Wikipedia Review

Last updated
Wikipedia Review
Wikipediareviewlogo.png
The Wikipedia Review logo, which uses a white hat
Type of site
Internet watchdog, Internet forum and blog
Available inEnglish, German
Revenue Accepts donations
URL wikipediareview.com
CommercialNo
RegistrationOptional (required to post)
LaunchedOriginal site: November 2005;19 years ago (2005-11) [1]
Current site: February 19, 2006;18 years ago (2006-02-19) [2]
Current statusOnline

Wikipedia Review was an Internet forum and blog for the discussion of Wikimedia Foundation projects, in particular the content and conflicts of Wikipedia. [3] [4] Wikipedia Review sought to act as a watchdog website, scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws. [5] It provided an independent forum to discuss Wikipedia editors and their influence on Wikipedia content. At its peak, participants included current Wikipedia editors, former Wikipedia editors, users banned from Wikipedia, and people who had never edited. [6] The last post was on 31 May 2012. [7]

Contents

Background

The site was founded in November 2005 by "Igor Alexander", and hosted by ProBoards. [1] On 19 February 2006 it moved to its own domain name using Invision Power Board software. [2] [8] The site required registration using a valid e-mail address to post and blacklisted email providers that allowed anonymity so as to discourage the operation of multiple accounts by a single user. [9]

Wikipedia Review was cited for its discussion of wiki-editing concepts and its participation in the evaluation of the Palo Alto Research Company's WikiDashboard. [10] [11] [12]

Commentary

Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.

Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. That's what we're doing...

Statement made when the site was out of service in 2008, Wikipedia Review [13]

Seth Finkelstein wrote in The Guardian that Wikipedia Review has provided a focal point for investigation into Wikipedia-related matters such as the "Essjay controversy". [14] [15] Cade Metz, writing for The Register , credited Wikipedia Review with the discovery of a private mailing list that led to the resignation of a Wikipedia administrator; he also wrote that a Wikipedia proposal called "BADSITES" intended to ban the mention of Wikipedia Review and similar sites on Wikipedia. [16] The Independent noted that "allegations against certain administrators came to a head on a site called Wikipedia Review, where people debate the administrators' actions." [17] The Irish technology website Silicon Republic suggested visiting Wikipedia Review in order to "follow disputes, discussions, editors and general bureaucracy on Wikipedia". [18] Philip Coppens used posts made on Wikipedia Review to help construct a report, published in Nexus , on WikiScanner and allegations that intelligence agencies had been using Wikipedia to spread disinformation. [19]

Content and structure

Wikipedia Review's publicly accessible forums are broken up into four general topic areas:

  1. Forum information;
  2. Wikimedia-oriented discussion, which contains subforums focusing on editors, the Wikipedia bureaucracy, meta discussion, articles and general Wikimedia-focused topics not fitting elsewhere;
  3. Media forums containing a news feed and discussion about news and blogs featuring Wikipedia/Wikimedia; and
  4. Off topic, non-Wikimedia related discussion. [20]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MeatballWiki</span> Wiki dedicated to online communities

MeatballWiki is a wiki dedicated to online communities, network culture, and hypermedia. Containing a record of experience on running wikis, it is intended for "discussion about wiki philosophy, wiki culture, instructions and observations."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barnstar</span> Barn decoration in the United States

A barnstar is a painted object or image, often in the shape of a five-pointed star but occasionally in a circular "wagon wheel" style, used to decorate a barn in some parts of the United States. They have no structural purpose but may be considered lucky, akin to a horseshoe mounted over a doorway. They are especially common in Pennsylvania and frequently seen in German-American farming communities. They are also found in Canada, particularly in the province of Ontario.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Web 2.0</span> World Wide Web sites that use technology beyond the static pages of earlier Web sites

Web 2.0 refers to websites that emphasize user-generated content, ease of use, participatory culture, and interoperability for end users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of Wikipedia</span> Controversy surrounding the online encyclopedia Wikipedia

