DOCSLIB.ORG

Criticism of Wikipedia from Wikipidia.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Criticism of Wikipedia from Wikipidia.Pdf Criticism of Wikipedia from Wikipidia For a list of criticisms of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Criticisms. See also Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Two radically different versions of a Wikipedia biography, presented to the public within days of each other: Wikipedia's susceptibility to edit wars and bias is one of the issues raised by Wikipedia critics http://medicalexposedownloads.com/PDF/Criticism%20of%20Wikipedia%20from%20Wikipidia.pdf http://medicalexposedownloads.com/PDF/Examples%20of%20Bias%20in%20Wikipedia.pdf http://medicalexposedownloads.com/PDF/Wikipedia%20is%20Run%20by%20Latent%20Homosexual%20Homophob ics.pdf http://medicalexposedownloads.com/PDF/Bigotry%20and%20Bias%20in%20Wikipedia.pdf http://medicalexposedownloads.com/PDF/Dear%20Wikipedia%20on%20Libelous%20lies%20against%20Desire%20 Dubounet.pdf http://medicalexposedownloads.com/PDF/Desir%c3%a9%20Dubounet%20Wikipidia%20text.pdf Criticism of Wikipedia—of the content, procedures, and operations, and of the Wikipedia community—covers many subjects, topics, and themes about the nature of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia of subject entries that almost anyone can edit. Wikipedia has been criticized for the uneven handling, acceptance, and retention of articles about controversial subjects. The principal concerns of the critics are the factual reliability of the content; the readability of the prose; and a clear article layout; the existence of systemic bias; of gender bias; and of racial bias among the editorial community that is Wikipedia. Further concerns are that the organization allows the participation of anonymous editors (leading to editorial vandalism); the existence of social stratification (allowing cliques); and over-complicated rules (allowing editorial quarrels), which conditions permit the misuse of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is described as unreliable at times. In "Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge" (2010), Edwin Blackcharacterized the editorial content of articles as a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".[1] Similarly, in "Wisdom?: More like Dumbness of the Crowds" (2011), Oliver Kamm said that the encyclopedic articles usually are dominated by the editors with the loudest and most persistent editorial voices (talk pages and edit summaries), usually by an interest group with an ideological "axe to grind" on the subject, topic, or theme of the article in question.[2] Politics and ideology are also criticized on Wikipedia. In two works published in 2012, "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" by Timothy Messer-Kruse, and "You Just Type in What You are Looking for: Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia" by Mónica Colón-Aguirre and Rachel A. Fleming-May, the authors analyzed and criticized the undue-weight policy (relative importance of a given source), and concluded that, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not about providing correct and definitive information about a subject,[3] but to present, as editorially dominant, the majority opinion perspective taken by the authors of the sources for the article, the uneven application of the undue-weight policy creates omissions (of fact and of interpretation) that might give the reader false knowledge about the subject matter, which knowledge the reader has based upon the factually incomplete content of the Wikipedia article.[3][4][5] Wikipedia is sometimes characterized as having a hostile editing environment. In Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014), Dariusz Jemielniak, a steward for Wikimedia Foundation projects, stated that the complexity of the rules and laws governing editorial content and the behavior of the editors is a burden for new editors and a licence for the "office politics" of disruptive editors.[6][7] In a follow-up article, "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia" (2014), Jemielniak said that abridging and rewriting the editorial rules and laws of Wikipedia for clarity of purpose and simplicity of application would resolve the bureaucratic bottleneck of too many rules.[6][7] In The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity is Causing its Decline (2013), Aaron Halfaker stated that the over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally provoked the decline in editorial participation that began in 2009— frightening away new editors who otherwise would contribute to Wikipedia.[8] There have also been works that describe the possible misuse of Wikipedia. In "Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?" (2008), the Hoover Institution said that Wikipedia is an unreliable resource for correct knowledge, information, and facts about a subject, because, as an open source website, the editorial content of the articles is readily subjected to manipulation and propaganda.[9] The 2014 edition of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's official student handbook, Academic Integrity at MIT, informs students that Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source, stating, "the bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume 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 replacement for your own research."[10] Contents [hide] 1Criticism of content o 1.1Accuracy of information . 1.1.1Not authoritative . 1.1.2Comparative study of science articles . 1.1.3Lack of methodical fact-checking . 1.1.4Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest . 