting Undisclosed Paid Editing in Wikipedia Nikesh Joshi, Francesca Spezzano, Mayson Green, and Elijah Hill Computer Science Department, Boise State University Boise, Idaho, USA [email protected] {nikeshjoshi,maysongreen,elijahhill}@u.boisestate.edu ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION Wikipedia, the free and open-collaboration based online ency- Wikipedia is the free online encyclopedia based on the principle clopedia, has millions of pages that are maintained by thousands of of open collaboration; for the people by the people. Anyone can volunteer editors. As per Wikipedia’s fundamental principles, pages add and edit almost any article or page. However, volunteers should on Wikipedia are written with a neutral point of view and main- follow a set of guidelines when editing Wikipedia. The purpose tained by volunteer editors for free with well-defned guidelines in of Wikipedia is “to provide the public with articles that summa- order to avoid or disclose any confict of interest. However, there rize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably” 1 have been several known incidents where editors intentionally vio- and the encyclopedia should not be considered as a platform for late such guidelines in order to get paid (or even extort money) for advertising and self-promotion. Wikipedia’s guidelines strongly maintaining promotional spam articles without disclosing such. discourage any form of confict-of-interest (COI) editing and require In this paper, we address for the frst time the problem of identi- editors to disclose any COI contribution. Paid editing is a form of fying undisclosed paid articles in Wikipedia. We propose a machine COI editing and refers to editing Wikipedia (in the majority of the learning-based framework using a set of features based on both cases for promotional purposes) in exchange for compensation.
    [Show full text]