View source for Wikipedia

{{Short description|Free online crowd-sourced encyclopedia}}
{{About|the online encyclopedia|Wikipedia's home page|Main Page|10=other uses|11=Wikipedia (disambiguation)|the primary English-language Wikipedia|English Wikipedia}}
{{Pp|small=yes}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=August 2023}}
{{Use American English|date=June 2019}}
{{Infobox website
| name = Wikipedia
| logo = [[File:Wikipedia-v2-logo.svg|150px|frameless|An incomplete sphere made of large, white jigsaw puzzle pieces. Each puzzle piece contains one glyph from a different writing system, with each glyph written in black.]]<br/>[[File:Wikipedia-logo-textonly.svg|200px|The Wikipedia wordmark which displays the name Wikipedia, written in all caps. The{{nbsp}}''W'' and the{{nbsp}}''A'' are the same height and both are taller than the other letters which are also all the same height. It also displays Wikipedia's slogan: "The Free Encyclopedia".]]
| logo_caption = The [[Wikipedia logo|logo of Wikipedia]], a globe featuring [[glyph]]s from various [[writing system]]s such as English, Greek, Hindi, Chinese, Arabic, etc.
| screenshot = Wikipedia Portal Screenshot (2022).svg{{!}}border
| screenshot_alt = Wikipedia portal showing the different languages sorted by article count
| caption = Wikipedia's desktop homepage
| collapsible = yes
| type = [[Online encyclopedia]]
| language_count = {{NUMBEROF|active|Wikipedia}}
| country_of_origin = [[United States]]
| owner = {{Unbulleted list|[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|}}
| authors = {{Unbulleted list|[[Jimmy Wales]]|[[Larry Sanger]]<ref name="autogenerated1" />}}
| url = {{URL|https://www.wikipedia.org/|wikipedia.org}}
| commercial = No
| registration = Optional{{notetag|Registration is required for certain tasks, such as editing protected pages, creating pages on the English Wikipedia, and uploading files.}}
| num_users = [[List of Wikipedias#Statistics totals|>{{formatnum:{{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|totalactive.wikipedia}}}}}}]] active editors{{notetag|To be considered [[Special:ActiveUsers|active]], a user must make at least one edit or other action in a given month.}}<br />[[list of Wikipedias#Statistics totals|>{{formatnum:{{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|USERS|totalactive.wikipedia}}}}}}]] registered users
| launch_date = {{Start date and age|mf=yes|p=yes|br=yes|2001|1|15}}
| current_status = Active
| content_license = {{Nowrap|[[Creative Commons license|CC Attribution / Share-Alike]] 4.0}}<br />Most text is also dual-licensed under [[GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]]; media licensing varies
| programming_language = [[LAMP (software bundle)|LAMP]] platform<ref name="roadchap">{{cite web|url=https://rogchap.com/2011/09/06/top-40-website-programming-languages/|title= Top 40 Website Programming Languages|website= rogchap.com|author= Chapman, Roger|date= September 6, 2011|access-date= September 6, 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130922015103/https://rogchap.com/2011/09/06/top-40-website-programming-languages/|archive-date= September 22, 2013}}</ref>
| oclc = 52075003
}}
'''Wikipedia'''{{notetag|Pronounced {{IPAc-en|audio=En-uk-Wikipedia.ogg|ˌ|w|ɪ|k|ᵻ|ˈ|p|iː|d|i|ə}} {{respell|wik|ih|PEE|dee|ə}} or {{IPAc-en|audio=en-us-Wikipedia.ogg|ˌ|w|ɪ|k|i|-}} {{respell|wik|ee|PEE|dee|ə}}}} is a [[free-content]] [[online encyclopedia]], written and maintained by a community of [[Volunteering|volunteers]], collectively known as [[Wikipedians]], through [[open collaboration]] and the use of [[wiki]]-based editing system [[MediaWiki]]. Wikipedia is the largest and most-read [[reference work]] in history.<ref name="Wiki20">{{cite news|date=January 9, 2021|title=Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|url=https://www.economist.com/international/2021/01/09/wikipedia-is-20-and-its-reputation-has-never-been-higher|url-access=subscription|access-date=February 25, 2021|archive-url=https://archive.today/20210107163155/https://www.economist.com/international/2021/01/09/wikipedia-is-20-and-its-reputation-has-never-been-higher|archive-date=January 7, 2021}}</ref><ref name="auto1">{{cite magazine|last=Anderson|first=Chris|date=May 8, 2006|title=Jimmy Wales – The 2006 Time 100|url=https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1975813_1975844_1976488,00.html|url-status=live|magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221012001311/https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1975813_1975844_1976488,00.html|archive-date=October 12, 2022|access-date=November 11, 2017}}</ref> It consistently ranks as one of the 10 most popular websites in the world, and as of 2023 it is ranked the 6th [[List of most-visited websites|most visited website]] on the Internet by [[Semrush]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Top Websites ranking – Most Visited Websites in the world [December 2023]|url=https://www.semrush.com/website/top/|access-date=December 28, 2023|website=Semrush }}</ref> Founded by [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]], on January 15, 2001, it is hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], an [[501(c)(3) organization|American nonprofit organization]] that employed a staff of over 700 people by October 2023.<ref name=WF10.23.23>{{cite web|title=7 reasons you should donate to Wikipedia|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/11/03/7-reasons-you-should-donate-to-wikipedia/|author=Seitz-Gruwell, Lisa|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|language=en-US|date=October 23, 2023|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=December 27, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20231227155753/https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/10/23/7-reasons-you-should-donate-to-wikipedia/}}</ref>

Initially only available [[English Wikipedia|in English]], editions in other languages were quickly developed. Wikipedia's editions, when combined, comprise more than {{spellnum per MOS|{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}}} articles, attracting around 2{{nbsp}}billion unique device visits per month and more than 14 million edits per month (about 5.2{{nbsp}}edits per second on average) <!-- To calculate edits per second, I did the number of edits divided by the number of seconds in a month. If anyone finds this math incorrect, please fix it, I'm not a mathematician! --> {{as of|2023|11|lc=y}}.<!-- {{As of|2023|11|lc=y}} PLEASE UPDATE AS NEEDED --><ref name="small screen"/><ref name="Wikimedia_Stats" group="W">{{cite web|title=Wikistats – Statistics For Wikimedia Projects|url=https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-wikipedia-projects|access-date=August 8, 2023|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> 26% of Wikipedia's traffic is from the [[United States]], followed by [[Japan]] at 5.9%, the [[United Kingdom]] at 5.4%, [[Germany]] at 5%, [[Russia]] at 4.8%, and the remaining 54% split among other countries, according to data provided by [[Similarweb]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.similarweb.com/website/wikipedia.org/#geography|title=wikipedia.org|website=similarweb.com}}</ref>

Wikipedia has been praised for its enablement of the [[democratization of knowledge]], extent of coverage, unique structure, and culture. [[criticism of Wikipedia|It has been criticized]] for exhibiting [[criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage|systemic bias]], particularly [[gender bias on Wikipedia|gender bias]] against women and [[Geographical bias on Wikipedia|geographical bias]] against the [[Global South]] ([[Eurocentrism]]).<ref name="Econ21">{{Cite news|date=January 9, 2021|title=Happy Birthday, Wikipedia|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/01/09/happy-birthday-wikipedia|url-access=subscription|access-date=January 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230101031816/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/01/09/happy-birthday-wikipedia|archive-date=January 1, 2023}}</ref><ref name="Slate-Neutrality">{{cite news|last=Harrison|first=Stephen|date=June 9, 2020|title=How Wikipedia Became a Battleground for Racial Justice|work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|url=https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html|url-status=live|access-date=August 17, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114545/https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html|archive-date=February 10, 2023}}</ref> While the [[reliability of Wikipedia]] was frequently criticized in the 2000s, it has improved over time, receiving greater praise in the late 2010s and early 2020s,<ref name="Wiki20" /><ref name="Econ21" /><ref name="Last best">{{cite news|last1=Cooke|first1=Richard|date=February 17, 2020|title=Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|url=https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/|url-access=limited|access-date=October 13, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221217081500/https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/|archive-date=December 17, 2022}}</ref>{{efn|group=note|Despite this praise, Wikipedia does not recognize itself as a reliable source.}} having become [[Wikipedia and fact-checking|an important fact-checking site]].<ref name=":20">{{Cite web|last1=Hughes|first1=Taylor|last2=Smith|first2=Jeff|last3=Leavitt|first3=Alex|date=April 3, 2018|title=Helping People Better Assess the Stories They See in News Feed with the Context Button|url=https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/news-feed-fyi-more-context/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230111152311/https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/news-feed-fyi-more-context/|archive-date=January 11, 2023|access-date=January 23, 2023|website=[[Meta Platforms|Meta]]}}</ref><ref name="auto" />

[[Censorship of Wikipedia|Wikipedia has been censored]] by some national governments, ranging from specific pages to the entire site.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Treisman|first=Rachel|date=April 1, 2022|title=Russia threatens to fine Wikipedia if it doesn't remove some details about the war|work=[[NPR]]|url=https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090279187/russia-wikipedia-fine|url-status=live|access-date=January 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221202215844/https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090279187/russia-wikipedia-fine|archive-date=December 2, 2022}}</ref><ref name=":1" /> Articles on [[breaking news]] are often accessed as sources for frequently updated information about those events.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kelly|first=Samantha Murphy|date=May 20, 2022|title=Meet the Wikipedia editor who published the Buffalo shooting entry minutes after it started|url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/wikipedia-editors-breaking-news/index.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221012001310/https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/wikipedia-editors-breaking-news/index.html|archive-date=October 12, 2022|access-date=May 24, 2022|website=[[CNN]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=McNamee|first=Kai|date=September 15, 2022|title=Fastest 'was' in the West: Inside Wikipedia's race to cover the queen's death|work=[[NPR]]|url=https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1122943829/wikipedia--queen-elizabeth-ii-death-deaditors-editors-article|url-status=live|access-date=January 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115033202/https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1122943829/wikipedia--queen-elizabeth-ii-death-deaditors-editors-article|archive-date=January 15, 2023}}</ref>

== History ==
{{main|History of Wikipedia}}

=== Nupedia ===
{{main|Nupedia}}
{{Multiple image
| footer = Wikipedia founders [[Jimmy Wales]] (left) and [[Larry Sanger]] (right)
| width =
| image1 = Jimmy Wales - August 2019 (cropped).jpg
| width1 = 100
| image2 = L Sanger.jpg
| width2 = 116
}}

Various collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before the start of Wikipedia, but with limited success.<ref>{{cite web|last=Garber|first=Megan|date=October 12, 2011|title=The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?|url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114540/https://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/|archive-date=February 10, 2023|access-date=June 5, 2016|website=Nieman Lab}}</ref> Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process.<ref name="KockJungSyn2016">{{cite journal|last1=Kock|first1=Ned|last2=Jung|first2=Yusun|last3=Syn|first3=Thant|author1-link=Ned Kock|title=Wikipedia and e-Collaboration Research: Opportunities and Challenges|journal=[[International Journal of e-Collaboration]]|date=2016|volume=12|issue=2|pages=1–8|doi=10.4018/IJeC.2016040101|url=https://cits.tamiu.edu/kock/pubs/journals/2016JournalIJeC_WikipediaEcollaboration/Kock_etal_2016_IJeC_WikipediaEcollaboration.pdf|publisher=IGI Global|issn=1548-3681|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160927001627/https://cits.tamiu.edu/kock/pubs/journals/2016JournalIJeC_WikipediaEcollaboration/Kock_etal_2016_IJeC_WikipediaEcollaboration.pdf|archive-date=September 27, 2016}}</ref> It was founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of [[Bomis]], a [[web portal]] company. Its main figures were Bomis CEO [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]], [[editor-in-chief]] for Nupedia and later Wikipedia.<ref name="autogenerated1"/><ref name="Meyers"/> Nupedia was initially licensed under its own Nupedia [[free content|Open Content]] License, but before Wikipedia was founded, Nupedia switched to the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] at the urging of [[Richard Stallman]].<ref name="stallman1999" group="W"/> Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,<ref name="SangerMemoir" /><ref name="Sanger" group="W"/> while Sanger is credited with the strategy of using a [[wiki]] to reach that goal.<ref name="WM foundation of WP 1" group="W">{{cite web|last=T.|first=Laura|date=October 30, 2001|title=Wikipedia-l: LinkBacks?|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221229040038/https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OTDFENO6REC46PN354TKFOJBA5BSXBUX/|archive-date=December 29, 2022|access-date=February 20, 2007}}</ref> On January 10, 2001, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.<ref name="nupedia feeder from WP 1" group="W">{{cite news|last=Sanger|first=Larry|date=January 10, 2001|title=Let's Make a Wiki|publisher=[[Internet Archive]]|url=https://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html|access-date=December 26, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/https://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html|archive-date=April 14, 2003}}</ref>

=== Launch and growth ===
The [[domain name|domain]]s ''wikipedia.com'' (later redirecting to ''wikipedia.org'') and ''wikipedia.org'' were registered on January 12, 2001,<ref group="W">{{cite web|date=September 27, 2007|title=WHOIS domain registration information results for wikipedia.com from Network Solutions|url=https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wikipedia.com|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193149/https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wikipedia.com|archive-date=September 27, 2007|access-date=August 31, 2018|website=Network Solutions}}</ref> and January 13, 2001,<ref group="W">{{cite web|date=September 27, 2007|title=WHOIS domain registration information results for wikipedia.org from Network Solutions|url=https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wikipedia.org|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194913/https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wikipedia.org|archive-date=September 27, 2007|access-date=August 31, 2018|website=Network Solutions}}</ref> respectively. Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001<ref name="KockJungSyn2016" /> as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,<ref name="WikipediaHome" group="W"/> and was announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.<ref name="SangerMemoir" /> The name originated from a [[blend word|blend]] of the words ''[[wiki]]'' and ''[[encyclopedia]]''.<ref name="MiliardWho"/><ref name="J Sidener"/> Its integral policy of "neutral point-of-view"<ref name="NPOV" group="W"/> was codified in its first few months. Otherwise, there were initially relatively few rules, and it operated independently of Nupedia.<ref name="SangerMemoir" /> Bomis originally intended for it to be a for-profit business.<ref name="Seth-Finkelstein">{{cite news|author=Finkelstein|first=Seth|date=September 25, 2008|title=Read me first: Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says|work=[[The Guardian]]|location=London|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/sep/25/wikipedia.internet|url-status=live|access-date=January 23, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221207170151/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/sep/25/wikipedia.internet|archive-date=December 7, 2022}}</ref>

[[File:English Wikipedia HomePage 2001-12-20.png|thumb|The Wikipedia home page on December 20, 2001{{NoteTag|Now available as an archive at the [[nost:|Nostalgia Wikipedia]]}}]]

Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, ''[[Slashdot]]'' postings, and web [[search engine]] indexing. Language editions were created beginning in March 2001, with a total of 161 in use by the end of 2004.<ref group="W">{{Cite mailing list|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-March/000048.html| title=Alternative language wikipedias|date=March 16, 2001|mailing-list=Wikipedia-L|last=Wales|first=Jimmy|access-date=January 16, 2022}}</ref><ref name="WP early language stats 1" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics/2004]]</ref> Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. The [[English Wikipedia]] passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing the ''[[Yongle Encyclopedia]]'' made during the [[Ming dynasty]] in 1408, which had held the record for almost 600&nbsp;years.<ref name="EB_encyclopedia" />

Citing fears of commercial [[advertising]] and lack of control, users of the [[Spanish Wikipedia]] forked from Wikipedia to create {{Lang|es|[[Enciclopedia Libre]]|italic=no}} in February 2002.<ref name="EL fears and start 1" group="W">{{cite web|title = [long] Enciclopedia Libre: msg#00008|url=https://osdir.com/ml/science.linguistics.wikipedia.international/2003-03/msg00008.html|website = Osdir|access-date = December 26, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081006065927/https://osdir.com/ml/science.linguistics.wikipedia.international/2003-03/msg00008.html|archive-date = October 6, 2008|df = mdy-all}}</ref> Wales then announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and changed Wikipedia's domain from ''wikipedia.com'' to ''wikipedia.org''.<ref name="Shirky" /><ref group="W">{{cite web|last=Vibber|first=Brion|date=August 16, 2002|title=Brion VIBBER at pobox.com|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-August/003982.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140620071550/https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-August/003982.html|archive-date=June 20, 2014|access-date=December 8, 2020|website=[[Wikimedia]]}}</ref>

Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of new articles and of editors, appears to have peaked around early 2007.<ref name="guardian WP user peak 1">{{cite news|last=Johnson|first=Bobbie|date=August 12, 2009|title=Wikipedia approaches its limits|work=The Guardian|location=London|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist|access-date=March 31, 2010}}</ref> Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth|access-date=January 23, 2023|website=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> A team at the [[Palo Alto Research Center]] attributed this slowing of growth to the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change.<ref name="wikisym slowing growth 1">{{cite conference|url=https://www.wikisym.org/ws2009/procfiles/p108-suh.pdf|title = The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia|year = 2009|location = Orlando, FL|conference = The International Symposium on Wikis|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511110022/https://www.wikisym.org/ws2009/procfiles/p108-suh.pdf|archive-date = May 11, 2011}}</ref><!-- ''Hidden while in discussion on the talk page'': New or occasional editors have significantly higher rates of their edits reverted (removed) than an elite group of regular editors, colloquially known as "the [[cabal]]". This could make it more difficult for the project to recruit and retain new contributors over the long term, resulting in stagnation in article creation. --> Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because articles that could be called "[[wikt:low-hanging fruit|low-hanging fruit]]"—topics that clearly merit an article—have already been created and built up extensively.<ref name="bostonreview the end of WP 1">{{cite magazine|last=Morozov|first=Evgeny|date=November–December 2009|title=Edit This Page; Is it the end of Wikipedia|url=https://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/edit-page-wikipedia-evgeny-morozov|magazine=Boston Review|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211050926/https://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/edit-page-wikipedia-evgeny-morozov|archive-date=December 11, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date=March 28, 2009|title=Wikipedia&nbsp;– Exploring Fact City|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29cohen.html|url-access=limited|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110430045029/https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29cohen.html|archive-date=April 30, 2011}}</ref><ref name="stanford WP lack of future growth 1">{{cite web|last1=Gibbons|first1=Austin|last2=Vetrano|first2=David|last3=Biancani|first3=Susan|year=2012|title=Wikipedia: Nowhere to grow|url=https://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs341-2012/reports/09-GibbonsVetranoBiancaniCS341.pdf|url-status=live|publisher=Stanford Network Analysis Project|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140718091331/https://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs341-2012/reports/09-GibbonsVetranoBiancaniCS341.pdf|archive-date=July 18, 2014}} {{open access}}</ref>

{{anchor|Decline in participation since 2009}}
In November 2009, a researcher at the [[Rey Juan Carlos University]] in [[Madrid]], Spain found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, it lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.<ref name="guardian editors leaving 1">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/26/wikipedia-losing-disgruntled-editors|title = Wikipedia falling victim to a war of words|work = The Guardian|location = London|first = Jenny|last = Kleeman|date = November 26, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite thesis|last=Ortega Soto|first=José Felipe|date=2009|title=Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis|type=PhD thesis|publisher=Rey Juan Carlos University|url=https://burjcdigital.urjc.es/handle/10115/11239|hdl=10115/11239}}</ref> ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Fowler|first1=Geoffrey A.|last2=Angwin|first2=Julia|date=November 27, 2009|title=Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125893981183759969|url-access=subscription|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221204041034/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125893981183759969|archive-date=December 4, 2022|access-date=January 23, 2023|website=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref> Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the study's methodology.<ref name="telegraph Wales WP not losing editors 1">{{cite news|last=Barnett|first=Emma|date=November 26, 2009|title=Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales denies site is 'losing' thousands of volunteer editors|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|location=London|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6660646/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Wales-denies-site-is-losing-thousands-of-volunteer-editors.html|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=March 31, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221109044012/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6660646/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Wales-denies-site-is-losing-thousands-of-volunteer-editors.html|archive-date=November 9, 2022}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Two years later, in 2011, he acknowledged a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, he also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable".<ref name="wiki-women">{{cite news|last=Rawlinson|first=Kevin|date=August 8, 2011|title=Wikipedia seeks women to balance its 'geeky' editors|newspaper=The Independent|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-seeks-women-to-balance-its-geeky-editors-2333605.html|url-status=live|url-access=registration|access-date=April 5, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220421150824/https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/wikipedia-seeks-women-to-balance-its-geeky-editors-2333605.html|archive-date=April 21, 2022}}</ref> A 2013 ''[[MIT Technology Review]]'' article, "The Decline of Wikipedia", questioned this claim, revealing that since 2007, Wikipedia had lost a third of its volunteer editors, and that those remaining had focused increasingly on minutiae.<ref name="Simonite-2013">{{cite journal|last = Simonite|first = Tom|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/10/22/175674/the-decline-of-wikipedia/|title = The Decline of Wikipedia|date = October 22, 2013|journal = [[MIT Technology Review]]|access-date = November 30, 2013}}</ref> In July 2012, ''[[The Atlantic]]'' reported that the number of administrators was also in decline.<ref>{{cite news|last=Meyer|first=Robinson|date=July 16, 2012|title=3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins|work=The Atlantic|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=January 23, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221209095932/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829/|archive-date=December 9, 2022}}</ref> In the November 25, 2013, issue of ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' magazine, Katherine Ward stated, "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis."<ref>Ward, Katherine. ''New York'' Magazine, issue of November 25, 2013, p. 18.</ref>

The number of active English Wikipedia editors has since remained steady after a long period of decline.<ref>{{Cite news|last=F.|first=G.|date=May 5, 2013|title=Who really runs Wikipedia?|newspaper=The Economist|url=https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/05/05/who-really-runs-wikipedia|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=November 26, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211126151121/https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/05/05/who-really-runs-wikipedia|archive-date=November 26, 2021|issn=0013-0613}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Mandiberg|first=Michael|date=February 23, 2020|title=Mapping Wikipedia|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/where-wikipedias-editors-are-where-they-arent-and-why/605023/|url-access=subscription|access-date=November 26, 2021|website=The Atlantic|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211115131524/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/where-wikipedias-editors-are-where-they-arent-and-why/605023|archive-date=November 15, 2021}}</ref>