The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been criticized since its creation in 2001. Most of the criticism has been directed toward its content, community of established volunteer users, process, and rules. Critics have questioned its factual reliability, the readability and organization of its articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its political bias. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political, corporate, institutional, and national lines. Conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven policy application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intellipedia</span> US Intelligence Community encyclopedia

Intellipedia is an online system for collaborative data sharing used by the United States Intelligence Community (IC). It was established as a pilot project in late 2005 and formally announced in April 2006. Intellipedia consists of three wikis running on the separate JWICS (Intellipedia-TS), SIPRNet (Intellipedia-S), and DNI-U (Intellipedia-U) networks. The levels of classification allowed for information on the three wikis are Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information, Secret (S), and Sensitive But Unclassified information, respectively. Each of the wikis is used by individuals with appropriate clearances from the 18 agencies of the US intelligence community and other national-security related organizations, including Combatant Commands and other federal departments. The wikis are not open to the public.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Essjay controversy</span> Controversy over a Wikipedia user and Wikia employees identity

The Essjay controversy was an incident in which Ryan Jordan, a Wikipedia editor who went by the username "Essjay", falsely presented himself as a university professor of religion from 2005 to 2007, during which time he was elected to top positions of trust by the community, including administrator and arbitrator. In July 2006, The New Yorker published an article about "Essjay", and mentioned that he was a university professor of religion. The New Yorker later acknowledged that they did not know his real name.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Veropedia</span> Advertising-supported online encyclopedia

Veropedia was a free, advertising-supported online encyclopedia launched in late October 2007. It was taken down in January 2009, pending creation of a new version.

Wikipedia has been studied extensively. Between 2001 and 2010, researchers published at least 1,746 peer-reviewed articles about the online encyclopedia. Such studies are greatly facilitated by the fact that Wikipedia's database can be downloaded without help from the site owner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">GroupLens Research</span> Computer science research lab

GroupLens Research is a human–computer interaction research lab in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities specializing in recommender systems and online communities. GroupLens also works with mobile and ubiquitous technologies, digital libraries, and local geographic information systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wikiversity</span> Wikimedia wiki for learning materials

Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project that supports learning communities, their learning materials, and resulting activities. It differs from Wikipedia in that it offers tutorials and other materials for the fostering of learning, rather than an encyclopedia. It is available in many languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whiskey Media</span> American online media company

Whiskey Media was an American online media company founded independently by CNET co-founder Shelby Bonnie in 2008. It was the parent company of Tested, Screened, and Anime Vice, and the former parent company of Giant Bomb and Comic Vine. Whiskey Media websites were wiki community based, while maintaining an editorial staff. The company's target demographic was focused primarily on males between 10 and 30. The name "Whiskey Media" is a reference to a Kentucky distillery that was owned by the family of Shelby Bonnie before prohibition. Whiskey Media operated in San Francisco, California, after previously being located in Sausalito. On March 15, 2012, Whiskey Media was acquired by Lloyd Braun and Gail Berman's BermanBraun along with Tested, Screened, and Anime Vice while Giant Bomb and Comic Vine were bought separately by CBS Interactive.

<i>Truth in Numbers?</i> 2010 American documentary film by Scott Glosserman and Nic Hill

Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia is a 2010 American documentary film that explores the history and cultural implications of the online, editable encyclopedia Wikipedia. The film considers the question of whether all individuals or just experts should be tasked with editing an encyclopedia.

Ed Huai-Hsin Chi is a Taiwanese American computer scientist and research scientist at Google, known for his early work in applying the theory of information scent to predict usability of websites.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of Wikipedia</span> Overview and topical guide to the free online crowdsourced encyclopedia

The following outline is provided as an overview of and a topical guide to Wikipedia:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aaron Halfaker</span> American computer scientist

Aaron Halfaker is a principal applied scientist at Microsoft Research. He previously served as a research scientist at the Wikimedia Foundation until 2020.