1.1.5Scientific disputes . 1.1.5.1Exposure to political operatives and advocates . 1.1.5.2Commandeering or sanitizing articles . 1.1.5.3Editing for financial rewards o 1.2Quality of the presentation . 1.2.1Quality of articles on U.S. history . 1.2.2Quality of medical articles . 1.2.3The Wall Street Journal debate o 1.3Systemic bias in coverage . 1.3.1Notability of article topics . 1.3.2Partisanship . 1.3.3American and corporate bias . 1.3.4Racial bias . 1.3.5Gender bias and sexism o 1.4Sexual content o 1.5Exposure to vandals o 1.6Privacy concerns 2Criticism of the community o 2.1Role of Jimmy Wales o 2.2Conflict of interest cases o 2.3Allegations of unfair treatment of female contributors o 2.4Lack of verifiable identities . 2.4.1Scandals involving administrators and arbitrators . 2.4.1.1Essjay controversy . 2.4.2Anonymity o 2.5Editorial process . 2.5.1Level of debate, edit wars and harassment . 2.5.2Consensus and the "hive mind" . 2.5.3Excessive rule-making o 2.6Social stratification 3See also 4References 5Further reading 6External links Criticism of content[edit] Accuracy of information[edit] For more details on this topic, see Reliability of Wikipedia § Assessments. Not authoritative[edit] Wikipedia acknowledges that the encyclopedia not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational. The British librarian Philip Bradley said that "the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[11] Likewise, Robert McHenry, editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica from 1992 to 1997, said that readers of Wikipedia articles cannot know who wrote the article they are reading—it might have been written by an expert in the subject matter or by an amateur.[12] In 2015,Wikipedia co- founder Larry Sanger was interviewed by Zach Schwartz in Vice which he said, in part, "I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule" and that since he left the project, "People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum."[13] Comparative study of science articles[edit] Teaching, Criticism, and Praise: an analysis of talk-page messages for the Wikipedia Summer of Research (2011) convention.[14] In "Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head-to-head", a 2005 article published in the Nature scientific journal, the results of a blind experiment (single-blind study), which compared the factual and informational accuracy of entries from Wikipedia and the Encyclopædia Britannica, were reported. The 42-entry sample included science articles and biographies of scientists, which were compared for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers; they found that the average Wikipedia entry contained four errors and omissions, while the average Encyclopædia Britannica entry contained three errors and omissions. The study concluded that Wikipedia and Britannica were comparable in terms of the accuracy of its science entries".[15] Nevertheless, the reviewers had two principal criticisms of the Wikipedia science entries: (i) thematically confused content, without an intelligible structure (order, presentation, interpretation); and (ii) that undue weight is given to controversial, fringe theories about the subject matter.[16] The dissatisfaction of the Encyclopædia Britannica editors led to Nature publishing additional survey documentation that substantiated the results of the comparative study.[17] Based upon the additional documents, Encyclopædia Britannica denied the validity of the study, stating it was flawed, because theBritannica extracts were compilations that sometimes included articles written for the youth version of the encyclopedia.[18] In turn, Nature acknowledged that someBritannica articles were compilations, but denied that such editorial details invalidated the conclusions of the comparative study of the science articles.[19] The editors of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Community and Communication
    Community and 12 Communication A large, diverse, and thriving group of volun- teers produces encyclopedia articles and administers Wikipedia. Over time, members of the Wikipedia community have developed conventions for interacting with each other, processes for managing content, and policies for minimizing disruptions and maximizing use- ful work. In this chapter, we’ll discuss where to find other contributors and how to ask for help with any topic. We’ll also explain ways in which community members interact with each other. Though most discussion occurs on talk pages, Wikipedia has some central community forums for debate about the site’s larger policies and more specific issues. We’ll also talk about the make-up of the community. First, however, we’ll outline aspects of Wikipedia’s shared culture, from key philosophies about how contributors How Wikipedia Works (C) 2008 by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates should interact with each other to some long-running points of debate to some friendly practices that have arisen over time. Although explicit site policies cover content guidelines and social norms, informal philosophies and practices help keep the Wikipedia community of contributors together. Wikipedia’s Culture Wikipedia’s community has grown spontaneously and organically—a recipe for a baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references. But core tenets of the wiki way, like Assume Good Faith and Please Don’t Bite the Newcomers, have been with the community since the beginning. Assumptions on Arrival Wikipedians try to treat new editors well. Assume Good Faith (AGF) is a funda- mental philosophy, as well as an official guideline (shortcut WP:AGF) on Wikipedia.