=== Milestones ===
[[File:European Wikipedias article count 2019 map.svg|thumb|[[Cartogram]] showing number of articles in each European language {{as of|2019|1|lc=y|post=.}} One square represents 10,000 articles. Languages with fewer than 10,000 articles are represented by one square. Languages are grouped by language family and each language family is presented by a separate color.]]
In January 2007, Wikipedia first became one of the ten [[list of most popular websites|most popular websites]] in the United States, according to [[Comscore]] Networks.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|date=February 15, 2007|title=New Year's Resolutions Reflected in January U.S. Web Traffic|url=https://ir.comscore.com/static-files/45b068e1-1cee-412a-b48f-21ec34e7b59d|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210819190445/https://ir.comscore.com/static-files/45b068e1-1cee-412a-b48f-21ec34e7b59d|archive-date=August 19, 2021|access-date=January 23, 2023|website=[[Comscore]]|page=3|format=PDF}}</ref> With 42.9&nbsp;million unique visitors, it was ranked #9, surpassing ''[[The New York Times]]'' (#10) and [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] (#11).<ref name=":4" /> This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when Wikipedia ranked 33rd, with around 18.3&nbsp;million unique visitors.<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Carlos Perez|first=Juan|date=February 17, 2007|title=Wikipedia Breaks Into US Top 10 Sites|url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/129135/wikipedia_breaks_into_us_top_10_sites.html|url-status=dead|magazine=PCWorld|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319204141/http://www.pcworld.com/article/129135/wikipedia_breaks_into_us_top_10_sites.html|archive-date=March 19, 2012|access-date=March 26, 2021}}</ref> In 2014, it received eight billion page views every month.<ref group="W">{{cite web|url=https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryOverview.htm|title = Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report&nbsp;– Wikipedia Page Views Per Country|publisher = Wikimedia Foundation|access-date = March 8, 2015}}</ref> On February 9, 2014, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that Wikipedia had 18&nbsp;billion [[pageview|page view]]s and nearly 500&nbsp;million [[unique user#Unique visitor|unique visitor]]s a month, "according to the ratings firm comScore".<ref name="small screen">{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date=February 9, 2014|title=Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/technology/wikipedia-vs-the-small-screen.html?_r=0|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=January 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221109044012/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/technology/wikipedia-vs-the-small-screen.html?_r=0|archive-date=November 9, 2022}}</ref> {{as of|2023|March}}, it ranked 6th in popularity, according to [[Similarweb]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Similarweb|title=Top Websites Ranking – Most Visited Websites In The World|url=https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/|access-date=March 4, 2023|website=[[Similarweb]]}}</ref> Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that have accumulated improvements piecemeal through "[[stigmergy|stigmergic]] accumulation".<ref name="sagepub WP and encyclopedic production 1">{{cite journal|first1=Jeff|last1=Loveland|first2=Joseph|last2=Reagle|date=January 15, 2013|title=Wikipedia and encyclopedic production|journal=New Media & Society|volume=15|issue=8|page=1294|doi=10.1177/1461444812470428|s2cid=27886998}}</ref><ref name="theatlantic WP actually a reversion 1">{{cite web|last=Rosen|first=Rebecca J.|date=January 30, 2013|title=What If the Great Wikipedia 'Revolution' Was Actually a Reversion?|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/what-if-the-great-wikipedia-revolution-was-actually-a-reversion/272697|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221229051117/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/what-if-the-great-wikipedia-revolution-was-actually-a-reversion/272697/|archive-date=December 29, 2022|access-date=February 9, 2013|website=[[The Atlantic]]}}</ref>

{{anchor|BlackoutProtest}}
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the [[United States Congress]]—the [[Stop Online Piracy Act]] (SOPA) and the [[PROTECT IP Act]] (PIPA)—by [[Protests against SOPA and PIPA|blacking out its pages for 24 hours]].<ref name="LA Times Jan 19">{{cite news|last=Netburn|first=Deborah|date=January 19, 2012|title=Wikipedia: SOPA protest led eight million to look up reps in Congress|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|url=https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/wikipedia-sopa-blackout-congressional-representatives.html|url-status=live|access-date=March 6, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114230228/https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/technology-blog/story/2012-01-19/wikipedia-sopa-protest-led-8-million-to-look-up-reps-in-congress|archive-date=November 14, 2022}}</ref> More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced its content.<ref name="BBC WP blackout protest 1">{{cite news|date=January 18, 2012|title=Wikipedia joins blackout protest at US anti-piracy moves|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16590585|url-status=live|access-date=January 19, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221227191611/https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16590585|archive-date=December 27, 2022}}</ref><ref group="W">{{cite web|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage|title = SOPA/Blackoutpage|publisher = Wikimedia Foundation|access-date = January 19, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180622185443/https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage|archive-date = June 22, 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In January 2013, [[274301 Wikipedia]], an [[asteroid]], was named after Wikipedia;<ref>{{Cite news|last=Workman|first=Robert|date=January 5, 2013|title=Asteroid Re-Named 'Wikipedia'|work=[[Space.com]]|url=https://www.space.com/19643-asteroid-named-wikipedia.html|access-date=January 23, 2023}}</ref> in October 2014, Wikipedia was honored with the ''[[Wikipedia Monument]]'';<ref>{{Cite news|last=Katz|first=Leslie|date=October 27, 2014|title=A Wikipedia monument? It's true (we're pretty sure)|work=[[CNET]]|url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/a-wikipedia-monument-its-true-were-pretty-sure/|access-date=January 23, 2023}}</ref> and, in July 2015, 106 of the 7,473 700-page volumes of Wikipedia became available as [[Print Wikipedia]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Sawers|first=Paul|date=June 18, 2015|title=You can soon buy a 7,471-volume printed version of Wikipedia for $500,000|url=https://venturebeat.com/business/you-can-soon-buy-a-7471-volume-printed-version-of-wikipedia-for-500000/|access-date=January 24, 2023|website=VentureBeat}}</ref> In April 2019, an Israeli [[lunar lander]], [[Beresheet]], crash landed on the surface of the [[Moon]] carrying a copy of nearly all of the English Wikipedia engraved on thin nickel plates; experts say the plates likely survived the crash.<ref name="WRD-20190805">{{cite news|last=Oberhaus|first=Daniel|date=August 5, 2019|title=A Crashed Israeli Lunar Lander Spilled Tardigrades On The Moon|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|url=https://www.wired.com/story/a-crashed-israeli-lunar-lander-spilled-tardigrades-on-the-moon/|url-status=live|access-date=August 6, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221224013530/https://www.wired.com/story/a-crashed-israeli-lunar-lander-spilled-tardigrades-on-the-moon/|archive-date=December 24, 2022}}</ref><ref name="VOX-20190806">{{cite news|last=Resnick|first=Brian|title=Tardigrades, the toughest animals on Earth, have crash-landed on the moon&nbsp;– The tardigrade conquest of the solar system has begun.|url=https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/6/20756844/tardigrade-moon-beresheet-arch-mission|date=August 6, 2019|work=[[Vox (website)|Vox]]|access-date=August 6, 2019}}</ref> In June 2019, scientists reported that all 16&nbsp;GB of article text from the English Wikipedia had been encoded into [[synthetic genomics|synthetic DNA]].<ref name="CNET-20190629">{{cite news|last=Shankland|first=Stephen|date=June 29, 2019|title=Startup packs all 16GB of Wikipedia onto DNA strands to demonstrate new storage tech&nbsp;– Biological molecules will last a lot longer than the latest computer storage technology, Catalog believes.|work=[[CNET]]|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/startup-packs-all-16gb-wikipedia-onto-dna-strands-demonstrate-new-storage-tech/|url-status=live|access-date=August 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221229022241/https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/startup-packs-all-16gb-wikipedia-onto-dna-strands-demonstrate-new-storage-tech/|archive-date=December 29, 2022}}</ref>

On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for ''[[The Economic Times]]'' indicated that not only had Wikipedia's growth stalled, it "had lost nearly ten percent of its page views last year. There was a decline of about two billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by twelve percent, those of German version slid by 17 percent and the Japanese version lost nine percent."<ref name="economictimes.indiatimes.com">{{cite news|last=Varma|first=Subodh|date=January 20, 2014|title=Google eating into Wikipedia page views?|work=The Economic Times|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29094246.cms|url-status=live|access-date=February 10, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221211043545/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29094246.cms|archive-date=December 11, 2022}}</ref> Varma added, "While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's [[Knowledge Graph]]s project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users."<ref name="economictimes.indiatimes.com" /> When contacted on this matter, [[Clay Shirky]], associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's [[Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society]] said that he suspected much of the page-view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need to click [any further]."<ref name="economictimes.indiatimes.com" /> By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was ranked the fifth most popular website globally.<ref name="Alexa">{{cite web|url = https://www.alexa.com/topsites|title = Alexa Top 500 Global Sites|website = [[Alexa Internet]]|access-date = December 28, 2016|archive-date = February 3, 2021|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210203120227/https://www.alexa.com/topsites|url-status = dead }}</ref>

As of January 2023, 55,791 English Wikipedia articles have been cited 92,300 times in scholarly journals,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://exaly.com/online-resource/146983/en.wikipedia.org|title = Citations of Wikipedia as an Online Resource|publisher = exaly|access-date = November 4, 2022}}</ref> from which [[cloud computing]] was the most cited page.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://exaly.com/online-document/8348259/articles/|title = Citations of Cloud Computing|publisher = exaly|access-date = November 4, 2022}}</ref>

On January 18, 2023, Wikipedia debuted a new website redesign, called "Vector 2022".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last=Pearl|first=Mike|date=January 18, 2023|title=Yes, Wikipedia looks weird. Don't freak out.|url=https://mashable.com/article/new-wikipedia-redesign|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120012235/https://mashable.com/article/new-wikipedia-redesign|archive-date=January 20, 2023|access-date=January 23, 2023|website=[[Mashable]]}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{cite web|author=Tech Desk|date=January 18, 2023|title=Wikipedia gets a facelift after 10 years: A look at new interface and features|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/wikipedia-gets-a-facelift-after-10-years-a-look-at-new-interface-and-features/|access-date=January 22, 2023|website=The Indian Express}}</ref> It featured a redesigned [[menu bar]], moving the [[table of contents]] to the left as a [[Sidebar (computing)|sidebar]], and numerous changes in the locations of buttons like the language selection tool.<ref name=":3" /><ref group="W">{{Cite news|date=January 18, 2023|title=Wikipedia Gets a Fresh New Look: First Desktop Update in a Decade Puts Usability at the Forefront|work=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/01/18/wikipedia-gets-a-fresh-new-look-first-desktop-update-in-a-decade-puts-usability-at-the-forefront/|access-date=January 22, 2023}}</ref> The update initially received backlash, most notably when editors of the [[Swahili Wikipedia]] unanimously voted to revert the changes.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|last=Rauwerda|first=Annie|date=January 18, 2023|title=Wikipedia's Redesign Is Barely Noticeable. That's the Point.|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/wikipedia-redesign-vector-2022-skin.html|access-date=January 23, 2023|website=Slate Magazine}}</ref>

== Openness ==
[[File:History Comparison Example (Vector).png|thumb|Differences between versions of an article are highlighted]]
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the [[procrastination]] principle regarding the security of its content, meaning that it waits until a problem arises to fix it.<ref name="zittrain">{{cite book|last = Zittrain|first = Jonathan|title = The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It&nbsp;– Chapter 6: The Lessons of Wikipedia|author-link = Jonathan Zittrain|publisher = Yale University Press|year = 2008|url=https://archive.org/details/futureofinternet00zitt|isbn = 978-0300124873|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref>

=== Restrictions ===
Due to Wikipedia's increasing popularity, some editions, including the English version, have introduced editing restrictions for certain cases. For instance, on the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Why create an account]]</ref> On the English Wikipedia, among others, particularly controversial, sensitive, or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to varying degrees.<ref name="Wikipedia:Protection policy" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Protection policy]]</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Hafner|first1=Katie|date=June 17, 2006|title=Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=December 5, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221212184025/https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html|archive-date=December 12, 2022}}</ref> A frequently vandalized article can be "semi-protected" or "extended confirmed protected", meaning that only "autoconfirmed" or "extended confirmed" editors can modify it.<ref name="Wikipedia:Protection policy" group="W"/> A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only [[Wikipedia administrators|administrators]] can make changes.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Full protection]]</ref> A 2021 article in the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'' identified Wikipedia's page-protection policies as "perhaps the most important" means at its disposal to "regulate its market of ideas".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Harrison|first1=Stephen|last2=Benjakob|first2=Omer|date=January 14, 2021|title=Wikipedia is twenty. It's time to start covering it better.|url=https://www.cjr.org/opinion/wikipedia-is-twenty-its-time-to-start-covering-it-better.php|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117150508/https://www.cjr.org/opinion/wikipedia-is-twenty-its-time-to-start-covering-it-better.php|archive-date=January 17, 2023|access-date=January 15, 2021|website=[[Columbia Journalism Review]]}}</ref>

In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors, depending on certain conditions. For example, the [[German Wikipedia]] maintains "stable versions" of articles which have passed certain reviews.<ref name="WP some sites stable versions 1" group="W">{{cite mailing list|first=P.|last=Birken|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikide-l/2008-December/021594.html|title=Bericht Gesichtete Versionen|mailing-list=Wikide-l|date=December 14, 2008|language=de|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|access-date=February 15, 2009}}</ref> Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012.<ref name="BInsider pending changes intro 1">{{cite news|last=Henderson|first=William|date=December 10, 2012|title=Wikipedia Has Figured Out A New Way To Stop Vandals In Their Tracks|work=[[Insider Inc.|Business Insider]]|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/pending-changes-safeguard-on-wikipedia-2012-12|url-status=live|access-date=January 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221113161520/https://www.businessinsider.com/pending-changes-safeguard-on-wikipedia-2012-12|archive-date=November 13, 2022}}</ref> Under this system, new and unregistered users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are reviewed by established users before they are published.<ref>{{cite news|last=Frewin|first=Jonathan|date=June 15, 2010|title=Wikipedia unlocks divisive pages for editing|journal=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/10312095|url-status=live|access-date=August 21, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221127041149/https://www.bbc.com/news/10312095|archive-date=November 27, 2022}}</ref>
=== Review of changes ===
[[File:Wikipedia editing interface.png|thumb|Wikipedia's editing interface]]Although changes are not systematically reviewed, Wikipedia's software provides tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. Each article's History page links to each revision.{{notetag|Revisions with libelous content, criminal threats, or copyright infringements may be removed completely.}}<ref name="Torsten_Kleinz" /> On most articles, anyone can view the latest changes and undo others' revisions by clicking a link on the article's History page. Registered users may maintain a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of changes.<ref group="W">[[Help:Recent changes]]</ref> "New pages patrol" is a process where newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:New pages patrol]]</ref>

In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low [[transaction cost]]s of participating in a [[wiki]] created a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favored "creative construction" over "creative destruction".<ref name="FMonday collaborative effort 1">{{cite journal|last1=Ciffolilli|first1=Andrea|title=Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia|journal=First Monday|date=December 2003|volume=8|issue=12|doi=10.5210/fm.v8i12.1108|url=https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1108/1028|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161206104747/https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1108/1028|archive-date=December 6, 2016|doi-access=free }}</ref>

=== Vandalism ===
{{main|Vandalism on Wikipedia}}
Any change that deliberately compromises Wikipedia's integrity is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include additions of obscenities and crude humor; it can also include advertising and other types of spam.<ref name="upenn link spamming 1">{{cite conference|last1 = West|first1 = Andrew G.|last2 = Chang|first2 = Jian|last3 = Venkatasubramanian|first3 = Krishna|last4 = Sokolsky|first4 = Oleg|last5 = Lee|first5 = Insup|title = Proceedings of the 8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference on – CEAS '11|chapter = Link Spamming Wikipedia for Profit|conference = 8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse, and Spam Conference|pages = 152–161|date = 2011|chapter-url=https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=cis_papers|doi = 10.1145/2030376.2030394|isbn = 978-1450307888 }}</ref> Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing content or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the article's underlying code, or use images disruptively.<ref name="WP vandalism manipulation 1" group="W"/>

[[File:John Seigenthaler Sr. speaking.jpg|thumb|alt=White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium.|American journalist [[John Seigenthaler]] (1927–2014), subject of the [[Seigenthaler incident]]|left]]
Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to detect and fix it is a few minutes.<ref name="MIT_IBM_study" /><ref name="CreatingDestroyingAndRestoringValue" /> However, some vandalism takes much longer to detect and repair.<ref name="Seigenthaler" />

In the [[Seigenthaler biography incident]], an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure [[John Seigenthaler]] in May 2005, falsely presenting him as a suspect in the [[assassination of John F. Kennedy]].<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> It remained uncorrected for four months.<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of ''[[USA Today]]'' and founder of the Freedom Forum [[First Amendment Center]] at [[Vanderbilt University]], called Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales said he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced.<ref name="book The World is Flat 1">{{cite book|last = Friedman|first = Thomas L.|title = The World is Flat|year = 2007|publisher = [[Farrar, Straus & Giroux]]|isbn = 978-0374292782|page = 124}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Buchanan|first=Brian|date=November 17, 2006|title=Founder shares cautionary tale of libel in cyberspace|url=https://archive.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17798|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121221140311/https://archive.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17798|archive-date=December 21, 2012|access-date=November 17, 2012|publisher=[[First Amendment Center]]}}</ref> After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> The incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia for tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.<ref>{{cite news|last = Helm|first = Burt|title = Wikipedia: "A Work in Progress"|url=https://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress|newspaper = [[BusinessWeek]]|date = December 13, 2005|access-date = July 26, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120708062333/https://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress|archive-date = July 8, 2012}}</ref>

=== Edit warring ===
Wikipedians often have disputes regarding content, which may result in repeated competing changes to an article, known as "edit warring".<ref name="Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - Wikipedia" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]</ref><ref name="NBC WP editorial warzone 12">{{cite news|last=Coldewey|first=Devin|date=June 21, 2012|archive-url=https://archive.today/20140822010030/http://sys03-public.nbcnews.com/technology/wikipedia-editorial-warzone-says-study-838793|title=Wikipedia is editorial warzone, says study|department=Technology|work=[[NBC News]]|url=https://sys03-public.nbcnews.com/technology/wikipedia-editorial-warzone-says-study-838793|archive-date=August 22, 2014}}</ref> It is widely seen as a resource-consuming scenario where no useful knowledge is added,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kalyanasundaram|first1=Arun|last2=Wei|first2=Wei|last3=Carley|first3=Kathleen M.|last4=Herbsleb|first4=James D.|title=2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC)|chapter=An agent-based model of edit wars in Wikipedia: How and when is consensus reached|date=December 2015|location=Huntington Beach, CA|publisher=IEEE|pages=276–287|doi=10.1109/WSC.2015.7408171|isbn=978-1467397438|s2cid=9353425|citeseerx=10.1.1.715.2758 }}</ref> and criticized as creating a competitive<ref>{{cite book|last1=Suh|first1=Bongwon|last2=Convertino|first2=Gregorio|last3=Chi|first3=Ed H.|last4=Pirolli|first4=Peter|title=Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration|chapter=The singularity is not near|date=2009|pages=1–10|location=Orlando, FL|publisher=ACM Press|doi=10.1145/1641309.1641322|isbn=978-1605587301|doi-access=free }}</ref> and conflict-based editing culture associated with traditional masculine [[gender role]]s.<ref>{{cite news|last=Torres|first=Nicole|date=June 2, 2016|title=Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia?|work=Harvard Business Review|url=https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia|access-date=August 20, 2019|issn=0017-8012}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bear|first1=Julia B.|last2=Collier|first2=Benjamin|date=March 2016|title=Where are the Women in Wikipedia? Understanding the Different Psychological Experiences of Men and Women in Wikipedia|journal=Sex Roles|volume=74|issue=5–6|pages=254–265|doi=10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y|s2cid=146452625}}</ref>

[[Taha Yasseri]] of the [[University of Oxford]] examined editing conflicts and their resolution in a 2013 study.<ref>{{cite magazine|date=July 17, 2013|title=Edit Wars Reveal The 10 Most Controversial Topics on Wikipedia|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/07/17/177320/edit-wars-reveal-the-10-most-controversial-topics-on-wikipedia/|magazine=[[MIT Technology Review]]|location=Cambridge, MA|publisher=[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]}}</ref><ref name="autogenerated3">{{cite book|last1=Yasseri|first1=Taha|title=The Most Controversial Topics in Wikipedia: A Multilingual and Geographical Analysis|last2=Spoerri|first2=Anselm|last3=Graham|first3=Mark|last4=Kertész|first4=János|publisher=Scarecrow Press|year=2014|editor1=Fichman, P.|doi=10.2139/SSRN.2269392|ssrn=2269392|author1-link=Taha Yasseri|author4-link=János Kertész|editor2=Hara, N.|arxiv=1305.5566|s2cid=12133330}}</ref> Yasseri contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of [[counterproductive work behavior]] at Wikipedia. He relied instead on "mutually reverting edit pairs", where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to revert the first editor. The results were tabulated for several language versions of Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia's three largest conflict rates belonged to the articles [[George W. Bush]], [[anarchism]], and [[Muhammad]].<ref name="autogenerated3" /> By comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the study were for the articles covering [[Croatia]], [[Scientology]], and [[9/11 conspiracy theories]].<ref name="autogenerated3" />

== <span id="Rules_and_laws_governing_content">Policies and content</span>{{anchor|Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior}} ==
{{anchor|Censorship}}

{{self-reference|"Five pillars of Wikipedia" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]].}}
{{External media|width = 220px|float = right|headerimage = [[File:Jimbo at Fosdem cropped.jpg|210px]]|video1 =
[https://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_wales_the_birth_of_wikipedia?language=en Jimmy Wales], The Birth of Wikipedia, 2006, [[TED talks]], 20 minutes|video2 =
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2gsj0EEE3I Katherine Maher], What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs, 2022, [[TED talks]], 15 minutes}}

Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, [[copyright]] laws) of the United States and of the US state of [[Virginia]], where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located.<ref name="Wikipedia:Copyrights" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]</ref><ref name=":13" group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikimedia servers|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers|access-date=January 24, 2023|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> By using the site, one agrees to the Wikimedia Foundation [[Terms of service|Terms of Use]] and [[Privacy Policy]]; some of the main rules are that contributors are legally responsible for their edits and contributions, that they should follow the policies that govern each of the independent project editions, and they may not engage in activities, whether legal or illegal, that may be harmful to other users.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Terms of Use |url=https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en|access-date=December 22, 2022|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] Governance Wiki}}</ref><ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Privacy policy |url=https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy|access-date=December 22, 2022|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] Governance Wiki}}</ref> In addition to the terms, the Foundation has developed policies, described as the "official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation".<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Policies |url=https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policies|access-date=December 22, 2022|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] Governance Wiki}}</ref>

The fundamental principles of the Wikipedia community are embodied in the "Five pillars", while the detailed editorial principles are expressed in numerous policies and guidelines intended to appropriately shape content.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]</ref> The five pillars are:
* Wikipedia is an [[encyclopedia]]
* Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
* Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
* Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility
* Wikipedia has no firm rules

The rules developed by the community are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors write and revise the website's policies and guidelines in accordance with community consensus.<ref name="pcworld who's behind WP">{{cite web|url=https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1866322157;fp;2;fpid;2|title = Who's behind Wikipedia?|website = PC World|date = February 6, 2008|access-date = February 7, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080209110303/https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id%3B1866322157%3Bfp%3B2%3Bfpid%3B2|archive-date = February 9, 2008|page = 2}}</ref> Editors can enforce the rules by [[Deletion of articles on Wikipedia|deleting]] or modifying non-compliant material.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Enforcement]]</ref> Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on a translation of the rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent.<ref name="WP some sites stable versions 1" group="W"/>

The two most commonly used [[namespace]]s across all editions of Wikipedia are: The article namespace (which are the articles of the encyclopedia) and the category namespace (which are a collection of pages such as articles). In addition, there have been various books and reading list that are composed completely of articles and categories of a certain Wikipedia.