A WikiProject, or Wikiproject, is an affinity group for contributors with shared goals within the Wikimedia movement. WikiProjects are prevalent within the largest wiki, Wikipedia, and exist to varying degrees within sibling projects such as Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikidata, and Wikisource. They also exist in different languages, and translation of articles is a form of their collaboration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deletion of articles on Wikipedia</span>

Volunteer editors of Wikipedia delete articles from the online encyclopedia regularly, following processes that have been formulated by the site's community over time. The most common route is the outright deletion of articles that clearly violate the rules of the website. Other mechanisms include an intermediate collaborative process that bypasses a complete discussion, and a whole debate at the dedicated forum called Articles for deletion (AfD). As a technical action, deletion can only be done by a subset of editors assigned particular specialized privileges by the community, called administrators. An omission that has been carried out can be contested by appeal to the deleting administrator or on another discussion board called Deletion review (DRV).

References

  1. 1 2 "Original Wikipedia Review on Proboards". Wikipedia Review. 2005-11-25. Archived from the original on 2006-01-17. Retrieved 2009-04-14.
  2. 1 2 "First post on wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. 2006-02-19. Archived from the original on 2006-05-31.
  3. Mahadevan, Jeremy (2006-03-05). "Not everything on Wikipedia is fact". New Straits Times . Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  4. "L'édition de référence libre et collaborative : le cas de Wikipedia" (in French). Institut national de recherche pédagogique. April 2006. p. 7. Archived from the original on 2011-09-29. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  5. LaPlante, Alice (2006-07-14). "Spawn Of Wikipedia". InformationWeek . Archived from the original on 2011-06-12. Retrieved 2012-09-01.
  6. Shankbone, David (June 2008). "Nobody's safe in cyberspace". The Brooklyn Rail . Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  7. "The Wikipedia Review". wikipediareview.com. Retrieved 2023-05-05.
  8. "Second post on wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. Was The Wikipedia Review created by Igor Alexander? Yes. Is The Wikipedia Review run by Igor Alexander? No.
  9. "Info for new registrants". Wikipedia Review. 2006-03-24. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  10. Ed H. Chi; Peter Pirolli; Bongwon Suh; Aniket Kittur; Bryan Pendleton; Todd Mytkowicz (2008). "Augmented social cognition: understanding social foraging and social sensemaking" (PDF). Palo Alto Research Center. p. 5. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  11. Bongwon Suh; Ed H. Chi; Aniket Kittur; Bryan A. Pendleton (2008). Lifting the veil: improving accountability and social transparency in Wikipedia with wikidashboard. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. General chairs: Mary Czerwinski and Arnie Lund; program chair: Desney Tan. Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1037–1040. ISBN   978-1-60558-011-1 . Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  12. Chi, E. H.; Suh, B.; Kittur, A. (2008-04-06). Providing social transparency through visualizations in Wikipedia. CHI 2008, Florence, Italy. Social Data Analysis Workshop. S2CID   2303183 . Retrieved 2024-02-15 via ResearchGate.
  13. "Wikipedia Review out-of-service page". Wikipedia Review. 2008-06-24. Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
  14. Finkelstein, Seth (2007-12-06). "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop". The Guardian . Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  15. "Who is Essjay?, Probably he's Ryan Jordan". Wikipedia Review. 2006-07-26.
  16. Metz, Cade (2007-12-04). "Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia". The Register . Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  17. Marsden, Rhodri (2007-12-06). "Cyberclinic: Who are the editors of Wikipedia?". The Independent . Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  18. Boran, Marie (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia under fire for 'editorial elite'". Silicon Republic. Archived from the original on 2009-04-22. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  19. Coppens, Philip (October–November 2007). "The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld". Nexus . pp. 11–15, 77. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
  20. "Wikipedia Review" . Retrieved 9 June 2010.