    [Show full text]
  • Knihovny Současnosti 2016
    Sdružení knihoven ČR Ústřední knihovnická rada ČR Knihovny současnosti 2016 Sborník z 24. ročníku knihovnické konference, konané pod záštitou Mgr. Daniela Hermana, ministra kultury ČR, a Ing. Jiřího Rozbořila, hejtmana Olomouckého kraje, pořádané ve dnech 6.–8. září 2016 v areálu Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci Prosinec 2016 Vydáno za finanční podpory Ministerstva kultury v rámci dotačního programu Knihovny 21. století. © Sdružení knihoven ČR, Praha 2016 Konference se konala pod záštitou Mgr. Daniela Hermana, ministra kultury ČR, a Ing. Jiřího Rozbořila, hejtmana Olomouckého kraje. OBSAH Úvodní slovo .......................................................................................... 8 Jak to vidí jinde .......................................................................................... 9 Úvod ...................................................................................................... 10 Inga Lundén: Všechno je o důvěře. Knihovny tvoří kompaktní města ...................................................................................................... 11 Knihovna jako vzdělávací instituce ...................................................... 21 Úvodní slovo k sekci „Knihovna jako vzdělávací instituce“ ......... 22 Mgr. Pavlína Mazáčová, Ph.D.: Inkluzivní přístup k edukaci informační gramotnosti v praxi učícího knihovníka ...................... 24 PhDr. Martin Krčál: Spolupráce knihoven a středních škol .......... 38 Mgr. et Mgr. Zuzana Teplíková: Vzdělávací aktivity Citace.com pro knihovny .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Strengthening and Unifying the Visual Identity of Wikimedia Projects: a Step Towards Maturity
    Strengthening and unifying the visual identity of Wikimedia projects: a step towards maturity Guillaume Paumier∗ Elisabeth Bauer [[m:User:guillom]] [[m:User:Elian]] Abstract In January 2007, the Wikimedian community celebrated the sixth birthday of Wikipedia. Six years of constant evolution have now led to Wikipedia being one of the most visited websites in the world. Other projects developing free content and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation have been expanding rapidly too. The Foundation and its projects are now facing some communication issues due to the difference of scale between the human and financial resources of the Foundation and the success of its projects. In this paper, we identify critical issues in terms of visual identity and marketing. We evaluate the situation and propose several changes, including a redesign of the default website interface. Introduction The first Wikipedia project was created in January 2001. In these days, the technical infrastructure was provided by Bomis, a dot-com company. In June 2003, Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and owner of Bomis, created the Wikimedia Foundation [1] to provide a long-term administrative and technical structure dedicated to free content. Since these days, both the projects and the Foundation have been evolving. New projects have been created. All have grown at different rates. Some have got more fame than the others. New financial, technical and communication challenges have risen. In this paper, we will first identify some of these challenges and issues in terms of global visual identity. We will then analyse logos, website layouts, projects names, trademarks so as to provide some hindsight.
    [Show full text]
  • L'exemple De Wikipédia Laure Endrizzi Chargée D'études Et De Recherche, Cellule Veille Scientifique Et Technologique, INRP, Lyon
    La communauté comme auteur et éditeur : l’exemple de Wikipédia Laure Endrizzi To cite this version: Laure Endrizzi. La communauté comme auteur et éditeur : l’exemple de Wikipédia. Journée nationale du réseau des URFIST : Evaluation et validation de l’information sur internet, Jan 2007, Paris, France. edutice-00184888 HAL Id: edutice-00184888 https://edutice.archives-ouvertes.fr/edutice-00184888 Submitted on 2 Nov 2007 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Journée d'études des URFIST 31 janvier 2007, Paris « Evaluation et validation de l'information sur internet » La communauté comme auteur et éditeur : l'exemple de Wikipédia Laure Endrizzi chargée d'études et de recherche, cellule Veille scientifique et technologique, INRP, Lyon Résumé L’ensemble des technologies dites 2.0 place l’usager au cœur de la création des contenus numériques tout en l’inscrivant dans une dynamique collective. Ces transformations remettent en cause le modèle éditorial traditionnel, sans offrir de représentations claires et stabilisées des modes de production et de validation qui sont à l’œuvre. Avec l’exemple de Wikipédia, nous tenterons de comprendre les mécanismes de la régulation éditoriale, pour ensuite nous interroger sur les formes d’expertise sollicitées et les figures de l’auteur.