=== Content policies and guidelines{{anchor|Content policies}} ===
According to the rules on the English Wikipedia community, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is [[wikt:encyclopedic|encyclopedic]] and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-style.<ref name=":5" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."</ref> A topic should also meet [[notability in the English Wikipedia|Wikipedia's standards of "notability"]], which generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject.<ref name=":9" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Notability]]</ref> Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized.<ref name="NOR" group="W"/> It must not present original research.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:No original research]]: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research"... is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."</ref> A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference to a reliable source, as do all quotations.<ref name=":5" group="W"/> Among Wikipedia editors, this is often phrased as "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the truthfulness of the articles and making their own interpretations.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."</ref> This can at times lead to the removal of information which, though valid, is not properly sourced.<ref name="IHT WP valid info wrong removable 1">{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date=August 9, 2011|title=For inclusive mission, Wikipedia is told that written word goes only so far|page=18|newspaper=[[International Herald Tribune]]}}</ref> Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.<ref name="autogenerated2" group="W"/>

== Governance ==
Wikipedia's initial [[anarchy]] integrated [[democracy|democratic]] and [[Hierarchy|hierarchical]] elements over time.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Sanger|first1=Larry|author-link=Larry Sanger|date=April 18, 2005|title=The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir|url=https://features.slashdot.org/story/05/04/18/164213/the-early-history-of-nupedia-and-wikipedia-a-memoir|access-date=January 24, 2023|website=[[Slashdot]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1 = Kostakis|first1 = Vasilis|title = Identifying and understanding the problems of Wikipedia's peer governance: The case of inclusionists versus deletionists|issue = 3|url=https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2613/2479|journal = First Monday|volume = 15|date = March 2010}}</ref> An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor, nor by the subject of the article.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Ownership of content]]: "No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia)."</ref>

=== Administrators ===
{{main|Wikipedia administrators}}
Editors in good standing in the community can request extra [[Wikipedia:User access levels|user rights]], granting them the technical ability to perform certain special actions. In particular, editors can choose to run for "[[administrators (Wikipedia)|adminship]]",<ref name="David_Mehegan"/> which includes the ability to delete pages or prevent them from being changed in cases of severe vandalism or editorial disputes.<ref name=":6" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Administrators]]</ref> Administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to implement restrictions intended to prevent disruptive editors from making unproductive edits.<ref name=":6" group="W"/>

By 2012, fewer editors were becoming administrators compared to Wikipedia's earlier years, in part because the process of vetting potential administrators had become more rigorous.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829|title = 3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins|last = Meyer|first = Robinson|website = [[The Atlantic]]|date = July 16, 2012|access-date = September 2, 2012}}</ref> In 2022, there was a particularly contentious request for adminship over the candidate's anti-Trump views; ultimately, they were granted adminship.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Harrison|first1=Stephen|date=June 16, 2022|title=Inside Wikipedia's Historic, Fiercely Contested "Election"|url=https://slate.com/technology/2022/06/wikipedia-administrator-election-tamzin.html|access-date=July 22, 2022|website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]}}</ref>

=== Dispute resolution ===
Over time, Wikipedia has developed a semiformal dispute resolution process. To determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at appropriate community forums, seek outside input through third opinion requests, or initiate a more general community discussion known as a "request for comment".<ref name="Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - Wikipedia" group="W"/>

Wikipedia encourages local resolutions of conflicts, which Jemielniak argues is quite unique in organization studies, though there has been some recent interest in [[Consensus decision-making|consensus building]] in the field.<ref name="Jemielniak" /> [[Joseph M. Reagle Jr.|Joseph Reagle]] and [[Sue Gardner]] argue that the approaches to consensus building are similar to those used by [[Quakers]].<ref name="Jemielniak" />{{Rp|page=62}} A difference from Quaker meetings is the absence of a [[facilitator]] in the presence of disagreement, a role played by the clerk in Quaker meetings.<ref name="Jemielniak" />{{Rp|page=83}}

==== Arbitration Committee ====
{{main|Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)}}
The Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute resolution process. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how an article should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on the specific view that should be adopted.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last1=Hoffman|first1=David A.|last2=Mehra|first2=Salil K.|date=March 5, 2009|title=Wikitruth Through Wikiorder|journal=Emory Law Journal|volume=59|issue=2010|ssrn=1354424}}</ref> Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted,<ref name="emory disputes handled 1" /> functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate.<ref name=":7" /> Therefore, the committee does not dictate the content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new content violates Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content is considered biased).<ref group="note">The committee may directly rule that a content change is inappropriate, but may not directly rule that certain content is inappropriate.</ref> Commonly used solutions include cautions and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43%), subject matters (23%), or Wikipedia (16%).<ref name=":7" /> Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of [[Impersonator|impersonation]] and [[anti-social behavior]].<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Banning policy]]</ref> When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather edit warring and other violations of editing policies, solutions tend to be limited to warnings.<ref name=":7" />

== Community ==
{{main|Wikipedia community}}
[[File:Wikimania - the Wikimentary.webm|thumb|start=00:04|thumbtime=00:16|Video of [[Wikimania#2005|Wikimania 2005]]{{snd}}an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], was held in [[Frankfurt am Main]], Germany, August 4–8.]]
Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated and dedicated "talk" page. These form the primary communication channel for editors to discuss, coordinate and debate.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/wikipedia_coordination_final.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070205111038/https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/wikipedia_coordination_final.pdf|archive-date=February 5, 2007|first1 = Fernanda B.|last1 = Viégas|first2 = Martin M.|last2 = Wattenberg|first3 = Jesse|last3 = Kriss|first4 = Frank|last4 = van Ham|title = Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia|publisher = Visual Communication Lab, [[IBM Research]]|date = January 3, 2007|access-date = June 27, 2008|author2-link = Martin M. Wattenberg|author-link = Fernanda B. Viégas}}</ref>
[[File:Editing Hoxne Hoard at the British Museum.ogv|thumb|right|Wikipedians and [[British Museum]] curators collaborate on the article [[Hoxne Hoard]] in June 2010]]

Wikipedia's community has been described as [[cult]]like,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2005/dec/15/wikipedia.web20|title = Log on and join in, but beware the web cults|first = Charles|last = Arthur|date = December 15, 2005|work = [[The Guardian]]|location = London|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> although not always with entirely negative connotations.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/03/wikipedia/index.html|title = Wikipedia: The know-it-all Web site|first = Kristie|last = Lu Stout|publisher = CNN|date = August 4, 2003|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> Its preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of [[credential]]s, has been referred to as "[[anti-elitism]]".<ref group="W">{{cite web|title = Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism|url = https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25|website = [[Kuro5hin]], Op–Ed|first = Larry|last = Sanger|date = December 31, 2004|quote = There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups [...] that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you [...] demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship", attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. [...] The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem [...] which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist, it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise are tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.)|author-link = Larry Sanger|access-date = March 26, 2021|archive-date = November 1, 2021|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20211101011352/http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25|url-status = dead }}</ref>

Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.<ref name="user identification" /> As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked there.<ref>{{cite book|chapter= Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie|title=CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems|publisher = Viktoria Institute|first = Aniket|last = Kittur|year = 2007|citeseerx = 10.1.1.212.8218}}</ref> Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community&nbsp;... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization".<ref name="blodget">{{cite news|last=Blodget|first=Henry|date=January 3, 2009|title=Who The Hell Writes Wikipedia, Anyway?|work=[[Insider Inc.|Business Insider]]|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway|access-date=January 26, 2023}}</ref> In 2008, a ''Slate'' magazine article reported that: "According to researchers in Palo Alto, one percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.slate.com/id/2184487|title = The Wisdom of the Chaperones|date = February 22, 2008|first = Chris|last = Wilson|work = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|access-date = August 13, 2014}}</ref> This method of evaluating contributions was later disputed by [[Aaron Swartz]], who noted that several articles he sampled had large portions of their content (measured by number of characters) contributed by users with low edit counts.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia|title = Raw Thought: Who Writes Wikipedia?|first = Aaron|last = Swartz|date = September 4, 2006|access-date = February 23, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140803134036/https://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia|archive-date = August 3, 2014|df = mdy-all}}</ref>
{{anchor|Decline in participation since 2007}}

The English Wikipedia has {{self-reference link|Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}}} articles, {{self-reference link|Special:ListUsers|{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}}} registered editors, and {{self-reference link|Special:ActiveUsers|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}}} active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made one or more edits in the past 30 days.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Wikipedians]]</ref>

Editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk page comments, may implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to a sometimes convoluted dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references".<ref name="labor squeeze on WP 1" /> Editors who do not log in are in some sense "[[second-class citizen]]s" on Wikipedia,<ref name="labor squeeze on WP 1">{{cite journal|author=Goldman|first=Eric|year=2010|title=Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its Consequences|url=https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/5/|journal=Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law|volume=8|via=Santa Clara Law Digital Commons}}</ref> as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation",<ref name="legal edu and WP 1">{{cite journal|author=Noveck|first=Beth Simone|date=March 2007|title=Wikipedia and the Future of Legal Education|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42894005|journal=Journal of Legal Education|publisher=[[Association of American Law Schools]]|volume=57|issue=1|pages=3–9|jstor=42894005|via=[[JSTOR]]}}</ref> but the contribution histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their [[IP address]]es cannot be attributed to a particular editor with certainty.<ref name="legal edu and WP 1" />

=== Studies ===
A 2007 study by researchers from [[Dartmouth College]] found that "anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia&nbsp;... are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site".<ref name="sciam good samaritans 1">{{cite news|url=https://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=good-samaritans-are-on-the-money|title = Wikipedia "Good Samaritans" Are on the Money|work = Scientific American|date = October 19, 2007|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "[I]t turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just 0.7% of the users{{nbsp}}... 524 people{{nbsp}}... And in fact, the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits."<ref name="blodget" /> However, ''[[Business Insider]]'' editor and journalist [[Henry Blodget]] showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most Wikipedia content (measured by the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled edit) is created by "outsiders", while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders".<ref name="blodget" />

A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others,<ref name="liebertonline view on WP users 1">{{cite journal|last1=Amichai-Hamburger|first1=Yair|last2=Lamdan|first2=Naama|last3=Madiel|first3=Rinat|last4=Hayat|first4=Tsahi|year=2008|title=Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18954273/|journal=CyberPsychology & Behavior|publisher=Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.|volume=11|issue=6|pages=679–681|doi=10.1089/cpb.2007.0225|pmid=18954273|via=PudMed.gov}}</ref> although a later commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness and that the differences with the control group and the samples were small.<ref>{{cite web|last=McGreal|first=Scott A.|date=March 11, 2013|title=The Misunderstood Personality Profile of Wikipedia Members|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201303/the-misunderstood-personality-profile-wikipedia-members|access-date=June 5, 2016|website=[[Psychology Today]]}}</ref> According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".<ref name="newscientist WP boom to bust 1">{{cite web|last = Giles|first = Jim|title = After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust?|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17554-after-the-boom-is-wikipedia-heading-for-bust.html|website = New Scientist|date = August 4, 2009}}</ref>

=== Diversity ===
Several studies have shown that most Wikipedia contributors are male. Notably, the results of a Wikimedia Foundation survey in 2008 showed that only 13 percent of Wikipedia editors were female.<ref>{{cite news|last = Cohen|first = Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|title = Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=0|work = The New York Times|date = January 31, 2011|access-date = October 28, 2013}}</ref> Because of this, universities throughout the United States tried to encourage women to become Wikipedia contributors.<ref name=":8" /> Similarly, many of these universities, including [[Yale University|Yale]] and [[Brown University|Brown]], gave college credit to students who create or edit an article relating to women in science or technology.<ref name=":8">{{cite news|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ocad-to-storm-wikipedia-this-fall-1.1412807|title = OCAD to 'Storm Wikipedia' this fall|work = CBC News|date = August 27, 2013|access-date = August 21, 2014}}</ref> [[Andrew Lih]], a professor and scientist, said that the reason he thought the number of male contributors outnumbered the number of females so greatly was because identifying as a woman may expose oneself to "ugly, intimidating behavior".{{citation needed|reason=The Bloomberg ref quotes Lih but a NYT ref is needed here|date=September 2022}}<ref name="Bloomberg 2016">{{cite news|last1=Kessenides|first1=Dimitra|last2=Chafkin|first2=Max|date=December 22, 2016|title=Is Wikipedia Woke?|newspaper=Bloomberg Businessweek|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-22/how-woke-is-wikipedia-s-editorial-pool?|access-date=September 21, 2022}}</ref> Data has shown that Africans are underrepresented among Wikipedia editors.<ref name="memeb">{{cite web|last=Walker|first=Andy|date=June 21, 2018|title=The startling numbers behind Africa's Wikipedia knowledge gaps|url=https://memeburn.com/2018/06/wikipedia-wikimania-africa-numbers/|access-date=January 26, 2023|website=memeburn}}</ref>

== Language editions ==
{{main|List of Wikipedias}}
{{Pie chart
| caption = '''Distribution of the {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total|N}} articles in different language editions (as of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}})'''<ref name="meta.wikimedia" group="W">[[:m:List of Wikipedias#1+ articles|List of Wikipedias – Meta]]</ref>
| other = yes
| label1 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|1}}
| value1 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|1}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color1 = #666666
| label2 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|2}}
| value2 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|2}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color2 = #E69F00
| label3 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|3}}
| value3 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|3}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color3 = #56B4E9
| label4 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|4}}
| value4 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|4}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color4 = #009E73
| label5 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|5}}
| value5 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|5}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color5 = #F0E442
| label6 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|6}}
| value6 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|6}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color6 = #0072B2
| label7 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|7}}
| value7 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|7}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color7 = #D55E00
| label8 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|8}}
| value8 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|8}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color8 = #CC79A7
| label9 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|9}}
| value9 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|9}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color9 = #33CC99
| label10 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|10}}
| value10 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|10}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color10 = #333333
| label11 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|11}}
| value11 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|11}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color11 = #9A459A
| label12 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|12}}
| value12 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|12}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color12 = #A60D14
| label13 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|13}}
| value13 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|13}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color13 = #FF82AA
| label14 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|14}}
| value14 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|14}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color14 = #167432
| label15 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|15}}
| value15 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|15}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color15 = #FFA500
| label16 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|16}}
| value16 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|16}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color16 = #483D8B
| label17 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|17}}
| value17 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|17}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color17 = #00FFFF
| label18 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|18}}
| value18 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|17}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color18 = LightGreen
| label19 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|19}}
| value19 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|19}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color19 = Red
| label20 = {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|20}}
| value20 = {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|{{Wikipedia rank by size|20}}}}/{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}*100 round 1}}
| color20 = LightBlue
}}There are currently {{NUMBEROF|active|Wikipedia}} language editions of Wikipedia (also called ''language versions'', or simply ''Wikipedias''). As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, the six largest, in order of article count, are the {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|1}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|2}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|3}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|4}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|5}}, and {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|6}} Wikipedias.<ref name="WP list of WPs by article 1" group="W">{{cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#All_Wikipedias_ordered_by_number_of_articles|title=Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias|publisher=English Wikipedia|access-date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</ref> The {{ordinal to word|{{Wikipedia rank by size|ceb}}}} and {{ordinal to word|{{Wikipedia rank by size|sv}}}}-largest Wikipedias owe their position to the article-creating bot [[Lsjbot]], which {{as of|2013|lc=y}} had created about half the articles on the [[Swedish Wikipedia]], and most of the articles in the [[Cebuano Wikipedia|Cebuano]] and [[Waray Wikipedia]]s. The latter are both languages of the Philippines.

In addition to the top six, twelve other Wikipedias have more than a million articles each ({{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|7}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|8}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|9}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|10}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|11}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|12}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|13}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|14}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|15}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|16}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|17}} and {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|18}}), seven more have over 500,000 articles ({{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|19}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|20}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|21}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|22}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|23}}, {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|24}} and {{Wikipedia rank by size/WP|25}}), 44 more have over 100,000, and 82 more have over 10,000.<ref name="ListOfWikipedias" group="W"/><ref name="WP list of WPs by article 1" group="W"/> The largest, the English Wikipedia, has over {{#expr: 0.1*floor({{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}/100000)}} million articles. {{As of|2021|01|post=,}} the English Wikipedia receives 48% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages. The top 10 editions represent approximately 85% of the total traffic.<ref group="W">{{cite AV media|author=((A455bcd9)) |date=February 8, 2021|title=Wikipedia page views by language over time|format=PNG|url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_page_views_by_language_over_time.png |website=Wikimedia Commons |access-date=June 25, 2021}}</ref><gallery mode="packed" heights="200">
File:Wikipedia page views by language over time.png|Most viewed editions of Wikipedia over time
File:Wikipedia editors by language over time.png|Most edited editions of Wikipedia over time
</gallery>{{Largest Wikipedias/graph}}

Since Wikipedia is based on the [[World Wide Web|Web]] and therefore worldwide, contributors to the same language edition may use different dialects or may come from different countries (as is the case for the [[English Wikipedia|English edition]]). These differences may lead to some conflicts over [[American and British English spelling differences|spelling differences]] (e.g. ''colour'' versus ''[[color]]'')<ref name="WP spelling MOS 1" group="W">{{Cite web |title=Manual of Style/Spelling |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling |url-status=live |archive-date=Nov 6, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231106235813/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling |website=Wikipedia}}</ref> or points of view.<ref name="WP countering bias 1" group="W">{{Cite web |title=WikiProject Countering systemic bias |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231211094814/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias |archive-date=Dec 11, 2023 |website=Wikipedia}}</ref>

Though the various language editions are held to global policies such as "neutral point of view", they diverge on some points of policy and practice, most notably on whether images that are not [[free content|licensed freely]] may be used under a claim of [[fair use]].<ref name="WP meta fair use 1" group="W">{{cite web|title=Non-free content|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content|access-date=January 27, 2023|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref><ref name="IBM visual WP 1">{{cite journal|url=https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/viegas_hicss_visual_wikipedia.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061024012919/https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/viegas_hicss_visual_wikipedia.pdf|archive-date=October 24, 2006|first = Fernanda B.|last = Viégas|title = The Visual Side of Wikipedia|journal = Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research|date = January 3, 2007|access-date = October 30, 2007}}</ref>

Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".<ref group="W">{{Cite mailing list|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-March/020469.html|title=Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|date=March 8, 2003|mailing-list=Wikipedia-l|last=Wales|first=Jimmy|access-date=January 27, 2023}}</ref> Though each language edition functions more or less independently, some efforts are made to supervise them all. They are coordinated in part by Meta-Wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki devoted to maintaining all its projects (Wikipedia and others).<ref name="WP metawiki maintenance 1" group="W">{{cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org|title = Meta-Wiki|publisher = Wikimedia Foundation|access-date = March 24, 2009}}</ref> For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia,<ref name="WP meta stats 1" group="W">{{cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Statistics|title = Meta-Wiki Statistics|publisher = Wikimedia Foundation|access-date = March 24, 2008}}</ref> and it maintains a list of articles every Wikipedia should have.<ref name="WP meta articles on all sites 1" group="W">{{cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have|title = List of articles every Wikipedia should have|publisher = Wikimedia Foundation|access-date = March 24, 2008}}</ref> The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, and mathematics.<ref name="WP meta articles on all sites 1" group="W" /> It is not rare for articles strongly related to a particular language not to have counterparts in another edition. For example, articles about small towns in the United States might be available only in English, even when they meet the notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects.<ref name=":9" group="W"/>

[[File:User - demography.svg|thumb|upright=2.27|Estimation of contributions shares from different regions in the world to different Wikipedia editions<ref name="PLoS One 2012" />]]
Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions, in part because those editions do not allow fully automated translation of articles. Articles available in more than one language may offer "interwiki links", which link to the counterpart articles in other editions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Massa|first1=Paolo|last2=Scrinzi|first2=Federico|date=January 4, 2013|title=Manypedia: Comparing language points of view of Wikipedia communities|url=https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3939|journal=[[First Monday (journal)|First Monday]]|volume=18|issue=1|doi=10.5210/fm.v18i1.3939|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Manual:Interwiki|url=https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Interwiki|access-date=January 27, 2023|website=MediaWiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

A study published by ''[[PLOS One]]'' in 2012 also estimated the share of contributions to different editions of Wikipedia from different regions of the world. It reported that the proportion of the edits made from North America was 51% for the [[English Wikipedia]], and 25% for the [[simple English Wikipedia]].<ref name="PLoS One 2012">{{cite journal|last1=Yasseri|first1=Taha|last2=Sumi|first2=Robert|last3=Kertész|first3=János|author-link3=János Kertész|date=January 17, 2012|title=Circadian Patterns of Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A Demographic Analysis|journal=[[PLOS One]]|volume=7|issue=1|pages=e30091|arxiv=1109.1746|bibcode=2012PLoSO...730091Y|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0030091|pmc=3260192|pmid=22272279|doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== English Wikipedia editor numbers ===

On March 1, 2014, ''[[The Economist]]'', in an article titled "The Future of Wikipedia", cited a trend analysis concerning data published by the Wikimedia Foundation stating that "the number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years."<ref name="economist1">{{cite news|date=March 1, 2014|title=The future of Wikipedia: WikiPeaks?|newspaper=The Economist|url=https://www.economist.com/news/international/21597959-popular-online-encyclopedia-must-work-out-what-next-wikipeaks|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=March 11, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221026023502/https://www.economist.com/international/2014/03/04/wikipeaks|archive-date=October 26, 2022}}</ref> The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was cited by ''The Economist'' as substantially in contrast to statistics for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia). ''The Economist'' reported that the number of contributors with an average of five or more edits per month was relatively constant since 2008 for Wikipedia in other languages at approximately 42,000 editors within narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. The number of active editors in English Wikipedia, by sharp comparison, was cited as peaking in 2007 at approximately 50,000 and dropping to 30,000 by the start of 2014.<ref name="economist1" />

In contrast, the trend analysis for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) shows success in retaining active editors on a renewable and sustained basis, with their numbers remaining relatively constant at approximately 42,000. No comment was made concerning which of the differentiated edit policy standards from Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) would provide a possible alternative to English Wikipedia for effectively improving substantial editor attrition rates on the English-language Wikipedia.<ref name="economist1" />

== Reception ==
{{see also|Academic studies about Wikipedia|Criticism of Wikipedia|Racial bias on Wikipedia}}
Various [[Wikipedia community|Wikipedians]] have [[criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive regulation|criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation]], which includes more than fifty policies and nearly 150,000 words {{as of|2014|lc=y|post=.}}<ref name="bureaucracy">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/wikipedia_s_bureaucracy_problem_and_how_to_fix_it.html|title = The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia|last = Jemielniak|first = Dariusz|magazine = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|date = June 22, 2014|access-date = August 18, 2014}}</ref><ref name="Jemielniak">{{cite book|last=Jemielniak|first=Dariusz|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqsdrf9|title=Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia|publisher=[[Stanford University Press]]|year=2014|isbn=978-0804791205|location=Stanford, CA|doi=10.2307/j.ctvqsdrf9|jstor=j.ctvqsdrf9|author-link=Dariusz Jemielniak|via=[[JSTOR]]}}</ref>

Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits [[systemic bias]]. In 2010, columnist and journalist [[Edwin Black]] described Wikipedia as being a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".<ref name=EdwinBlack>{{cite news|first=Edwin|last=Black|author-link=Edwin Black|date=April 19, 2010|work=[[History News Network]]|publisher=[[Columbian College of Arts and Sciences]]|title=Wikipedia – The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge|url=https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160909210831/https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437|archive-date=September 9, 2016|access-date=October 21, 2014}}</ref> Articles in ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'' and ''[[The Journal of Academic Librarianship]]'' have criticized Wikipedia's "Undue Weight" policy, concluding that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather focus on all the major viewpoints on the subject, give less attention to minor ones, and creates omissions that can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Messer-Krusse|first1=Timothy|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-undue-weight-of-truth-on-wikipedia/|work=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]|date=February 12, 2012|url-access=subscription|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161218162359/https://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|archive-date=December 18, 2016|access-date=March 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Colón Aguirre|first1=Mónica|last2=Fleming-May|first2=Rachel A.|date=November 2012|title="You Just Type in What You Are Looking For": Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia|url=https://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf|url-status=live|journal=[[The Journal of Academic Librarianship]]|publisher=[[Elsevier]]|volume=38|issue=6|pages=391–399|doi=10.1016/j.acalib.2012.09.013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160419031904/https://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf|archive-date=April 19, 2016|access-date=March 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Wikipedia experience sparks national debate|url=https://www.bgsu.edu/news/2012/02/wikipedia-experience-sparks-national-debate.html|access-date=March 27, 2014|work=BGSU News|publisher=[[Bowling Green State University]]|date=February 27, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827120800/https://www.bgsu.edu/news/2012/02/wikipedia-experience-sparks-national-debate.html|archive-date=August 27, 2016}}</ref>

Journalists [[Oliver Kamm]] and [[Edwin Black]] alleged (in 2010 and 2011 respectively) that articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic.<ref name=EdwinBlack /><ref name=okw>{{cite news|last1=Kamm|first1=Oliver|author1-link=Oliver Kamm|title=Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds|url=https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece|work=[[The Times]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110814104256/https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece|archive-date=August 14, 2011|date=August 16, 2007}}</ref> A 2008 article in ''[[Education Next]]'' Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is subject to manipulation and [[spin (propaganda)|spin]].<ref name=Petrilli>{{cite journal|last1=Petrilli|first1=Michael J.|title=Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?|journal=Education Next|date=Spring 2008|volume=8|issue=2|url=https://www.educationnext.org/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/|access-date=October 22, 2014|publisher=[[Hoover Institution]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161121024654/https://educationnext.org/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/|archive-date=November 21, 2016|department=What Next}}</ref>

In 2020, Omer Benjakob and Stephen Harrison noted that "Media coverage of Wikipedia has radically shifted over the past two decades: once cast as an intellectual frivolity, it is now lauded as the 'last bastion of shared reality' online."<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Benjakob|first1=Omer|last2=Harrison|first2=Stephen|date=October 13, 2020|chapter=From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades|chapter-url=https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4956/chapter/1879815/From-Anarchy-to-Wikiality-Glaring-Bias-to-Good-Cop|title=Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution|publisher=[[MIT Press]]|doi=10.7551/mitpress/12366.003.0005|isbn=978-0262360593|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Multiple news networks and pundits have accused Wikipedia of being [[Ideological bias|ideologically biased]]. In February 2021, [[Fox News]] accused Wikipedia of whitewashing [[communism]] and [[socialism]] and having too much "[[Left-wing politics|leftist]] bias".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Lott|first=Maxim|date=February 18, 2021|title=Inside Wikipedia's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed|access-date=January 29, 2023|website=[[Fox News]]}}</ref> Wikipedia co-founder Sanger said that Wikipedia has become a "propaganda" for the left-leaning "establishment" and warned the site can no longer be trusted.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=Lee|title=Wikipedia co-founder says site is now 'propaganda' for left-leaning 'establishment'|url=https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/|access-date=May 31, 2023|work=[[New York Post]]|date=July 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210716210154/https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/|archive-date=July 16, 2021}}</ref> In 2022, libertarian [[John Stossel]] opined that Wikipedia, a site he financially supported at one time, appeared to have gradually taken a significant turn in bias to the political left, specifically on political topics.<ref>{{Cite web|date=April 27, 2022|title=Wikipedia Bias|url=https://www.johnstossel.com/wikipedia-bias/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221209214140/https://www.johnstossel.com/wikipedia-bias/|archive-date=December 9, 2022|access-date=January 29, 2023|website=StosselTV}}</ref> Some studies highlight the fact that Wikipedia (and in particular the English Wikipedia) has a "western cultural bias" (or "pro-western bias")<ref>{{cite conference|last=Hube|first=Christoph|title=Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion - WWW '17 Companion |chapter=Bias in Wikipedia|publisher=ACM Press|publication-place=New York, New York, US|year=2017|pages=717–721 |doi=10.1145/3041021.3053375|isbn=9781450349147 }}</ref> or "Eurocentric bias",<ref>Samoilenko, Anna (June 2021) [https://kola.opus.hbz-nrw.de/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/2206/file/dissertation%20Anna%20Samoilenko.pdf Cultural Neighbourhoods, or approaches to quantifying cultural contextualisation in multilingual knowledge repository Wikipedia].</ref> reiterating, says Anna Samoilenko, "similar biases that are found in the 'ivory tower' of academic historiography". Due to this persistent Eurocentrism, scholars like Carwil Bjork-James<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bjork-James|first=Carwil|title=New maps for an inclusive Wikipedia: decolonial scholarship and strategies to counter systemic bias|journal=New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia|volume=27|issue=3|date=2021|doi=10.1080/13614568.2020.1865463|pages=207–228|bibcode=2021NRvHM..27..207B |s2cid=234286415 }}</ref> or the authors of '[https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-04-2022-0090/full/html 'The colonization of Wikipedia: evidence from characteristic editing behaviors of warring camps']'<ref>D.A. Morris-O'Connor, A. Strotmann, and D.Zhao</ref> call for a "decolonization" of Wikipedia.

=== Accuracy of content ===
{{main|Reliability of Wikipedia}}
{{External media|width = 230px|float = right|audio1 = [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-great-book-of-knowledge-part-1-1.2497560 The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1], ''Ideas with [[Paul Kennedy (host)|Paul Kennedy]]'', [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]], January 15, 2014}}
Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' are written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy.<ref>{{cite news|date=December 15, 2005|title=Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up|magazine=Wired|agency=Associated Press|url=https://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844|url-status=dead|access-date=August 8, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141214155447/https://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844|archive-date=December 14, 2014}}</ref> However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' by the science journal ''Nature'' found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; ''Britannica'', about three."<ref name="GilesJ2005Internet" /> Joseph Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."<ref>{{cite conference|first = Joseph|last = Reagle|title = Do as I Do: Authorial Leadership in Wikipedia|work = WikiSym '07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis|publisher = ACM|location = Montreal|year = 2007|url=https://reagle.org/joseph/2007/10/Wikipedia-Authorial-Leadership.pdf|hdl=2047/d20002876|access-date = January 29, 2023}}</ref> Others raised similar critiques.<ref name="Orlowski2005">{{cite news|last1=Orlowski|first1=Andrew|date=December 16, 2005|title=Wikipedia science 31% more cronky than Britannica's Excellent for Klingon science, though|work=[[The Register]]|url=https://www.theregister.com/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/|url-status=live|access-date=February 25, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220813024106/https://www.theregister.com/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/|archive-date=August 13, 2022}}</ref> The findings by ''Nature'' were disputed by ''Encyclopædia Britannica'',<ref name="corporate.britannica.com" /><ref name="nature.com britannica response 1">{{cite web|date=March 23, 2006|title=Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response|url=https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060325124447/https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf|archive-date=March 25, 2006|access-date=July 13, 2010}}</ref> and in response, ''Nature'' gave a rebuttal of the points raised by ''Britannica''.<ref name="nature.com">{{cite web|website = Nature|url=https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html|title = Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica|date = March 30, 2006|access-date = February 25, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515025717/https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html|archive-date=May 15, 2017}}</ref> In addition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others have examined the sample size and selection method used in the ''Nature'' effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in ''Nature''{{'}}s manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported [[confidence interval]]s), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small [[sample size determination|sample size]], 42 or 4{{nbsp}}× 10<sup>1</sup> articles compared, vs >10<sup>5</sup> and >10<sup>6</sup> set sizes for ''Britannica'' and the English Wikipedia, respectively).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Yasseri|first1=Taha|last2=Sumi|first2=Robert|last3=Rung|first3=András|last4=Kornai|first4=András|last5=Kertész|first5=János|date=June 20, 2012|editor-last=Szolnoki|editor-first=Attila|title=Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia|journal=PLOS ONE|volume=7|issue=6|pages=e38869|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0038869|pmc=3380063|pmid=22745683|arxiv=1202.3643|bibcode=2012PLoSO...738869Y|doi-access=free }}</ref>

As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.<ref name="WP general disclaimer 1" group="W">[[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]]</ref> Concerns have been raised by ''PC World'' in 2009 regarding the lack of [[accountability]] that results from users' anonymity,<ref name="WikipediaWatch" />{{expand citation|date=December 2023}} the insertion of false information,<ref name="pcworld WP blunders 1">{{cite web|last=Raphael|first=JR|date=August 26, 2009|title=The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders|url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221201033651/https://www.pcworld.com/article/525199/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html|archive-date=December 1, 2022|access-date=September 2, 2009|website=[[PC World]]}}</ref> [[vandalism on Wikipedia|vandalism]], and similar problems.

Economist [[Tyler Cowen]] wrote: "If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the median refereed journal article on economics was more likely to be true after a not so long think I would opt for Wikipedia." He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases, and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal articles as well as relevant information being omitted from news reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found on Internet sites and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them.<ref name="tnr experts vigilant in correcting WP 1">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=82eb5d70-13bd-4086-9ec0-cb0e9e8411b3|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080318103017/https://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=82eb5d70-13bd-4086-9ec0-cb0e9e8411b3|archive-date = March 18, 2008|title = Cooked Books|first = Tyler|last = Cowen|magazine = The New Republic|date = March 14, 2008|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> [[Amy Bruckman]] has argued that, due to the number of reviewers, "the content of a popular Wikipedia page is actually the most reliable form of information ever created".<ref name="PC 2021">{{cite news|last1=Stuart|first1=S.C.|date=June 3, 2021|title=Wikipedia: The Most Reliable Source on the Internet?|work=[[PCMag]]|url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-the-most-reliable-source-on-the-internet|url-status=live|access-date=June 27, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230116022311/https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-the-most-reliable-source-on-the-internet|archive-date=January 16, 2023}}</ref> In September 2022, ''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]'' journalist Liam Mannix noted that, "There's no reason to expect Wikipedia to be accurate... And yet it [is]." Mannix further discussed the multiple studies that have proved Wikipedia to be generally as reliable as ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', summarizing that, "...turning our back on such an extraordinary resource is... well, a little petty."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Mannix|first=Liam|date=September 13, 2022|title=Evidence suggests Wikipedia is accurate and reliable. When are we going to start taking it seriously?|url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/evidence-suggests-wikipedia-is-accurate-and-reliable-when-are-we-going-to-start-taking-it-seriously-20220913-p5bhl3.html|access-date=January 29, 2023|website=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]}}</ref>

Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.<ref name="TNY reliability issues 1">{{cite news|last=Schiff|first=Stacy|author-link=Stacy Schiff|date=July 23, 2006|title=Know It All|magazine=[[The New Yorker]]|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/31/know-it-all|access-date=January 29, 2023}}</ref> Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.<ref name="AcademiaAndWikipedia" /> Editors of traditional [[reference work]]s such as the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' have questioned the project's [[utility]] and status as an encyclopedia.<ref name="McHenry_2004" /> Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] has claimed that Wikipedia has largely avoided the problem of "fake news" because the Wikipedia community regularly debates the quality of sources in articles.<ref>{{cite news|last=Shapiro|first=Ari|date=April 27, 2018|title=Wikipedia Founder Says Internet Users Are Adrift In The 'Fake News' Era|work=[[NPR]]|url=https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606393983/wikipedia-founder-says-internet-users-are-adrift-in-the-fake-news-era|url-status=live|access-date=May 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625213220/https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606393983/wikipedia-founder-says-internet-users-are-adrift-in-the-fake-news-era|archive-date=June 25, 2018}}</ref>

{{External media|width = 210px|float = right|video1 = [https://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881 Inside Wikipedia&nbsp;– Attack of the PR Industry], [[Deutsche Welle]], 7:13 mins<ref name="dw">{{cite web|title = Inside Wikipedia&nbsp;– Attack of the PR Industry|publisher = [[Deutsche Welle]]|date = June 30, 2014|url = https://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881|access-date = July 2, 2014|archive-date = July 1, 2014|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140701152647/http://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881|url-status = dead }}</ref>}}
Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for [[Internet troll]]s, [[spamming|spammer]]s, and various forms of paid advocacy seen as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable online encyclopedia.<ref name="Torsten_Kleinz" /><ref name="citizendium WP trolling issues 1" group="W">{{cite web|last=Sanger|first=Larry|author-link=Larry Sanger|title=Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version)|url=https://www.citizendium.org/essay.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061103062735/https://www.citizendium.org/essay.html|archive-date=November 3, 2006|access-date=October 10, 2006|website=[[Citizendium]]}}</ref>
In response to [[conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia|paid advocacy editing]] and undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article in ''The Wall Street Journal'' to have strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite news|author=Elder|first=Jeff|date=June 16, 2014|title=Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing|newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-35861|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=January 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124234455/https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-35861|archive-date=November 24, 2020}}</ref> The article stated that: "Beginning Monday [from the date of the article, June 16, 2014], changes in Wikipedia's terms of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement. [[Katherine Maher]], the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's chief communications officer, said the changes address a sentiment among volunteer editors that, 'we're not an advertising service; we're an encyclopedia.{{'"}}<ref name="ReferenceA" /><ref name="DeathByWikipedia" /><ref name="cnet politicians and WP 1">{{cite web|author=Kane|first=Margaret|date=January 30, 2006|title=Politicians notice Wikipedia|url=https://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6032713-7.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090730044856/https://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6032713-7.html|archive-date=July 30, 2009|access-date=January 28, 2007|website=[[CNET]]}}</ref><ref name="msnbc MS cash for WP edits 1">{{cite web|author=Bergstein|first=Brian|author-link=Brian Bergstein|date=January 23, 2007|title=Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16775981|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819143025/https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16775981|archive-date=August 19, 2022|access-date=January 29, 2023|work=[[NBC News]]}}</ref><ref name="Seeing Corporate Fingerprints" /> These issues, among others, had been parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by [[Stephen Colbert]] on ''[[The Colbert Report]]''.<ref name="wikiality" />

''Legal Research in a Nutshell'' (2011), cites Wikipedia as a "general source" that "can be a real boon" in "coming up to speed in the law governing a situation" and, "while not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more in-depth resources".<ref name="Nutshell in-depth resources">{{cite book|last=Cohen|first=Morris|url=https://archive.org/details/legalre_coh_2010_00_0532|title=Legal Research in a Nutshell|author2=Olson, Kent|publisher=Thomson Reuters|year=2010|isbn=978-0314264084|edition=10th|location=St. Paul, MN|pages=[https://archive.org/details/legalre_coh_2010_00_0532/page/32 32–34]|via=[[Internet Archive]]}}</ref>

=== Discouragement in education ===
Some university [[lecturer]]s discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in [[academia|academic work]], preferring [[primary source]]s;<ref name="WideWorldOfWikipedia" /> some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.<ref name="insidehighered against WP 1">{{cite journal|last1=Waters|first1=Neil L.|date=September 2007|title=Why You Can't Cite Wikipedia in My Class|url=https://www.netlab.tkk.fi/opetus/s383133/no_Wikipedia.pdf|url-status=live|journal=[[Communications of the ACM]]|volume=50|issue=9|pages=15–17|citeseerx=10.1.1.380.4996|doi=10.1145/1284621.1284635|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028032733/https://www.netlab.tkk.fi/opetus/s383133/no_Wikipedia.pdf|archive-date=October 28, 2022|access-date=January 29, 2023|s2cid=11757060}}</ref><ref name="insidehighered wiki no cite">{{cite web|last=Jaschik|first=Scott|date=January 26, 2007|title=A Stand Against Wikipedia|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070708175741/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki|archive-date=July 8, 2007|access-date=January 27, 2007|website=Inside Higher Ed}}</ref> Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.<ref name="AWorkInProgress" /> Wales once (2006 or earlier) said he receives about ten [[email]]s weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia; he told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia", he said.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Buis|first=Kyle|date=February 25, 2007|title=Wikipedia sucks students in with reliable information|url=https://theorion.com/28752/archives/wikipedia-sucks-students-in-with-reliable-information-3/|access-date=January 29, 2023|website=The Orion}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=June 28, 2014|title=Is Googling Research?|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/researchmethods/2014/06/28/is-googling-research/|access-date=January 29, 2023|website=Research 2.0|publisher=[[University of British Columbia]]}}</ref>

In February 2007, an article in ''[[The Harvard Crimson]]'' newspaper reported that a few of the professors at [[Harvard University]] were including Wikipedia articles in their [[syllabus|syllabi]], although without realizing the articles might change.<ref name="thecrimson wiki debate">{{cite news|last1=Child|first1=Maxwell L.|title=Professors Split on Wiki Debate|url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517305|work=[[The Harvard Crimson]]|date=February 26, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081220125910/https://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517305|archive-date=December 20, 2008|location=Cambridge, MA}}</ref> In June 2007, [[Michael Gorman (librarian)|Michael Gorman]], former president of the [[American Library Association]], condemned Wikipedia, along with [[Google]], stating that academics who endorse the use of Wikipedia are "the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything".<ref name="stothart" />

A 2020 research study published in ''[[Studies in Higher Education]]'' argued that Wikipedia could be applied in the higher education "[[flipped classroom]]", an educational model where students learn before coming to class and apply it in classroom activities. The experimental group was instructed to learn before class and get immediate feedback before going in (the flipped classroom model), while the control group was given direct instructions in class (the conventional classroom model). The groups were then instructed to collaboratively develop Wikipedia entries, which would be graded in quality after the study. The results showed that the experimental group yielded more Wikipedia entries and received higher grades in quality. The study concluded that learning with Wikipedia in flipped classrooms was more effective than in conventional classrooms, demonstrating Wikipedia could be used as an educational tool in higher education.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Zou|first1=Di|last2=Xie|first2=Haoran|last3=Wang|first3=Fu Lee|last4=Kwan|first4=Reggie|date=April 10, 2020|title=Flipped learning with Wikipedia in higher education|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03075079.2020.1750195|journal=[[Studies in Higher Education]]|publisher=[[Routledge]]|volume=45|issue=5|pages=1026–1045|doi=10.1080/03075079.2020.1750195|s2cid=216534736 }}</ref>