    [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]
  • SI 410 Ethics and Information Technology
    Author(s): Paul Conway, PhD, 2010 License: Unless otherwise noted, this material is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ We have reviewed this material in accordance with U.S. Copyright Law and have tried to maximize your ability to use, share, and adapt it. The citation key on the following slide provides information about how you may share and adapt this material. Copyright holders of content included in this material should contact [email protected] with any questions, corrections, or clarification regarding the use of content. For more information about how to cite these materials visit http://open.umich.edu/privacy-and-terms-use. Any medical information in this material is intended to inform and educate and is not a tool for self-diagnosis or a replacement for medical evaluation, advice, diagnosis or treatment by a healthcare professional. Please speak to your physician if you have questions about your medical condition. Viewer discretion is advised: Some medical content is graphic and may not be suitable for all viewers. Citation Key for more information see: http://open.umich.edu/wiki/CitationPolicy Use + Share + Adapt { Content the copyright holder, author, or law permits you to use, share and adapt. } Public Domain – Government: Works that are produced by the U.S. Government. (17 USC § 105) Public Domain – Expired: Works that are no longer protected due to an expired copyright term. Public Domain – Self Dedicated: Works that a copyright holder has dedicated to the public domain.
    [Show full text]
  • For the Field
    For the Field Of the People, For the People: Exploring Wikipedia as a Site for Community Building Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the need for equal access to factual information about the virus. Free and open sources of information are increasingly important in our digital age. Although Wikipedia has often been touted as an unreliable source in the academic context, it can provide a great starting place for those interested in researching a given topic. Additionally, due to its inherently collaborative structure, this could be a site to help build community or extend an existing community, from the physical into the digital. Through a brief examination of the player/editor created and maintained Nukapedia, a wiki-site hosted by Fandom.com and dedicated to the videogame Fallout 4, I will demonstrate that a community can be formed even through asynchronous editing projects. I have experienced the power of this game in building community as a long-time fan of this series who has played through three of its titles: Fallout: New Vegas, Fallout 3, and Fallout 4. My long-time partner and I even had out first “official date” on the midnight release of Fallout 4 at our local EB Games. Although I am not an especially talented videogame player, I do enjoy the storylines and aesthetic of its fictional world. These collaborative projects based on collecting, organizing, and sharing knowledge can be employed by library professionals for community programming. As mentioned by Snyder in Edit-a-thons and Beyond (2018), organizing “edit-a-thon Emerging Library & Information Perspectives 1 events” can be a way to meet institutional goals and even engage with new patrons.
    [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]
  • 20 Jahre Wikipedia Pressemappe
    20 Jahre Wikipedia Pressemappe Inhalt Pressemitteilung 2 Facts & Fun 4 Geburt einer Online-Enzyklopädie 4 Eine niemals fertige Enzyklopädie 4 Wer schreibt Wikipedia 6 Real Life 7 Von Mängeln zu Exzellenz 8 Sprachvielfalt 9 Mehr als Worte 10 Freies Wissen: die Idee dahinter 11 Kontakt & Gesprächspartner*innen 12 Datum: 17. Dezember 2020 Pressemitteilung Wikipedia wird 20 Aktivitäten rund um den Enzyklopädie-Geburtstag am 15. Jänner mit Österreich-Bezug Die Online-Enzyklopädie Wikipedia feiert am 15. Jänner 2021 einen runden Geburtstag. An diesem Tag vor zwanzig Jahren ging die englische Sprachversion online, die deutsche folgte bereits am 16. März 2001. Seitdem wurden fast 52 Millionen Wikipedia-Artikel veröffentlicht und der freie Zugang zu Wissen revolutioniert. In Österreich wird das Jubiläumsjahr mit einer Reihe von Aktivitäten begangen. Während der deutschsprachige Wikipedia-Artikel zur COVID-19-Pandemie inzwischen weit über 5,3 Millionen Seitenaufrufe verzeichnet, setzt die Online-Enzyklopädie bei ihren Feierlichkeiten auf einen Remote-Zugang. Die Wikipedia-Aktiven beschenken sich gegenseitig bei einem Engerl-Bengerl-Spiel. Dabei dürfen sie sich bestimmte neue oder überarbeitete Wikipedia-Artikel wünschen und erfahren am 15. Jänner, wer den Wunsch erfüllt hat – vorausgesetzt eigener Wikipedia-Beiträge für jemand anders. Auch ohne jede aktive Wikipedia-Erfahrung lässt es sich am 15. Jänner ab 17 Uhr mitteleuropäischer Zeit bei einem globalen YouTube-Livestream mitfeiern, bei dem Wikipedia-Gründer Jimmy Wales die letzten zwanzig Jahre Revue passieren lässt und einen Blick in die Zukunft wagt. Eine virtuelle Ausstellung der Deutschen Digitalen Bibliothek, die am 16. März veröffentlicht wird, versammelt zwanzig Objekte aus der Wikipedia-Geschichte in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz und dazugehörige persönliche Geschichten.
    [Show full text]