==== Medical information ====
{{see also|Health information on Wikipedia}}
On March 5, 2014, Julie Beck writing for ''[[The Atlantic]]'' magazine in an article titled "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia", stated that "Fifty percent of physicians look up conditions on the (Wikipedia) site, and some are editing articles themselves to improve the quality of available information."<ref name=":10">{{Cite magazine|last=Beck|first=Julie|date=March 5, 2014|title=Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/|url-status=live|magazine=[[The Atlantic]]|issn=2151-9463|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221024070757/https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/|archive-date=October 24, 2022|access-date=January 29, 2023}}</ref> Beck continued to detail in this article new programs of [[Amin Azzam]] at the [[University of San Francisco]] to offer medical school courses to medical students for learning to edit and improve [[health information on Wikipedia|Wikipedia articles on health-related issues]], as well as internal quality control programs within Wikipedia organized by [[James Heilman]] to improve a group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance up to Wikipedia's highest standard of articles using its Featured Article and Good Article peer-review evaluation process.<ref name=":10" /> In a May 7, 2014, follow-up article in ''The Atlantic'' titled "Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?", Julie Beck quotes WikiProject Medicine's James Heilman as stating: "Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality reference."<ref name="theatlantic.com">{{cite magazine|last=Beck|first=Julie|date=May 7, 2014|title=Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/can-wikipedia-ever-be-a-definitive-medical-text/361822/|url-status=live|magazine=The Atlantic|issn=2151-9463|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221208113526/https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/can-wikipedia-ever-be-a-definitive-medical-text/361822/|archive-date=December 8, 2022|access-date=June 14, 2014}}</ref> Beck added that: "Wikipedia has its own peer review process before articles can be classified as 'good' or 'featured'. Heilman, who has participated in that process before, says 'less than one percent' of Wikipedia's medical articles have passed."<ref name="theatlantic.com" />

=== Coverage of topics and systemic bias ===
{{Update section|date=June 2023}}
{{see also|Notability in the English Wikipedia|Criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage}}
Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has [[byte#Multiple-byte units|terabyte]]s of disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed encyclopedia.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia]]</ref> The exact degree and manner of coverage on Wikipedia is under constant review by its editors, and disagreements are not uncommon (see [[deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia|deletionism and inclusionism]]).<ref name="Economist disagreements not uncommon">{{cite news|date=March 6, 2008|title=The battle for Wikipedia's soul|newspaper=The Economist|url=https://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=March 7, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221214004436/https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2008/03/08/the-battle-for-wikipedias-soul|archive-date=December 14, 2022|issn=0013-0613}}</ref><ref name="telegraph WP torn apart 1">{{cite news|title = Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart|first = Ian|last = Douglas|work = The Daily Telegraph|location = London|date = November 10, 2007|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3354752/Wikipedia-an-online-encyclopedia-torn-apart.html|archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3354752/Wikipedia-an-online-encyclopedia-torn-apart.html|archive-date=January 10, 2022|url-access=subscription|url-status=live|access-date = November 23, 2010}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored]]</ref> The "Wikipedia is not censored" policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of [[online petition on Wikipedia Muhammad article|images of Muhammad]] in the [[English Wikipedia|English edition]] of its [[Muhammad]] article, citing this policy.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date=February 5, 2008|title=Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/books/05wiki.html|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=January 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221126025338/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/books/05wiki.html|archive-date=November 26, 2022|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The presence of politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in Wikipedia has led to the [[censorship of Wikipedia]] by national authorities in China<ref name="Taylor" /> and Pakistan,<ref name="washington post state censorship 1">{{cite news|last=Bruilliard|first=Karin|date=May 21, 2010|title=Pakistan blocks YouTube a day after shutdown of Facebook over Muhammad issue|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052005073.html|url-status=live|access-date=October 24, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200427091507/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052005073.html|archive-date=April 27, 2020}}</ref> amongst other countries.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Moon|first=Mariella|date=March 12, 2022|title=Prominent editor of Russian Wikipedia pages detained in Belarus|url=https://www.yahoo.com/now/mark-bernstein-russian-wikipedia-pages-detained-in-belarus-104102452.html|access-date=January 30, 2023|website=[[Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present)|Yahoo!]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Mokhtar|first=Hassna'a|date=July 19, 2006|title=What Is Wrong With Wikipedia?|work=[[Arab News]]|url=http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=85616&d=19&m=7&y=2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110807060237/http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=85616&d=19&m=7&y=2006|archive-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Arthur|first=Charles|date=December 8, 2008|title=Wikipedia row escalates as internet watchdog considers censoring Amazon US over Scorpions image|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/dec/08/amazon-internet-censorship-iwf|access-date=January 30, 2023|website=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref>

[[File:Wikipedia content by subject.png|thumb|upright=2.27|Pie chart of Wikipedia content by subject {{as of|2008|1|lc=y}}<ref name=Kittur2009 />]]
A 2008 study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and Palo Alto Research Center gave a distribution of topics as well as growth (from July 2006 to January 2008) in each field:<ref name="Kittur2009" />
* Culture and Arts: 30% (210%)
* Biographies and persons: 15% (97%)
* Geography and places: 14% (52%)
* Society and social sciences: 12% (83%)
* History and events: 11% (143%)
* Natural and Physical Sciences: 9% (213%)
* Technology and Applied Science: 4% (−6%)
* Religions and belief systems: 2% (38%)
* Health: 2% (42%)
* Mathematics and logic: 1% (146%)
* Thought and Philosophy: 1% (160%)

These numbers refer only to the number of articles: it is possible for one topic to contain a large number of short articles and another to contain a small number of large ones. Through its "Wikipedia Loves Libraries" program, Wikipedia has partnered with major public libraries such as the [[New York Public Library for the Performing Arts]] to expand its coverage of underrepresented subjects and articles.<ref name="NYT subjects and articles">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/theater/editing-wikipedia-at-the-new-york-public-library-for-the-performing-arts.html|title = Wikipedia's Deep Dive Into a Library Collection|last = Petrusich|first = Amanda|work = The New York Times|date = October 20, 2011|access-date = October 28, 2011}}</ref>

A 2011 study conducted by researchers at the [[University of Minnesota]] indicated that male and female editors focus on different coverage topics. There was a greater concentration of females in the "people and arts" category, while males focus more on "geography and science".<ref>{{Cite conference|last1=Lam|first1=Shyong (Tony) K.|last2=Uduwage|first2=Anuradha|last3=Dong|first3=Zhenhua|last4=Sen|first4=Shilad|last5=Musicant|first5=David R.|last6=Terveen|first6=Loren|last7=Riedl|first7=John|date=October 3–5, 2011|title=WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance|url=https://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf|conference=WikiSym'2011|location=Mountain View, California|publisher=ACM}}</ref>

==== Coverage of topics and bias ====
Research conducted by Mark Graham of the [[Oxford Internet Institute]] in 2009 indicated that the geographic distribution of article topics is highly uneven, Africa being the most underrepresented.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Graham|first1=Mark|date=November 12, 2009|title=Mapping the Geographies of Wikipedia Content|url=https://zerogeography.net/post/144973716228/mapping-the-geographies-of-wikipedia-content|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161002051150/https://zerogeography.net/post/144973716228/mapping-the-geographies-of-wikipedia-content|archive-date=October 2, 2016|website=Zerogeography}}</ref> Across 30 language editions of Wikipedia, historical articles and sections are generally Eurocentric and focused on recent events.<ref>{{cite book|last=Strohmaier|first=Markus|url=https://search.gesis.org/research_data/SDN-10.7802-1411?doi=10.7802/1411|title=Multilingual historical narratives on Wikipedia|date=March 6, 2017|publisher=[[GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences]]|chapter=KAT50 Society, Culture|doi=10.7802/1411|quote=Wikipedia narratives about national histories (i) are skewed towards more recent events (recency bias) and (ii) are distributed unevenly across the continents with significant focus on the history of European countries (Eurocentric bias).|access-date=January 31, 2023}}</ref>

An editorial in ''[[The Guardian]]'' in 2014 claimed that more effort went into providing references for [[list of pornographic performers by decade|a list of female porn actors]] than a [[list of women writers]].<ref name="GuardianAugust2014">{{cite news|date=August 7, 2018|title=The Guardian view on Wikipedia: evolving truth|work=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/07/guardian-view-wikipedia-evolving-truth|url-status=live|access-date=January 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161112212758/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/07/guardian-view-wikipedia-evolving-truth|archive-date=November 12, 2016}}</ref> Data has also shown that Africa-related material often faces omission; a knowledge gap that a July 2018 Wikimedia conference in [[Cape Town]] sought to address.<ref name="memeb"/>

==== Systemic biases ====
[[Academic studies about Wikipedia|Academic studies of Wikipedia]] have consistently shown that Wikipedia systematically over-represents a point of view (POV) belonging to a particular demographic described as the "average Wikipedian", who is an educated, technically inclined, English speaking white male, aged 15–49 from a developed Christian country in the northern hemisphere.<ref name="Livingstone2010">{{Cite journal|last=Livingstone|first=Randall M.|date=November 23, 2010|title=Let's Leave the Bias to the Mainstream Media: A Wikipedia Community Fighting for Information Neutrality|url=https://www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/315|url-status=live|journal=M/C Journal|volume=13|issue=6|doi=10.5204/mcj.315|issn=1441-2616|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221121135911/https://www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/315|archive-date=November 21, 2022|access-date=November 23, 2022|doi-access=free}}</ref> This POV is over-represented in relation to all existing POVs.<ref name="Hube2017">{{Cite book|last=Hube|first=Christoph|title=Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion – WWW '17 Companion|chapter=Bias in Wikipedia|date=April 3, 2017|chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1145/3041021.3053375|location=Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE|publisher=International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee|pages=717–721|doi=10.1145/3041021.3053375|isbn=978-1450349147|s2cid=10472970}}</ref><ref name=":132">{{Cite journal|last=Bjork-James|first=Carwil|date=July 3, 2021|title=New maps for an inclusive Wikipedia: decolonial scholarship and strategies to counter systemic bias|journal=New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia|volume=27|issue=3|pages=207–228|bibcode=2021NRvHM..27..207B|doi=10.1080/13614568.2020.1865463|s2cid=234286415 }}</ref> This systemic bias in editor demographic results in cultural bias, [[Gender bias on Wikipedia|gender bias]], and [[geographical bias on Wikipedia]].<ref name=":32">{{Cite journal|last1=Ackerly|first1=Brooke A.|last2=Michelitch|first2=Kristin|date=2022|title=Wikipedia and Political Science: Addressing Systematic Biases with Student Initiatives|journal=PS: Political Science & Politics|volume=55|issue=2|pages=429–433|doi=10.1017/S1049096521001463|s2cid=247795102 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Beytía|first=Pablo|title=Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020|chapter=The Positioning Matters|date=April 20, 2020|chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1145/3366424.3383569|series=WWW '20|location=New York|publisher=Association for Computing Machinery|pages=806–810|doi=10.1145/3366424.3383569|isbn=978-1450370240|s2cid=218523099 }}</ref> There are two broad types of bias, which are ''implicit'' (when a topic is omitted) and ''explicit'' (when a certain POV is over-represented in an article or by references).<ref name="Hube2017" />

Interdisciplinary scholarly assessments of Wikipedia articles have found that while articles are typically accurate and free of misinformation, they are also typically incomplete and fail to present all perspectives with a neutral point of view.<ref name=":32" /> In 2011, Wales claimed that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, citing for example "biographies of famous women through history and issues surrounding early childcare".<ref name="wiki-women" /> The October 22, 2013, essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's ''Technology Review'' titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and [[criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive regulation|policy creep]] on the [[#English Wikipedia editor numbers|downward trend in the number of editors]].<ref name="Simonite-2013" />

=== Explicit content ===
{{see also|Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia|Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons}}
{{for|the government censorship of Wikipedia|Censorship of Wikipedia}}
{{self-reference|For Wikipedia's policy concerning censorship, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored]]}}
Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information about graphic content.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Maxton|first=Richard|date=September 9, 2008|title=Wikipedia attacked over porn pages|work=Macquarie Network|url=http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/09/Wikipedia_attacked_over_porn_pages|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080917145158/http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/09/Wikipedia_attacked_over_porn_pages|archive-date=September 17, 2008}}</ref> Articles depicting what some critics have called objectionable content (such as [[feces]], [[cadaver]], [[human penis]], [[vulva]], and [[nudity]]) contain graphic pictures and detailed information easily available to anyone with access to the internet, including children.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Sexual content/FAQ]]</ref>

The site also includes [[sexual content]] such as images and videos of [[masturbation]] and [[ejaculation]], illustrations of [[zoophilia]], and photos from [[hardcore pornography|hardcore pornographic]] films in its articles. It also has non-sexual [[child nudity|photographs of nude children]].<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Sexual content]]</ref>

The Wikipedia article about ''[[Virgin Killer]]''—a 1976 album from the German [[rock music|rock]] band [[Scorpions (band)|Scorpions]]—features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked [[preadolescence#Prepubescence, puberty, and age range|prepubescent]] girl. The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia article ''Virgin Killer'' was blocked for four days by most [[Internet service provider]]s in the United Kingdom after the [[Internet Watch Foundation]] (IWF) decided the album cover was a potentially illegal indecent image and added the article's URL to a "blacklist" it supplies to British internet service providers.<ref name="Register ISP censorship">{{cite news|title = Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover|first = Cade|last = Metz|work = [[The Register]]|date = December 7, 2008|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia|access-date = May 10, 2009}}</ref>

In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on [[Wikimedia Commons]] contained child pornography, and were in violation of [[United States obscenity law|US federal obscenity law]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh|title = Wikipedia rejects child porn accusation|date = April 29, 2010|work = The Sydney Morning Herald|access-date = May 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170902180523/https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh|archive-date = September 2, 2017|url-status=live|df = mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="Inquirer child abuse allegations">{{cite news|last=Farrell|first=Nick|date=April 29, 2010|title=Wikipedia denies child abuse allegations: Co-founder grassed the outfit to the FBI|newspaper=The Inquirer|url=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1603521/wikipedia-denies-child-abuse-allegations|url-status=dead|access-date=October 9, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100501174521/https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1603521/wikipedia-denies-child-abuse-allegations|archive-date=May 1, 2010}}</ref> Sanger later clarified that the images, which were related to [[pedophilia]] and one about [[lolicon]], were not of real children, but said that they constituted "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", under the [[child pornography laws in the United States#1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children|PROTECT Act of 2003]].<ref name="The Register-April" /> That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are [[obscenity#United States obscenity law|obscene under American law]].<ref name="The Register-April" /> Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.<ref name="TET child porn accusations">{{cite news|title = Wikipedia blasts co-founder's accusations of child porn on website|date = April 29, 2010|work = The Economic Times|location = India|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/internet/Wikipedia-blasts-co-founders-accusations-of-child-porn-on-website/articleshow/5871943.cms|access-date = April 29, 2010}}</ref> [[Wikimedia Foundation]] spokesman Jay Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation,<ref name="AFP" /> saying that Wikipedia did not have "material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it."<ref name="AFP" /> Following the complaint by Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteered to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete had been made hastily, Wales voluntarily gave up some of the powers he had held up to that time as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing-list that this action was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted".<ref name="BBC News Wales cedes rights">{{cite news|url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm|title = Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights|work = BBC News|date = May 10, 2010|access-date = May 19, 2010}}</ref> Critics, including [[Wikipediocracy]], noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.<ref name="XBIZ">{{cite news|last=Gray|first=Lila|date=September 17, 2013|title=Wikipedia Gives Porn a Break|work=XBIZ.com|url=https://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017|url-status=dead|access-date=November 10, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021064635/https://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017|archive-date=October 21, 2013}}</ref>

=== Privacy ===
One [[privacy]] concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "[[public figure]]" in the eyes of the law.<ref>{{cite book|last1=McStay|first1=Andrew|title=Privacy and Philosophy: New Media and Affective Protocol|date=2014|publisher=[[Peter Lang (publisher)|Peter Lang]]|isbn=978-1454191636|doi=10.3726/978-1-4539-1336-9|series=Digital Formation|volume=86}}</ref>{{notetag|See [https://web.archive.org/web/20101130081035/https://texaspress.com/index.php/publications/law-media/731-law-a-the-media-in-texas--libel-cases "Libel"] by David McHam for the legal distinction}} It is a battle between the right to be anonymous in [[cyberspace]] and the right to be anonymous in [[real life]]. The Wikimedia Foundation's [[privacy policy]] states, "we believe that you shouldn't have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement", and states that "personal information" may be shared "For legal reasons", "To Protect You, Ourselves & Others", or "To Understand & Experiment".<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Privacy policy|url=https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy|access-date=February 1, 2023|website=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref>

In January 2006, a German court ordered the [[German Wikipedia]] shut down within Germany because it stated the full name of [[Tron (hacker)|Boris Floricic]], aka "Tron", a deceased hacker. On February 9, 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned, with the court rejecting the notion that Tron's [[right to privacy]] or that of his parents was being violated.<ref name="heise Tron public issue 1">{{cite news|last1=Kleinz|first1=Torsten|title=Gericht weist einstweilige Verfügung gegen Wikimedia Deutschland ab [Update]|url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Gericht-weist-einstweilige-Verfuegung-gegen-Wikimedia-Deutschland-ab-Update-173587.html|work=Heise Online|publisher=[[Heinz Heise]]|date=September 2, 2006|language=de|trans-title=Court rejects preliminary injunction against Wikimedia Germany [Update]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120913054949/https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Gericht-weist-einstweilige-Verfuegung-gegen-Wikimedia-Deutschland-ab-Update-173587.html|archive-date=September 13, 2012}}</ref>

Wikipedia has a "{{visible anchor|Volunteer Response Team}}" that uses Znuny, a [[free and open-source software]] fork of [[OTRS]]<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Volunteer Response Team|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Response_Team|access-date=February 1, 2023|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> to handle queries without having to reveal the identities of the involved parties. This is used, for example, in confirming the permission for using individual images and other media in the project.<ref group="W">{{cite web|title=OTRS – A flexible Help Desk and IT-Service Management Software|url=https://www.otrs.com/en/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131030215341/https://www.otrs.com/en/|archive-date=October 30, 2013|access-date=June 9, 2012|website=Open Technology Real Services|publisher=OTRS.com }}</ref>

In late April 2023, Wikimedia Foundation announced that Wikipedia will not submit to any age verifications that may be required by the Online Safety Bill. Rebecca MacKinnon of the Wikimedia Foundation said that such checks would run counter to the website's commitment to minimal data collection on its contributors and readers.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65388255|title=Wikipedia will not perform Online Safety Bill age checks|work=BBC}}</ref>

=== Sexism ===
{{main|Gender bias on Wikipedia}}
Wikipedia was described in 2015 as harboring a battleground culture of [[sexism]] and [[harassment]].<ref name="Paling">{{cite web|last=Paling|first=Emma|date=October 21, 2015|title=Wikipedia's Hostility to Women|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221231105811/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/|archive-date=December 31, 2022|access-date=October 24, 2015|website=[[The Atlantic]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1 = Auerbach|first1 = David|title = Encyclopedia Frown|url=https://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html|journal = Slate|access-date = October 24, 2015|date = December 11, 2014}}</ref> The perceived tolerance of abusive language was a reason put forth in 2013 for the gender gap in Wikipedia editorship.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Murphy|first=Dan|date=August 1, 2013|title=In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny|work=[[The Christian Science Monitor]]|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2013/0801/In-UK-rising-chorus-of-outrage-over-online-misogyny|access-date=February 1, 2023}}</ref> [[Edit-a-thon]]s have been held to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kueppers|first1=Courtney|date=March 23, 2020|title=High Museum to host virtual Wikipedia edit-a-thon to boost entries about women|newspaper=The Atlanta Journal-Constitution|url=https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/high-museum-host-virtual-wikipedia-edit-thon-boost-entries-about-women/TxxMEMGWHqFfaNMpV8y9DN/|access-date=October 24, 2020}}</ref>

In May 2018, a Wikipedia editor rejected a submitted article about [[Donna Strickland]] due to lack of coverage in the media.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Draft:Donna Strickland|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Strickland&oldid=842614385|access-date=February 1, 2023|website=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite web|last1=Schlanger|first1=Zoë|last2=Purtill|first2=Corinne|date=October 2, 2018|title=Wikipedia rejected an entry on a Nobel Prize winner because she wasn't famous enough|url=https://qz.com/1410909/wikipedia-had-rejected-nobel-prize-winner-donna-strickland-because-she-wasnt-famous-enough/|access-date=February 1, 2023|website=[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]}}</ref> Five months later, Strickland won a [[Nobel Prize in Physics]] "for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics", becoming the third woman to ever receive the award.<ref name=":11" /><ref>{{Cite web|date=October 2, 2018|title=The Nobel Prize in Physics 2018|url=https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2018/press-release/|access-date=February 1, 2023|website=The Nobel Prize}}</ref> Prior to winning the award, Strickland's only mention on Wikipedia was in the article about her collaborator and co-winner of the award [[Gérard Mourou]].<ref name=":11" /> Her exclusion from Wikipedia led to accusations of sexism, but Corinne Purtill writing for ''[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]'' argued that "it's also a pointed lesson in the hazards of gender bias in media, and of the broader consequences of underrepresentation."<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|last=Purtill|first=Corinne|date=October 3, 2018|title=Sexism at Wikipedia feeds off the sexism in the media|url=https://qz.com/1412718/wikipedia-has-a-problem-with-sexism-so-does-the-media/|access-date=February 1, 2023|website=[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]}}</ref> Purtill attributes the issue to the gender bias in media coverage.<ref name=":12" />

A comprehensive 2008 survey, published in 2016, by Julia B. Bear of [[Stony Brook University]]'s College of Business and Benjamin Collier of [[Carnegie Mellon University]] found significant gender differences in confidence in expertise, discomfort with editing, and response to critical feedback. "Women reported less confidence in their expertise, expressed greater discomfort with editing (which typically involves conflict), and reported more negative responses to critical feedback compared to men."<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Julia B. Bear & Benjamin Collier|title=Where are the Women in Wikipedia ? – Understanding the Different Psychological Experiences of Men and Women in Wikipedia|journal=Sex Roles|url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y|publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer Science]]|date=January 4, 2016|volume=74|issue=5–6|pages=254–265|doi=10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y|s2cid=146452625 }}</ref>

== Operation ==
=== Wikimedia Foundation and affiliate movements ===
{{main|Wikimedia Foundation}}
[[File:Katherine Maher.jpg|thumb|[[Katherine Maher]], the third executive director of Wikimedia, served from 2016 to 2021|alt=Katherine Maher in 2016. She is seen with light skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. She is seen wearing a black shirt.]]
Wikipedia is hosted and funded by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], a non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related projects such as [[Wiktionary]] and [[Wikibooks]].<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikimedia Projects|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/wikimedia-projects/|access-date=February 1, 2023|website=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia|date=May 30, 2018|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> The foundation relies on public contributions and grants to fund its mission.<ref>{{cite news|last1=McGregor|first1=Jena|title=Wikimedia's approach to coronavirus: Staffers can work 20 hours a week, get paid for full time|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/17/wikimedias-approach-coronavirus-staffers-can-work-20-hours-week-get-paid-full-time/|access-date=February 25, 2021|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=March 17, 2020}}</ref><ref name="financialstatements" group="W">{{cite web|date=October 12, 2022|title=Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. – Consolidated Financial Statements – June 30, 2022 and 2021|url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2021-2022_Audit_Report.pdf|access-date=June 5, 2016|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref> The foundation's 2020 Internal Revenue Service [[Form 990]] shows revenue of $124.6&nbsp;million and expenses of almost $112.2&nbsp;million, with assets of about $191.2&nbsp;million and liabilities of almost $11&nbsp;million.<ref group="W">{{cite web|date=May 17, 2022|title=Wikimedia Foundation 2020 Form 990|url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf|access-date=October 14, 2014|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

In May 2014, Wikimedia Foundation named [[Lila Tretikov]] as its second executive director, taking over for Sue Gardner.<ref group="W">{{cite web|date=May 1, 2014|title=Press releases/WMF announces new ED Lila Tretikov|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/WMF_announces_new_ED_Lila_Tretikov|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140503035438/https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/WMF_announces_new_ED_Lila_Tretikov|archive-date=May 3, 2014|access-date=June 14, 2014|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> ''The'' ''Wall Street Journal'' reported on May 1, 2014, that Tretikov's information technology background from her years at University of California offers Wikipedia an opportunity to develop in more concentrated directions guided by her often repeated position statement that, "Information, like air, wants to be free."<ref name="Jeff Elder 2014">{{Cite news|last=Elder|first=Jeff|date=May 1, 2014|title=Wikipedia's New Chief: From Soviet Union to World's Sixth-Largest Site|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-34824|access-date=February 1, 2023}}</ref><ref name="nytimes.com">{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date=May 1, 2014|title=Media: Open-Source Software Specialist Selected as Executive Director of Wikipedia|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/business/media/open-source-software-specialist-selected-as-executive-director-of-wikipedia.html?_r=0|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=February 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221229040015/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/business/media/open-source-software-specialist-selected-as-executive-director-of-wikipedia.html?_r=0|archive-date=December 29, 2022}}</ref> The same ''Wall Street Journal'' article reported these directions of development according to an interview with spokesman Jay Walsh of Wikimedia, who "said Tretikov would address that issue ([[conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia|paid advocacy]]) as a priority. 'We are really pushing toward more transparency{{nbsp}}... We are reinforcing that paid advocacy is not welcome.' Initiatives to involve greater diversity of contributors, better mobile support of Wikipedia, new geo-location tools to find local content more easily, and more tools for users in the second and third world are also priorities", Walsh said.<ref name="Jeff Elder 2014" />

Following the departure of Tretikov from Wikipedia due to issues concerning the use of the "superprotection" feature which some language versions of Wikipedia have adopted,<ref group="W">{{Cite news|last=Neotarf|author-link=User:Neotarf|date=August 13, 2014|title=Media Viewer controversy spreads to German Wikipedia|work=[[The Signpost]]|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-08-13/News_and_notes|access-date=February 1, 2023}}</ref> [[Katherine Maher]] became the third executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation in June 2016.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|last=Lorente|first=Patricio|date=March 16, 2016|title=Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees welcomes Katherine Maher as interim Executive Director|url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2016/03/16/board-welcomes-katherine-maher/|access-date=February 1, 2023|website=Diff|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> Maher stated that one of her priorities would be the issue of editor harassment endemic to Wikipedia as identified by the Wikipedia board in December. She said to ''[[Bloomberg Businessweek]]'' regarding the harassment issue that: "It establishes a sense within the community that this is a priority{{nbsp}}... [and that correction requires that] it has to be more than words."<ref name="Bloomberg 2016" />

Maher served as executive director until April 2021.<ref name=axios>{{cite web|url=https://www.axios.com/exclusive-the-end-of-the-maher-era-at-wikipedia-c1ed1408-bab7-4308-9407-db093e24c80d.html|title=Exclusive: End of the Maher era at Wikipedia|first=Felix|last=Salmon|website=Axios|date=February 4, 2021|access-date=April 16, 2021|archive-date=February 4, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210204180613/https://www.axios.com/exclusive-the-end-of-the-maher-era-at-wikipedia-c1ed1408-bab7-4308-9407-db093e24c80d.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Maryana Iskander]] was named the incoming CEO in September 2021, and took over that role in January 2022. She stated that one of her focuses would be increasing diversity in the Wikimedia community.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Lima|first=Cristiano|date=September 14, 2021|title=Wikimedia taps leader of South African nonprofit as its next CEO|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/14/wikipedia-maryana-iskander-ceo/|access-date=September 14, 2021|issn=0190-8286|archive-date=September 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210914162044/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/14/wikipedia-maryana-iskander-ceo/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Wikipedia is also supported by many organizations and groups that are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation but independently-run, called [[Wikimedia movement affiliates]]. These include [[list of Wikimedia chapters|Wikimedia chapters]] (which are national or sub-national organizations, such as Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia France), thematic organizations (such as Amical Wikimedia for the [[Catalan language]] community), and user groups. These affiliates participate in the promotion, development, and funding of Wikipedia.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikimedia chapters|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters|access-date=February 1, 2023|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

=== Software operations and support ===
{{see also|MediaWiki}}
The operation of Wikipedia depends on [[MediaWiki]], a custom-made, [[free software|free]] and open source [[wiki software]] platform written in [[PHP]] and built upon the [[MySQL]] database system.<ref name="nedworks database system" group="W">{{cite web|url=https://www.nedworks.org/~mark/presentations/san/Wikimedia%20architecture.pdf|title = Wikimedia Architecture|first = Mark|last = Bergsma|publisher = Wikimedia Foundation|access-date = June 27, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090303204708/https://www.nedworks.org/~mark/presentations/san/Wikimedia%20architecture.pdf|archive-date = March 3, 2009}}</ref> The software incorporates programming features such as a [[macro (computer science)|macro language]], [[variable (programming)|variable]]s, a [[transclusion]] system for [[web template system|template]]s, and [[URL redirection]].<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=MediaWiki Features|url=https://www.wikimatrix.org/show/mediawiki|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=WikiMatrix}}</ref> MediaWiki is licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]] (GPL) and it is used by all Wikimedia projects, as well as many other wiki projects.<ref name="nedworks database system" group="W"/><ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Project:Copyrights|url=https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Project:Copyrights&oldid=262877|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=MediaWiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> Originally, Wikipedia ran on [[UseModWiki]] written in [[Perl]] by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required [[CamelCase]] for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=UseMod: UseModWiki|url=https://www.usemod.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20001017191620/http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl|archive-date=October 17, 2000|website=UseModWiki}}</ref> Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a [[PhpWiki|PHP wiki]] engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by [[Magnus Manske]]. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the [[exponential growth|exponentially increasing]] demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by [[Lee Daniel Crocker]].

Several MediaWiki extensions are installed to extend the functionality of the MediaWiki software.<ref name="WP extensions installed" group="W">[[Special:Version]]</ref>

In April 2005, a [[Lucene]] extension<ref group="W">{{cite web|last=Snow|first=Michael|date=April 18, 2005|title=Internal search function returns to service|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Lucene_search|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref><ref group="W">{{cite web|last=Vibber|first=Brion|title=[Wikitech-l&#93; Lucene search|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-April/016297.html|access-date=February 26, 2009|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> was added to MediaWiki's built-in search and Wikipedia switched from MySQL to Lucene for searching. Lucene was later replaced by CirrusSearch which is based on [[Elasticsearch]].<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Extension:CirrusSearch|url=https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CirrusSearch|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=MediaWiki}}</ref>

In July 2013, after extensive beta testing, a [[WYSIWYG]] (What You See Is What You Get) extension, [[VisualEditor]], was opened to public use.<ref name="thenextwebve">{{cite news|last=Protalinski|first=Emil|date=July 2, 2013|title=Wikimedia rolls out WYSIWYG visual editor for logged-in users accessing Wikipedia articles in English|newspaper=[[TNW (website)|TNW]]|url=https://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/07/02/wikimedia-rolls-out-its-wysiwyg-visual-editor-for-logged-in-users-accessing-wikipedia-articles-in-english/|access-date=February 2, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/10196578/Wikipedia-introduces-new-features-to-entice-editors.html|archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/10196578/Wikipedia-introduces-new-features-to-entice-editors.html|archive-date=January 10, 2022|url-access=subscription|url-status=live|newspaper = The Daily Telegraph|title = Wikipedia introduces new features to entice editors|author = Curtis, Sophie|date = July 23, 2013|access-date = August 18, 2013}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref name="TheEconomistVE">{{cite news|newspaper = [[The Economist]]|url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/12/changes-wikipedia|title = Changes at Wikipedia: Seeing things|author = L. M.|date = December 13, 2011|access-date = July 28, 2013}}</ref> It was met with much rejection and criticism, and was described as "slow and buggy".<ref name="Orlowski, Andrew">{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/01/wikipedians_reject_wysiwyg_editor/|title = Wikipedians say no to Jimmy's 'buggy' WYSIWYG editor|author = Orlowski, Andrew|date = August 1, 2013|website = The Register|access-date = August 18, 2013}}</ref> The feature was changed from opt-out to opt-in afterward.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|last=Forrester|first=James|date=April 25, 2013|title=The alpha version of the VisualEditor is now in 15 languages|url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2013/04/25/visualeditor-alpha-in-15-languages/|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=Diff|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

=== Automated editing ===
{{main|Wikipedia bots}}[[File:Wiki translation Screenshot ۲۰۲۳۰۶۱۵-۲۰۵۹۲۳ Brave.jpg|thumb|Wiki translation AI]]
Computer programs called [[Internet bot|bot]]s have often been used to perform simple and repetitive tasks, such as correcting common misspellings and stylistic issues, or to start articles such as geography entries in a standard format from statistical data.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Bots]]</ref><ref name="meetbots">{{cite news|last=Nasaw|first=Daniel|date=July 24, 2012|title=Meet the 'bots' that edit Wikipedia|work=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18892510|access-date=February 2, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last = Halliday|first = Josh|author2 = Arthur, Charles|title = Boot up: The Wikipedia vandalism police, Apple analysts, and more|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2012/jul/26/boot-up-wikipedia-apple|newspaper = [[The Guardian]]|date = July 26, 2012|access-date = September 5, 2012}}</ref> One controversial contributor, [[Sverker Johansson]], created articles with his bot [[Lsjbot]], which was reported to create up to 10,000 articles on the Swedish Wikipedia on certain days.<ref>{{cite news|last=Jervell|first=Ellen Emmerentze|date=July 13, 2014|title=For This Author, 10,000 Wikipedia Articles Is a Good Day's Work|work=The Wall Street Journal|url=https://online.wsj.com/articles/for-this-author-10-000-wikipedia-articles-is-a-good-days-work-1405305001|url-status=live|url-access=registration|access-date=August 18, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127185020/https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-this-author-10-000-wikipedia-articles-is-a-good-days-work-1405305001|archive-date=January 27, 2023}}</ref> Additionally, there are bots designed to automatically notify editors when they make common editing errors (such as unmatched quotes or unmatched parentheses).<ref group="W">{{Cite news|last=Aude|date=March 23, 2009|title=Abuse Filter is enabled|work=[[The Signpost]]|publisher=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-23/Abuse_Filter|access-date=February 2, 2023}}</ref><!-- And prevent the creation of links to particular websites. Bots also find and revert changes by suspicious new accounts, enforce bans against shared [[IP address]]es or the use of [[sockpuppet (Internet)|sockpuppet]]s by a banned person operating from an alternate IP address.(unsourced/unverifiable) --> Edits falsely identified by bots as the work of a banned editor can be restored by other editors. An anti-vandal bot is programmed to detect and revert vandalism quickly.<ref name="meetbots" /> Bots are able to indicate edits from particular accounts or [[IP address]] ranges, as occurred at the time of the shooting down of the [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17|MH17 jet]] in July 2014 when it was reported that edits were made via IPs controlled by the Russian government.<ref>{{cite web|date=July 21, 2014|title=MH17 Wikipedia entry edited from Russian government IP address|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-stream/2014/7/21/mh17-wikipedia-entry-edited-from-russian-government-ip-address|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161116002928/https://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201407211855-0023944|archive-date=November 16, 2016|access-date=July 22, 2014|website=[[Al Jazeera English|Al Jazeera]]}}</ref> Bots on Wikipedia must be approved before activation.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Bot policy]]</ref>

According to [[Andrew Lih]], the current expansion of Wikipedia to millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the use of such bots.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Lih|first=Andrew|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/232977686|title=The Wikipedia Revolution|publisher=[[Hachette Books]]|year=2009|isbn=978-1401303716|pages=99–106|oclc=232977686|access-date=February 2, 2023}}</ref>

=== Hardware operations and support ===
{{see also|Wikimedia Foundation#Hardware}}
{{As of|2021|post=,}} page requests are first passed to a front-end layer of [[Varnish (software)|Varnish]] caching servers and back-end layer [[caching]] is done by [[Apache Traffic Server]].<ref name=":14" group="W">{{cite web|title=Varnish|url=https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Varnish|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=Wikitech|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> Requests that cannot be served from the Varnish cache are sent to load-balancing servers running the [[Linux Virtual Server]] software, which in turn pass them to one of the Apache web servers for page rendering from the database.<ref name=":14" group="W"/> The web servers deliver pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the language editions of Wikipedia. To increase speed further, rendered pages are cached in a distributed memory cache until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Friedman|first=Vitaly|date=January 12, 2021|title=Front-End Performance Checklist 2021 (PDF, Apple Pages, MS Word)|url=https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2021/01/front-end-performance-2021-free-pdf-checklist/|access-date=April 26, 2022|website=[[Smashing Magazine]]}}</ref>

[[File:Wikipedia webrequest 2022.png|alt=Diagram showing flow of data between Wikipedia's servers.|thumb|Overview of system architecture {{as of|2022|08|lc=on}}]]
Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated [[Computer cluster|clusters]] of [[Linux]] servers running the [[Debian]] operating system.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Debian|url=https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Debian|access-date=April 9, 2021|website=Wikitech|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> {{As of|2023|02|post=,}} caching clusters are located in [[Amsterdam]], [[San Francisco]], [[Singapore]], and [[Marseille]].<ref name=":13" group="W"/><ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Data centers|url=https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_centers|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=Wikitech|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> By January 22, 2013, Wikipedia had migrated its primary data center to an [[Equinix]] facility in [[Ashburn, Virginia]].<ref group="W">{{cite web|last=Palmier|first=Guillaume|date=January 19, 2013|title=Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia|url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-center-in-ashburn-virginia/|access-date=June 5, 2016|website=Diff|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/01/14/its-official-equinix-ashburn-is-wikimedias-home/|title = It's Official: Ashburn is Wikipedia's New Home|first = Jason|last = Verge|publisher = Data Center Knowledge|access-date = June 5, 2016|date = January 14, 2013}}</ref> In 2017, Wikipedia installed a caching cluster in an Equinix facility in [[Singapore]], the first of its kind in Asia.<ref group="W">{{cite web|url=https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T156028|title=⚓ T156028 Name Asia Cache DC site|website=Wikimedia Phabricator|access-date=May 12, 2019}}</ref> In 2022, a caching data center was opened in [[Marseille]], [[France]].<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=⚓ T282787 Configure dns and puppet repositories for new drmrs datacenter|url=https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T282787|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=Wikimedia Phabricator}}</ref>

=== Internal research and operational development ===
Following growing amounts of incoming donations in 2013 exceeding seven digits,<ref name="Simonite-2013" /> the Foundation has reached a threshold of assets which qualify its consideration under the principles of [[industrial organization]] economics to indicate the need for the re-investment of donations into the internal research and development of the Foundation.<ref name="autogenerated5">{{cite book|last1=Scherer|first1=Frederic M.|url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496716|title=Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance|date=2009|publisher=Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, [[University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign]]|ssrn=1496716|author1-link=Frederic M. Scherer|access-date=February 2, 2023|orig-date=1970}}</ref> Two projects of such internal research and development have been the creation of a Visual Editor and the "Thank" tab in the edit history, which were developed to improve issues of editor attrition.<ref name="Simonite-2013" /><ref name="Orlowski, Andrew" /> The estimates for reinvestment by industrial organizations into internal research and development was studied by [[Adam B. Jaffe|Adam Jaffe]], who recorded that the range of 4% to 25% annually was to be recommended, with high-end technology requiring the higher level of support for internal reinvestment.<ref name=":15">{{Cite book|last1=Trajtenberg|first1=Manuel|url=https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/2593/Patents-Citations-and-InnovationsA-Window-on-the|title=Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy|last2=Jaffe|first2=Adam B.|year=2002|publisher=[[MIT Press]]|isbn=978-0262276238|pages=89–153|doi=10.7551/mitpress/5263.001.0001}}</ref> At the 2013 level of contributions for Wikimedia presently documented as 45&nbsp;million dollars,<ref group="W">{{Cite web|last1=Peters|first1=David|last2=Walsh|first2=Jay|year=2013|title=Wikimedia Foundation 2012–13 Annual Report|url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Wmf_AR12_v11_SHIP_2pp_hyper_14jan14.pdf|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> the computed budget level recommended by Jaffe for reinvestment into internal research and development is between 1.8&nbsp;million and 11.3&nbsp;million dollars annually.<ref name=":15" /> In 2019, the level of contributions were reported by the Wikimedia Foundation as being at $120&nbsp;million annually,<ref group="W">{{Cite web|year=2020|title=2019 to 2020 Annual Report – Statement of Activities – Audited (July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020)|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annual-report/financials/#section-2|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> updating the Jaffe estimates for the higher level of support to between $3.08&nbsp;million and $19.2&nbsp;million annually.<ref name=":15" />

=== Internal news publications ===
{{Main|The Signpost}}
Multiple Wikimedia projects have internal news publications. [[Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia's]] online newspaper ''[[The Signpost]]'' was founded in 2005 by Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator who would join the Wikimedia Foundation's board of trustees in 2008.<ref>{{Cite web|last=McCarthy|first=Caroline|date=July 18, 2008|title=Wikimedia Foundation edits its board of trustees|url=https://www.cnet.com/culture/wikimedia-foundation-edits-its-board-of-trustees/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301224408/https://www.cnet.com/news/wikimedia-foundation-edits-its-board-of-trustees/|archive-date=March 1, 2016|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=[[CNET]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date=March 5, 2007|title=A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=October 18, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221113161523/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1|archive-date=November 13, 2022}}</ref> The publication covers news and events from the English Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and [[Wikimedia Foundation#Projects and initiatives|Wikipedia's sister projects]].<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

=== The Wikipedia Library ===
{{for|information for Wikipedia editors|Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library|selfref=yes}}
[[File:Wikipedia Library owl.svg|thumb|upright|Wikipedia Library]]The Wikipedia Library is a resource for Wikipedia editors which provides free access to a wide range of [[Electronic publishing|digital publications]], so that they can consult and cite these while editing the encyclopedia.<ref name="orlowitz">{{cite journal|last1=Orlowitz|first1=Jake|date=January 2018|title=The Wikipedia Library : the biggest encyclopedia needs a digital library and we are building it|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327963422|journal=JLIS.it|volume=9|issue=3|doi=10.4403/jlis.it-12505|access-date=February 2, 2023|via=[[ResearchGate]]}}</ref><ref name="bna">{{cite news|last1=The British Newspaper Archive|date=July 18, 2014|title=Working with Wikipedia to bring history facts to light|work=[[British Newspaper Archive]]|url=https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2014/07/18/working-with-wikipedia-to-bring-history-facts-to-light/|access-date=February 2, 2023}}</ref> Over 60 publishers have partnered with The Wikipedia Library to provide access to their resources: when [[ICE Publishing]] joined in 2020, a spokesman said "By enabling free access to our content for Wikipedia editors, we hope to further the research community's resources – creating and updating Wikipedia entries on civil engineering which are read by thousands of monthly readers."<ref name="hall">{{cite web|last1=Hall|first1=Sam|date=June 24, 2020|title=ICE Publishing partners with The Wikipedia Library|url=https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/ice-news/106-wikipedia-library|access-date=October 26, 2021|website=ICE Virtual Library}}</ref>

== Access to content ==
{{Redirect|Accessing Wikipedia|our accessibility guidelines|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility}}

=== Content licensing ===
When the project was started in 2001, all text in Wikipedia was covered by the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] (GFDL), a [[copyleft]] license permitting the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work.<ref name="Wikipedia:Copyrights" group="W"/> The GFDL was created for software manuals that come with [[free software]] programs licensed under the [[GNU General Public License|GPL]]. This made it a poor choice for a general reference work: for example, the GFDL requires the reprints of materials from Wikipedia to come with a full copy of the GFDL text.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses|url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=GNU Operating System|publisher=[[Free Software Foundation]]}}</ref> In December 2002, the [[Creative Commons license]] was released; it was specifically designed for creative works in general, not just for software manuals. The Wikipedia project sought the switch to the Creative Commons.<ref name="WPF switch to CC" group="W">{{cite web|last=Vermeir|first=Walter|date=December 1, 2007|title=Resolution:License update|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update|access-date=December 4, 2007|website=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref> Because the GFDL and Creative Commons were incompatible, in November 2008, following the request of the project, the [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF) released a new version of the GFDL designed specifically to allow Wikipedia to relicense its content to CC BY-SA by August 1, 2009.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Licensing update]]</ref> In April 2009, Wikipedia and its sister projects held a community-wide referendum which decided the switch in June 2009.<ref name="voteresult" group="W"/><ref name="MW licensing QA" group="W">{{cite web|title=Licensing update/Questions and Answers|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers|access-date=February 15, 2009|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref><ref name="MW licensing timeline 1" group="W">{{cite web|title=Licensing_update/Timeline|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline|access-date=April 5, 2009|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref><ref name="WP blog license migration" group="W">{{cite web|last=Walsh|first=Jay|date=May 21, 2009|title=Wikimedia community approves license migration|url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2009/05/21/wikimedia-community-approves-license-migration|access-date=May 21, 2009|website=Diff|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

The handling of media files (e.g. image files) varies across language editions. Some language editions, such as the English Wikipedia, include non-free image files under [[fair use]] doctrine,<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikipedia:Non-free content|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> while the others have opted not to, in part because of the lack of fair use doctrines in their home countries (e.g. in [[copyright law of Japan|Japanese copyright law]]). Media files covered by [[free content]] licenses (e.g. [[Creative Commons]]' [[CC BY-SA]]) are shared across language editions via [[Wikimedia Commons]] repository, a project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Commons:Fair use|url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia|publisher=[[Wikimedia Commons]]}}</ref> Wikipedia's accommodation of varying international copyright laws regarding images has led some to observe that its photographic coverage of topics lags behind the quality of the encyclopedic text.<ref name="NYT photos on WP">{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date=July 19, 2009|title=Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=March 9, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221126005544/https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html|archive-date=November 26, 2022}}</ref>

The Wikimedia Foundation is not a licensor of content on Wikipedia or its related projects but merely a hosting service for contributors to and licensors of Wikipedia, a position which was successfully defended in 2004 in a court in France.<ref name="reuters French defamation case">{{cite news|date=November 2, 2007|title=Wikipedia cleared in French defamation case|work=[[Reuters]]|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSL0280486220071102|access-date=November 2, 2007}}</ref><ref name="ars tech WP dumb suing case">{{cite web|last=Anderson|first=Nate|date=May 2, 2008|title=Dumb idea: suing Wikipedia for calling you "dumb"|url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080502-dumb-idea-suing-wikipedia-for-calling-you-dumb.html|access-date=May 4, 2008|website=[[Ars Technica]]}}</ref>

=== {{anchor|Reusing Wikipedia's content}}Methods of access ===
Because Wikipedia content is distributed under an open license, anyone can reuse or re-distribute it at no charge.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]]</ref> The content of Wikipedia has been published in many forms, both online and offline, outside the Wikipedia website.

Thousands of "[[mirror site]]s" exist that republish content from Wikipedia; two prominent ones that also include content from other reference sources are [[Reference.com]] and [[Answers.com]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Reference.com Expands Content by Adding Wikipedia Encyclopedia to Search Capabilities|url=http://www.lexico.com/about/pr20050915.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090225094122/http://www.lexico.com/about/pr20050915.html|archive-date=February 25, 2009|website=Lexico Publishing Group, LLC}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Definition of Answers.com|url=https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/answerscom|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=[[PCMag]]}}</ref> Another example is [[Wapedia]], which began to display Wikipedia content in a mobile-device-friendly format before Wikipedia itself did.<ref name=":16" group="W">{{Cite web|last=Seifi|first=Joe|date=August 27, 2007|title=Wapedia review|url=https://appsafari.com/utilities/1144/wapedia/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220423185926/https://appsafari.com/utilities/1144/wapedia/|archive-date=April 23, 2022|access-date=February 2, 2023|website=appSafari}}</ref> Some web [[search engine]]s make special use of Wikipedia content when displaying search results: examples include [[Microsoft Bing]] (via technology gained from [[Powerset (company)|Powerset]])<ref name="bing WP research and referencing" /> and [[DuckDuckGo]].

Collections of Wikipedia articles have been published on [[optical disc]]s. An English version released in 2006 contained about 2,000 articles.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikipedia 0.5 available on a CD-ROM|url=http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/site.php|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130602060411/http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/site.php|archive-date=June 2, 2013|website=Wikipedia On DVD}}</ref> The Polish-language version from 2006 contains nearly 240,000 articles,<ref name="WM polish WP on dvd" group="W">{{cite web|title=Polish Wikipedia on DVD|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polska_Wikipedia_na_DVD_%28z_Helionem%29/en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221229040017/https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polska_Wikipedia_na_DVD_(z_Helionem)/en|archive-date=December 29, 2022|access-date=December 26, 2008|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> the German-language version from 2007/2008 contains over 620,000 articles,<ref group="W">[[:de:Wikipedia:DVD|Wikipedia:DVD]]</ref> and the Spanish-language version from 2011 contains 886,000 articles.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=¿Qué es la CDPedia?|url=http://python.org.ar/pyar/Proyectos/CDPedia|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110702023520/http://python.org.ar/pyar/Proyectos/CDPedia|archive-date=July 2, 2011|website=Py Ar|language=es}}</ref> Additionally, "Wikipedia for Schools", the Wikipedia series of CDs / DVDs produced by Wikipedia and [[SOS Children's Villages UK|SOS Children]], is a free selection from Wikipedia designed for education towards children eight to seventeen.<ref group="W">{{Cite news |date=October 22, 2008 |title=2008–09 Wikipedia for Schools goes online |url=https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/2008-09_Wikipedia_for_Schools_goes_online |access-date=February 3, 2023 |newspaper=WikiNews |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

There have been efforts to put a select subset of Wikipedia's articles into printed book form.<ref name="WP into books 1">{{cite news|date=June 16, 2009|title=Wikipedia turned into book|work=The Daily Telegraph|location=London|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5549589/Wikipedia-turned-into-book.html|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=February 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090801202703/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5549589/Wikipedia-turned-into-book.html|archive-date=August 1, 2009}}</ref><ref name="WP schools selection 1" group="W">{{cite web|title=Wikipedia Selection for Schools|url=https://schools-wikipedia.org|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120804093730/https://schools-wikipedia.org/|archive-date=August 4, 2012|access-date=July 14, 2012|website=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> Since 2009, tens of thousands of [[print on demand|print-on-demand]] books that reproduced English, German, Russian, and French Wikipedia articles have been produced by the American company [[Books LLC]] and by three [[Mauritius|Mauritian]] subsidiaries of the German publisher [[VDM Publishing|VDM]].<ref name="FAZ" />

The website [[DBpedia]], begun in 2007, extracts data from the infoboxes and category declarations of the English-language Wikipedia.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bizer|first1=Christian|last2=Lehmann|first2=Jens|last3=Kobilarov|first3=Georgi|last4=Auer|first4=Sören|last5=Becker|first5=Christian|last6=Cyganiak|first6=Richard|last7=Hellmann|first7=Sebastian|date=September 2009|title=DBpedia – A crystallization point for the Web of Data|journal=Journal of Web Semantics|volume=7|issue=3|pages=154–165|doi=10.1016/j.websem.2009.07.002|s2cid=16081721}}</ref> Wikimedia has created the [[Wikidata]] project with a similar objective of storing the basic facts from each page of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects and make it available in a queryable [[Semantic Web|semantic]] format, [[Resource Description Framework|RDF]].<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikidata:Introduction|url=https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Introduction|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=Wikidata|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> {{As of|2023|2|post=,}} it has over 101 million items.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikidata:Statistics|url=https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Statistics|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=Wikidata|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> [[WikiReader]] is a dedicated reader device that contains an offline copy of Wikipedia, which was launched by [[Openmoko|OpenMoko]] and first released in 2009.<ref group="W"> {{cite web|last1=Moeller|first1=Erik|date=October 13, 2009|title=OpenMoko Launches WikiReader|url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2009/10/13/openmoko-launches-wikireader/|access-date=January 19, 2023|website=Diff|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

Obtaining the full contents of Wikipedia for reuse presents challenges, since direct cloning via a [[web crawler]] is discouraged.<ref name="WP DB usage policy 1" group="W"/> Wikipedia publishes "[[Wikipedia:Database download|dumps]]" of its contents, but these are text-only; {{as of|2023|lc=y|post=,}} there is no dump available of Wikipedia's images.<ref name="WP image data dumps 1" group="W">{{Cite web|title=Data dumps/What's available for download|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dumps/What%27s_available_for_download|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> [[Wikimedia Enterprise]] is a for-profit solution to this.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Cohen|first=Noam|date=March 16, 2021|title=Wikipedia Is Finally Asking Big Tech to Pay Up|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|url=https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tech-to-pay-up/|access-date=February 3, 2023|issn=1059-1028}}</ref>

Several languages of Wikipedia also maintain a reference desk, where volunteers answer questions from the general public. According to a study by Pnina Shachaf in the ''[[Journal of Documentation]]'', the quality of the Wikipedia reference desk is comparable to a standard library [[reference desk]], with an accuracy of 55 percent.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shachaf|first=Pnina|date=October 16, 2009|title=The paradox of expertise: is the Wikipedia Reference Desk as good as your library?|journal=Journal of Documentation|volume=65|issue=6|pages=977–996|doi=10.1108/00220410910998951|url=http://eprints.rclis.org/20329/1/Paradox%20of%20expertise-final.pdf }}</ref>

==== Mobile access{{anchor|Wikipedia mobile access|Wikipedia mobile}} ====
{{see also|List of Wikipedia mobile applications|Help:Mobile access}}
[[File:Wikipedia on Mobile screenshot 2019.png|thumb|A mobile version showing the English Wikipedia's Main Page, on August 3, 2019]]
Wikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit content using any standard [[web browser]] through a fixed [[Internet access|Internet connection]]. Although Wikipedia content has been accessible through the [[mobile web]] since July 2013, ''The New York Times'' on February 9, 2014, quoted [[Erik Möller]], deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, stating that the transition of internet traffic from desktops to mobile devices was significant and a cause for concern and worry. The article in ''The New York Times'' reported the comparison statistics for mobile edits stating that, "Only 20 percent of the readership of the English-language Wikipedia comes via mobile devices, a figure substantially lower than the percentage of mobile traffic for other media sites, many of which approach 50 percent. And the shift to mobile editing has lagged even more." In 2014 ''The New York Times'' reported that Möller has assigned "a team of 10 software developers focused on mobile", out of a total of approximately 200 employees working at the Wikimedia Foundation. One principal concern cited by ''The New York Times'' for the "worry" is for Wikipedia to effectively address attrition issues with the number of editors which the online encyclopedia attracts to edit and maintain its content in a mobile access environment.<ref name="small screen"/> By 2023, the Wikimedia Foundation's staff had grown to over 700 employees.<ref name=WF10.23.23/>

''[[Bloomberg Businessweek]]'' reported in July 2014 that Google's Android mobile apps have dominated the largest share of global smartphone shipments for 2013, with 78.6% of market share over their next closest competitor in iOS with 15.2% of the market.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=Stone|first1=Brad|date=June 27, 2014|title=How Google's Android chief, Sundar Pichai, became the most powerful man in mobile|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-24/googles-sundar-pichai-king-of-android-master-of-mobile-profile|url-status=live|magazine=[[Bloomberg BusinessWeek]]|location=New York|pages=47–51|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108091423/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-24/googles-sundar-pichai-king-of-android-master-of-mobile-profile|archive-date=November 8, 2020|access-date=February 3, 2023|url-access=subscription}}</ref> At the time of the appointment of new Wikimedia Foundation executive Lila Tretikov, Wikimedia representatives made a technical announcement concerning the number of mobile access systems in the market seeking access to Wikipedia. Soon after, the representatives stated that Wikimedia would be applying an all-inclusive approach to accommodate as many mobile access systems as possible in its efforts for expanding general mobile access, including [[BlackBerry]] and the [[Windows Phone]] system, making market share a secondary issue.<ref name="nytimes.com" /> The Android app for Wikipedia was released on July 23, 2014, to over 500,000 installs and generally positive reviews, scoring over four of a possible five in a poll of approximately 200,000 users downloading from Google.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|last=Finc|first=Tomasz|date=January 26, 2012|title=Announcing the Official Wikipedia Android App|url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2012/01/26/announcing-the-official-wikipedia-android-app/|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=Diff|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref><ref group="W">{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia&hl=en|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=[[Google Play]]}}</ref> The version for iOS was released on April 3, 2013, to similar reviews.<ref group="W">{{cite web|date=August 4, 2014|title=Wikipedia Mobile on the App Store on iTunes|url=https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wikipedia-mobile/id324715238?mt=8|access-date=August 21, 2014|website=[[App Store (iOS/iPadOS)]]|publisher=[[Apple Inc.]]}}</ref>

Access to Wikipedia from mobile phones was possible as early as 2004, through the [[Wireless Application Protocol]] (WAP), via the [[Wapedia]] service.<ref name=":16" group="W"/> In June 2007, Wikipedia launched en.mobile.wikipedia.org, an official website for wireless devices. In 2009, a newer mobile service was officially released, located at en.m.wikipedia.org, which caters to more advanced mobile devices such as the [[iPhone]], [[Android (operating system)|Android]]-based devices, or [[WebOS]]-based devices.<ref name="WM mobile added 1" group="W">{{cite web|date=June 30, 2009|title=Wikimedia Mobile is Officially Launched|url=https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/06/wikimedia-mobile-launch|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100111101614/http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/06/wikimedia-mobile-launch/|archive-date=January 11, 2010|access-date=July 22, 2009|website=Wikimedia Technical Blog|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> Several other methods of mobile access to Wikipedia have emerged since. Many devices and applications optimize or enhance the display of Wikipedia content for mobile devices, while some also incorporate additional features such as use of Wikipedia [[metadata]] like [[geographic data and information|geoinformation]].<ref name="androgeoid.com LPOI WP 1">{{cite web|date=May 15, 2011|title=Local Points Of Interest In Wikipedia|url=https://androgeoid.com/2011/04/local-points-of-interest-in-wikipedia|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110601092809/http://androgeoid.com/2011/04/local-points-of-interest-in-wikipedia/|archive-date=June 1, 2011|access-date=May 15, 2011|website=AndroGeoid}}</ref><ref name="ilounge iphone gems WP">{{cite web|last=Hollington|first=Jesse David|date=November 30, 2008|title=iPhone Gems: Wikipedia Apps|url=https://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/15802|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090112235945/http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/15802/|archive-date=January 12, 2009|access-date=July 22, 2008|website=iLounge}}</ref>

[[Wikipedia Zero]] was an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to expand the reach of the encyclopedia to the developing countries by partnering with mobile operators to allow free access.<ref name=":17" group="W"/><ref>{{cite news|last=Ellis|first=Justin|date=January 17, 2013|title=Wikipedia plans to expand mobile access around the globe with new funding|url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2013/01/wikipedia-plans-to-expand-mobile-access-around-the-globe-with-new-funding|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221130012228/https://www.niemanlab.org/2013/01/wikipedia-plans-to-expand-mobile-access-around-the-globe-with-new-funding/|archive-date=November 30, 2022|access-date=April 22, 2013|newspaper=Nieman Lab}}</ref> It was discontinued in February 2018 due to lack of participation from mobile operators.<ref name=":17" group="W">{{cite web|date=February 16, 2018|title=Building for the future of Wikimedia with a new approach to partnerships|url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2018/02/16/partnerships-new-approach/|access-date=May 12, 2019|website=Diff|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

[[Andrew Lih]] and [[Andrew Brown (writer)|Andrew Brown]] both maintain editing Wikipedia with [[smartphone]]s is difficult and this discourages new potential contributors.<ref name=":18" /><ref name=":19" /> Lih states that the number of Wikipedia editors has been declining after several years,<ref name=":18" /> and Tom Simonite of ''[[MIT Technology Review]]'' claims the bureaucratic structure and rules are a factor in this. Simonite alleges some [[Wikipedian]]s use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and those editors have a vested interest in keeping the [[status quo]].<ref name="Simonite-2013" /> Lih alleges there is a serious disagreement among existing contributors on how to resolve this. Lih fears for Wikipedia's long-term future while Brown fears problems with Wikipedia will remain and rival encyclopedias will not replace it.<ref name=":18">{{cite news|last=Lih|first=Andrew|date=June 20, 2015|title=Can Wikipedia Survive?|newspaper=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=February 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220217205707/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html|archive-date=February 17, 2022}}</ref><ref name=":19">{{cite news|last=Brown|first=Andrew|date=June 25, 2015|title=Wikipedia editors are a dying breed. The reason? Mobile|journal=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia|url-status=live|access-date=February 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221022102741/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia|archive-date=October 22, 2022}}</ref>

=== Chinese access ===
Access to the [[Chinese Wikipedia]] has been [[Internet censorship in China|blocked]] in [[mainland China]] since May 2015.<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|last=Skipper|first=Ben|date=December 7, 2015|title=China's government has blocked Wikipedia in its entirety again|work=International Business Times UK|url=https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinas-government-has-blocked-wikipedia-its-entirety-again-1532138|url-status=live|access-date=May 2, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180503111142/https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinas-government-has-blocked-wikipedia-its-entirety-again-1532138|archive-date=May 3, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Fox-Brewster|first=Thomas|date=May 22, 2015|title=Wikipedia Disturbed Over Fresh China Censorship|work=[[Forbes]]|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/05/22/wikipedia-disturbed-over-fresh-china-censorship/#377839ae112a|url-status=live|access-date=May 2, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180503043534/https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/05/22/wikipedia-disturbed-over-fresh-china-censorship/#377839ae112a|archive-date=May 3, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Henochowicz|first=Anne|date=May 20, 2015|title=Chinese Wikipedia Blocked by Great Firewall|url=https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/05/chinese-wikipedia-blocked-by-great-firewall/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504212406/https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/05/chinese-wikipedia-blocked-by-great-firewall/|archive-date=May 4, 2017|access-date=May 4, 2017|website=[[China Digital Times]]}}</ref> This was done after Wikipedia started to use [[HTTPS]] encryption, which made selective censorship more difficult.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Perez|first=Sarah|date=June 12, 2015|title=The Wikimedia Foundation Turns On HTTPS By Default Across All Sites, Including Wikipedia|url=https://social.techcrunch.com/2015/06/12/the-wikimedia-foundation-turns-on-https-by-default-across-all-sites-including-wikipedia/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200824001601/https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/12/the-wikimedia-foundation-turns-on-https-by-default-across-all-sites-including-wikipedia/|archive-date=August 24, 2020|access-date=June 3, 2020|website=[[TechCrunch]]}}</ref>

===Copycats ===
Russians have developed clones called [[Runiversalis]]<ref name=":110">{{Cite web|last=Khatsenkova|first=Sophia|date=2022-09-15|title=Russia's answer to Wikipedia: Propaganda or common sense encyclopedia?|url=https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/09/15/russias-answer-to-wikipedia-propaganda-or-common-sense-encyclopedia|access-date=2022-09-19|website=euronews}}</ref> and [[Ruwiki (website)|Ruwiki]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-12/russian-wikipedia-editor-leaves-to-launch-a-putin-friendly-clone|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230713004647/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-12/russian-wikipedia-editor-leaves-to-launch-a-putin-friendly-clone|archive-date=July 13, 2023|title=Russian Wikipedia Editor Leaves to Launch a Putin-Friendly Clone – Bloomberg|website=[[Bloomberg News]]|date=July 12, 2023 }}</ref>
Iranians have created a new website called wikisa.org.<ref group="W">{{cite web|url=https://www.softgozar.com/wikisade_/|title=دانشنامه علمی فارسی زبان ویکی ساده wikisade }}</ref>

== Cultural influence{{anchor|Influence}} ==
=== Trusted source to combat fake news ===
In 2017–18, after a barrage of false news reports, both Facebook and YouTube announced they would rely on Wikipedia to help their users evaluate reports and reject false news.<ref name=":20"/><ref name="auto" /> [[Noam Cohen]], writing in ''[[The Washington Post]]'' states, "YouTube's reliance on Wikipedia to set the record straight builds on the thinking of another fact-challenged platform, the Facebook social network, which announced last year that Wikipedia would help its users root out '[[fake news]]'."<ref name="auto">{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date=April 7, 2018|title=Conspiracy videos? Fake news? Enter Wikipedia, the 'good cop' of the Internet|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/conspiracy-videos-fake-news-enter-wikipedia-the-good-cop-of-the-internet/2018/04/06/ad1f018a-3835-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180614045810/https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/conspiracy-videos-fake-news-enter-wikipedia-the-good-cop-of-the-internet/2018/04/06/ad1f018a-3835-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html|archive-date=June 14, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Constine|first=Josh|date=April 3, 2018|title=Facebook fights fake news with author info, rolls out publisher context|url=https://social.techcrunch.com/2018/04/03/facebook-author-info/|access-date=July 15, 2021|website=[[TechCrunch]] }}{{Dead link|date=August 2023|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

=== Readership ===
In February 2014, ''The New York Times'' reported that Wikipedia was ranked fifth globally among all websites, stating "With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month,{{nbsp}}... Wikipedia trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors."<ref name="small screen" /> However, its ranking dropped to 13th globally by June 2020 due mostly to a rise in popularity of Chinese websites for online shopping.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.alexa.com/topsites|title=The top 500 sites on the web|website=Alexa|access-date=June 13, 2020|archive-date=February 3, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210203120227/https://www.alexa.com/topsites|url-status=dead }}</ref> The website has since recovered its ranking as of April 2022.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.alexa.com/topsites|title=The top 500 sites on the web|website=Alexa|access-date=July 25, 2023|archive-date=April 30, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220430225746/https://www.alexa.com/topsites|url-status=dead }}</ref>

In addition to [[logistic function|logistic growth]] in the number of its articles,<ref name="modelling" group="W"/> Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.<ref name="comscore" /> The number of readers of Wikipedia worldwide reached 365&nbsp;million at the end of 2009.<ref name="365M" group="W">{{cite web|last=West|first=Stuart|date=2010|title=Wikipedia's Evolving Impact: slideshow presentation at TED2010|url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/TED2010%2C_Stuart_West_full_presentation_updated_with_January_data.pdf|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> The [[Pew Research Center|Pew]] Internet and American Life project found that one third of US Internet users consulted Wikipedia.<ref name="Wikipedia users" /> In 2011, ''[[Business Insider]]'' gave Wikipedia a valuation of $4&nbsp;billion if it ran advertisements.<ref>{{cite web|author = SAI|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/2011-digital-100#7-wikimedia-foundation-wikipedia-7|title = The World's Most Valuable Startups|website = Business Insider|date = October 7, 2011|access-date = June 14, 2014}}</ref>

According to "Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011", the average age of Wikipedia readers is 36, with a rough parity between genders. Almost half of Wikipedia readers visit the site more than five times a month, and a similar number of readers specifically look for Wikipedia in search engine results. About 47 percent of Wikipedia readers do not realize that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization.<ref group="W">{{cite web|date=February 6, 2012|title=Research: Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011/Results – Meta|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Readership_Survey_2011/Results|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131209125719/https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Readership_Survey_2011/Results|archive-date=December 9, 2013|access-date=April 16, 2014|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

{{As of|2023|2|post=,}} Wikipedia attracts around 2&nbsp;billion unique devices monthly, with the English Wikipedia receiving 10&nbsp;billion [[Wikipedia:Pageview statistics|pageviews]] each month.<ref name="Wikimedia_Stats" group="W"/>

==== COVID-19 pandemic ====
{{main|Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic}}
During the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], Wikipedia's coverage of the pandemic and fight against misinformation received international media attention, and brought an increase in Wikipedia readership overall.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Sachdev|first=Shaan|date=February 26, 2021|title=Wikipedia's Sprawling, Awe-Inspiring Coverage of the Pandemic|magazine=[[The New Republic]]|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/161486/wikipedia-coverage-pandemic-covid|url-status=live|access-date=February 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228122324/https://newrepublic.com/article/161486/wikipedia-coverage-pandemic-covid|archive-date=February 28, 2021|issn=0028-6583}}</ref><ref name=":21">{{Cite magazine|last=Cohen|first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date=March 15, 2020|title=How Wikipedia Prevents the Spread of Coronavirus Misinformation|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|url=https://www.wired.com/story/how-wikipedia-prevents-spread-coronavirus-misinformation/|url-status=live|access-date=February 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200501004048/https://www.wired.com/story/how-wikipedia-prevents-spread-coronavirus-misinformation/|archive-date=May 1, 2020|issn=1059-1028}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Benjakob|first=Omer|date=September 2, 2020|title=On Wikipedia, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation-GB|magazine=Wired UK|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus|url-status=live|access-date=February 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200416214738/https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus|archive-date=April 16, 2020|issn=1357-0978}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Dodds|first=Laurence|date=April 3, 2020|title=Why Wikipedia is winning against the coronavirus 'infodemic'-GB|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/04/03/wikipedia-winning-against-coronavirus-infodemic/|url-status=live|access-date=February 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200411200231/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/04/03/wikipedia-winning-against-coronavirus-infodemic/|archive-date=April 11, 2020|issn=0307-1235}}</ref> Noam Cohen wrote in ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' that Wikipedia's effort to combat [[COVID-19 misinformation|misinformation related to the pandemic]] was different from other major websites, opining, "Unless [[Twitter]], [[Facebook]] and [[Social media|the others]] can learn to address misinformation more effectively, Wikipedia will remain the last best place on the Internet."<ref name=":21" /> In October 2020, the [[World Health Organization]] announced they were freely licensing its [[infographic]]s and other materials on Wikimedia projects.<ref>{{Cite news|last=McNeil|first=Donald G. Jr.|date=October 22, 2020|title=Wikipedia and W.H.O. Join to Combat Covid-19 Misinformation|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/wikipedia-who-coronavirus-health.html|url-status=live|access-date=February 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201227064916/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/wikipedia-who-coronavirus-health.html|archive-date=December 27, 2020|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> There were nearly 7,000 COVID-19 related Wikipedia articles across 188 different Wikipedias, {{As of|2021|11|lc=y|post=.}}<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Kenton|first1=Amanda|last2=Humborg|first2=Christian|date=November 29, 2021|title=Digital regulation must empower people to make the internet better|url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/28/digital-regulation-must-empower-people-to-make-the-internet-better/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220530140630/https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/28/digital-regulation-must-empower-people-to-make-the-internet-better/|archive-date=May 30, 2022|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=[[TechCrunch]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Wales|first=Jimmy|date=August 26, 2021|title=Learning to trust the internet again|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/26/learning-to-trust-the-internet-again|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210827002411/https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/26/learning-to-trust-the-internet-again|archive-date=August 27, 2021|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=[[Al Jazeera English|Al Jazeera]]}}</ref>

=== Cultural significance ===
{{main|Wikipedia in culture}}
<!-- Every single cultural, media, or Internet reference to Wikipedia does not need to be mentioned here and differentiation between what constitutes a matter of significance and what is run-of-the-mill is important when adding content here. -->
[[File:Wikipedia Monument 2.JPG|thumb|''[[Wikipedia Monument]]'' in [[Słubice]], Poland, by [[Mihran Hakobyan]] (2014)]]
Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases.<ref name="Wikipedia in media" group="W"/><ref name="Bourgeois" /><ref name="ssrn.com Wikipedian Justice 1">{{cite journal|last1=Sharma|first1=Raghav|date=February 19, 2009|title=Wikipedian Justice|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1346311|ssrn=1346311|website=[[Social Science Research Network]]|s2cid=233749371}}</ref> The [[Parliament of Canada]]'s website refers to Wikipedia's article on [[same-sex marriage]] in the "related links" section of its "further reading" list for the ''[[Civil Marriage Act]]''.<ref name="parl.gc.ca same-sex marriage">{{cite web|title=An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes|url=https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/38-1/C-38?view=about|access-date=February 3, 2023|website=LEGISinfo|publisher=[[Parliament of Canada]]}}</ref> The encyclopedia's assertions are increasingly used as a source by organizations such as the US federal courts and the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]]<ref name="WP_court_source" />—though mainly for supporting information rather than information decisive to a case.<ref name="Courts turn to Wikipedia" /> Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some [[United States Intelligence Community|US intelligence agency]] reports.<ref name="US Intelligence" /> In December 2008, the scientific journal ''[[RNA Biology]]'' launched a new section for descriptions of families of RNA molecules and requires authors who contribute to the section to also submit a draft article on the [[Rfam|RNA family]] for publication in Wikipedia.<ref name="Declan" />

Wikipedia has also been used as a source in journalism,<ref name="ajr.org WP in the newsroom">{{cite news|last=Shaw|first=Donna|date=February–March 2008|title=Wikipedia in the Newsroom|work=[[American Journalism Review]]|url=https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461|url-status=dead|access-date=February 11, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120805155909/https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461|archive-date=August 5, 2012}}</ref><ref name="twsY23" /> often without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for [[plagiarism from Wikipedia|plagiarizing from Wikipedia]].<ref name="shizuoka plagiarized WP 1">{{cite news|title = Shizuoka newspaper plagiarized Wikipedia article|work = Japan News Review|date = July 5, 2007|url=https://www.japannewsreview.com/society/chubu/20070705page_id=364|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140312013353/https://www.japannewsreview.com/society/chubu/20070705page_id%3D364|archive-date = March 12, 2014|df = mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Richter|first=Bob|date=January 9, 2007|title=Express-News staffer resigns after plagiarism in column is discovered|work=[[San Antonio Express-News]]|url=https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA010307.02A.richter.132c153.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070123064704/https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA010307.02A.richter.132c153.html|archive-date=January 23, 2007}}</ref><ref name="starbulletin.com Inquiry prompts dismissal">{{cite web|last=Bridgewater|first=Frank|title=Inquiry prompts reporter's dismissal|url=https://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/01/13/news/story03.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230128202726/https://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/01/13/news/story03.html|archive-date=January 28, 2023|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=[[Honolulu Star-Bulletin]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Coscarelli|first=Joe|date=July 29, 2014|title=Plagiarizing Wikipedia Is Still Plagiarism, at BuzzFeed or the New York Times|url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/07/new-york-times-buzzfeed-wikipedia-plagiarism.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220818021218/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/07/new-york-times-buzzfeed-wikipedia-plagiarism.html|archive-date=August 18, 2022|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=Intelligencer|publisher=[[New York (magazine)|New York]]}}</ref>

In 2006, [[Time (magazine)|''Time'']] magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation (along with [[YouTube]], [[Reddit]], [[MySpace]], and [[Facebook]]) in the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by millions of people worldwide.<ref name="Time2006" /> On September 16, 2007, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported that Wikipedia had become a focal point in the [[2008 United States presidential election|2008 US election campaign]], saying: "Type a candidate's name into Google, and among the first results is a Wikipedia page, making those entries arguably as important as any ad in defining a candidate. Already, the presidential entries are being edited, dissected and debated countless times each day."<ref name="WP.com WP election usage">{{cite news|author=Vargas|first=Jose Antonio|date=September 17, 2007|title=On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699_pf.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 26, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127185625/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699_pf.html|archive-date=January 27, 2023}}</ref> An October 2007 [[Reuters]] article, titled "Wikipedia page the latest status symbol", reported the recent phenomenon of how having a Wikipedia article vindicates one's notability.<ref>{{cite news|last=Ablan|first=Jennifer|date=October 22, 2007|title=Wikipedia page the latest status symbol|work=[[Reuters]]|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2232893820071022?sp=true|access-date=October 24, 2007}}</ref>

One of the first times Wikipedia was involved in a governmental affair was on September 28, 2007, when [[Italy|Italian]] politician [[Franco Grillini]] raised a parliamentary question with the minister of cultural resources and activities about the necessity of [[freedom of panorama]]. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Wikipedia, "the seventh most consulted website", to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues.<ref>{{cite web|last=Grillini|first=Franco|author-link=Franco Grillini|date=March 30, 2009|title=Comunicato Stampa. On. Franco Grillini. Wikipedia. Interrogazione a Rutelli. Con "diritto di panorama" promuovere arte e architettura contemporanea italiana. Rivedere con urgenza legge copyright|trans-title=Press release. Honorable Franco Grillini. Wikipedia. Interview with Rutelli about the "right to view" promoting contemporary art and architecture of Italy. Review with urgency copyright law|url=https://www.grillini.it/show.php?4885|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090330141810/https://www.grillini.it/show.php?4885|archive-date=March 30, 2009|access-date=December 26, 2008|language=it}}</ref>

[[File:Wikipedia, an introduction - Erasmus Prize 2015.webm|thumb|upright=1|thumbtime=00:36.00|Wikipedia, an introduction – [[Erasmus Prize]] 2015]]
[[File:Quadriga-verleihung-rr-02.jpg|thumb|upright=1|[[Jimmy Wales]] accepts the 2008 [[Quadriga (award)|Quadriga]] ''A Mission of Enlightenment'' award on behalf of Wikipedia]]
A working group led by [[Peter Stone (professor)|Peter Stone]] (formed as a part of the [[Stanford]]-based project [[One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence]]) in its report called Wikipedia "the best-known example of crowdsourcing{{nbsp}}... that far exceeds traditionally-compiled information sources, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, in scale and depth".<ref>{{cite web|author=<!-- Staff writer(s); no by-line. -->|date=September 2016|title=Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030|url=https://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report/section-i-what-artificial-intelligence/ai-research-trends|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221208003001/https://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report/section-i-what-artificial-intelligence/ai-research-trends|archive-date=December 8, 2022|access-date=September 3, 2016|website=One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100)|publisher=[[Stanford University]]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20230718" />

In a 2017 opinion piece for ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'', [[Hossein Derakhshan]] describes Wikipedia as "one of the last remaining pillars of the [[openness|open]] and [[decentralization#Centralization and redecentralization of the Internet|decentralized web]]" and contrasted its existence as a text-based source of knowledge with [[social media]] and [[social networking service]]s, the latter having "since colonized the web for television's values". For Derakhshan, Wikipedia's goal as an encyclopedia represents the [[Age of Enlightenment]] tradition of [[rationality]] triumphing over emotions, a trend which he considers "endangered" due to the "gradual shift from a [[typography|typographic]] culture to a photographic one, which in turn mean[s] a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment". Rather than "{{lang|la|[[sapere aude]]}}" ({{literal translation|dare to know|lk=on}}), social networks have led to a culture of "dare not to care to know". This is while Wikipedia faces "a more concerning problem" than funding, namely "a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website". Consequently, the challenge for Wikipedia and those who use it is to "save Wikipedia and its promise of a free and open collection of all human knowledge amid the conquest of new and old television—how to collect and preserve knowledge when nobody cares to know."<ref>{{cite news|last=Derakhshan|first=Hossein|author-link=Hossein Derakhshan|date=October 19, 2017|title=How Social Media Endangers Knowledge|url=https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-fate-shows-how-the-web-endangers-knowledge/|url-status=live|department=Business|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|publisher=Condé Nast|eissn=1078-3148|issn=1059-1028|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181022190537/https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-fate-shows-how-the-web-endangers-knowledge/|archive-date=October 22, 2018|access-date=October 22, 2018}}</ref>

==== Awards ====
[[File:Wikipedia team visiting to Parliament of Oviedo Spain 2015.JPG|thumb|upright=1|Wikipedia team visiting the Parliament of Asturias]]
[[File:Spanish Wikipedians meetup.jpg|thumb|upright=1|Wikipedians meeting after the 2015 Asturias awards ceremony]]
Wikipedia has won many awards, receiving its first two major awards in May 2004.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Trophy shelf|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trophy_shelf|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities of the annual [[Prix Ars Electronica]] contest; this came with a €10,000 (£6,588; $12,700) grant and an invitation to present at the PAE Cyberarts Festival in Austria later that year. The second was a Judges' [[Webby Award]] for the "community" category.<ref name="webbyawards WP awards 1">{{cite news|url=https://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/winners-2004.php|title = Webby Awards 2004|publisher = The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences|year = 2004|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722174246/https://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/winners-2004.php|archive-date = July 22, 2011}}</ref>

In 2007, readers of brandchannel.com voted Wikipedia as the fourth-highest brand ranking, receiving 15 percent of the votes in answer to the question "Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?"<ref name="brandchannel.com awards 1">{{cite news|last=Zumpano|first=Anthony|date=January 29, 2007|title=Similar Search Results: Google Wins|work=brandhome|publisher=Brandchannel|url=https://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=352|url-status=dead|access-date=January 28, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070220095907/https://brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=352|archive-date=February 20, 2007}}</ref>

In September 2008, Wikipedia received [[Quadriga (award)|Quadriga]] ''A Mission of Enlightenment'' award of Werkstatt Deutschland along with [[Boris Tadić]], [[Eckart Höfling]], and [[Peter Gabriel]]. The award was presented to Wales by [[David Weinberger]].<ref name="loomarea.com WP award 1">{{cite web|url=https://loomarea.com/die_quadriga/e/index.php?title=Award_2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080915140714/https://loomarea.com/die_quadriga/e/index.php?title=Award_2008|url-status=dead|archive-date = September 15, 2008|title = Die Quadriga – Award 2008|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref>

In 2015, Wikipedia was awarded both the annual [[Erasmus Prize]], which recognizes exceptional contributions to culture, society or social sciences,<ref name="EP2015">{{cite web|title=Erasmus Prize – Praemium Erasmianum|url=https://www.erasmusprijs.org/?lang=en&page=Erasmusprijs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150115214241/https://www.erasmusprijs.org/?lang=en&page=Erasmusprijs|archive-date=January 15, 2015|access-date=January 15, 2015|website=Praemium Erasmianum Foundation}}</ref> and the Spanish [[Princess of Asturias Award]] on International Cooperation.<ref>{{cite web|title=Premio Princesa de Asturias de Cooperación Internacional 2015|trans-title=Princess of Asturias Award of International Cooperation 2015|url=https://www.fpa.es/es/premios-princesa-de-asturias/premiados/2015-wikipedia.html?especifica=0&idCategoria=0&anio=2015&especifica=0|access-date=June 17, 2015|publisher=Fundación Princesa de Asturias|language=es}}</ref> Speaking at the Asturian Parliament in Oviedo, the city that hosts the awards ceremony, [[Jimmy Wales]] praised the work of the [[Asturian Wikipedia]] users.<ref>{{cite news|date=October 22, 2015|title=Los fundadores de Wikipedia destacan la versión en asturiano|language=es|trans-title=The founders of Wikipedia highlight the Asturian version|newspaper=La Nueva España|url=https://www.lne.es/sociedad-cultura/2015/10/22/fundadores-wikipedia-destacan-version-asturiano/1830529.html|access-date=October 20, 2015}}</ref>

==== Satire ====
{{category see also|Parodies of Wikipedia}}
Many parodies target Wikipedia's openness and susceptibility to inserted inaccuracies, with characters vandalizing or modifying the online encyclopedia project's articles.

Comedian [[Stephen Colbert]] has parodied or referenced Wikipedia on numerous episodes of his show ''[[The Colbert Report]]'' and coined the related term ''[[wikiality]]'', meaning "together we can create a reality that we all agree on—the reality we just agreed on".<ref name="wikiality" /> Another example can be found in "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence", a July 2006 front-page article in ''[[The Onion]]'',<ref name="onion WP 750 years 1">{{cite web|url=https://www.theonion.com/articles/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of-american-indepen,2007/|title = Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence|access-date = October 15, 2006|date = July 26, 2006|website = [[The Onion]]}}</ref> as well as the 2010 ''The Onion'' article {{"'}}L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874 Times Today".<ref>{{cite web|date=November 24, 2010|title='L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874 Times Today|url=https://www.theonion.com/articles/la-law-wikipedia-page-viewed-874-times-today,18521/|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=[[The Onion]]}}</ref>

In an April 2007 episode of the American television comedy [[The Office (American TV series)|''The Office'']], office manager ([[Michael Scott (The Office)|Michael Scott]]) is shown relying on a hypothetical Wikipedia article for information on [[negotiation]] tactics to assist him in negotiating lesser pay for an employee.<ref>{{Cite episode|title=The Negotiation|episode-link=The Negotiation (The Office)|series=The Office|series-link=The Office (American TV series)|network=[[NBC]]|date=April 5, 2007|season=3|number=19}}</ref> Viewers of the show tried to add the episode's mention of the page as a section of the actual Wikipedia article on negotiation, but this effort was prevented by other users on the article's talk page.<ref>{{cite news|last=Jesdanun|first=Anick|date=April 12, 2007|title='Office' fans, inspired by Michael Scott, flock to edit Wikipedia|newspaper=[[USA Today]]|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-04-12-office-wikipedia_N.htm|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230128044344/https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-04-12-office-wikipedia_N.htm|archive-date=January 28, 2023}}</ref>

"[[My Number One Doctor]]", a 2007 episode of the television show ''[[Scrubs (TV series)|Scrubs]]'', played on the perception that Wikipedia is an unreliable reference tool with a scene in which [[Perry Cox]] reacts to a patient who says that a Wikipedia article indicates that the [[raw food diet]] reverses the effects of [[bone cancer]] by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article also wrote the [[list of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) episodes|''Battlestar Galactica'' episode guide]].<ref name="Bakken one doctor 1">{{Cite episode|title=My Number One Doctor|episode-link=Scrubs (season 7)#ep145|series=Scrubs|series-link=Scrubs (TV series)|network=[[NBC]]|date=December 6, 2007|season=7|number=145|last=Bakken|first=Janae|author-link=Janae Bakken}}</ref>

In 2008, the comedy website ''[[CollegeHumor]]'' produced a video sketch named "Professor Wikipedia", in which the fictitious Professor Wikipedia instructs a class with a medley of unverifiable and occasionally absurd statements.<ref>{{Cite episode|title=Professor Wikipedia|series=CollegeHumor Originals|network=[[CollegeHumor]]|date=September 24, 2008}}</ref>

The ''[[Dilbert]]'' comic strip from May 8, 2009, features a character supporting an improbable claim by saying "Give me ten minutes and then check Wikipedia."<ref>{{cite comic|Strip=Topper|Date=May 8, 2009|Syndicate=[[United Media]]|Cartoonist=[[Scott Adams|Adams, Scott]]}}</ref>

In July 2009, [[BBC Radio 4]] broadcast a comedy series called ''[[Bigipedia]]'', which was set on a website which was a parody of Wikipedia.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wolf|first=Ian|date=June 4, 2010|title=Bigipedia given second series|url=https://www.comedy.co.uk/radio/news/319/bigipedia_given_second_series/|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=[[British Comedy Guide]]}}</ref> Some of the sketches were directly inspired by Wikipedia and its articles.<ref>{{cite web|url = https://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/radio/bigipedia/interview/|title = Interview With Nick Doody and Matt Kirshen|website = [[British Comedy Guide]]|access-date = July 31, 2009|archive-date = July 31, 2009|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090731150008/http://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/radio/bigipedia/interview|url-status = dead }}</ref>

On August 23, 2013, the ''[[The New Yorker|New Yorker]]'' website published a cartoon with this caption: "Dammit, Manning, have you considered the pronoun war that this is going to start on your Wikipedia page?"<ref>{{cite web|last=Flake|first=Emily|author-link=Emily Flake|date=August 23, 2013|title=Manning/Wikipedia cartoon|url=https://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Dammit-Manning-have-you-considered-the-pronoun-war-that-this-is-going-t-Cartoon-Prints_i9813981_.htm|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141012052730/https://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Dammit-Manning-have-you-considered-the-pronoun-war-that-this-is-going-t-Cartoon-Prints_i9813981_.htm|archive-date=October 12, 2014|access-date=August 26, 2013|website=Conde Nast Collection }}</ref> The cartoon referred to [[Chelsea Manning|Chelsea Elizabeth Manning]] (born Bradley Edward Manning), an American activist, politician, and former United States Army soldier who had recently [[Coming out|come out]] as a [[trans woman]].<ref>{{Cite web|date=August 22, 2013|title='I am Chelsea': Read Manning's full statement|url=http://www.today.com/news/i-am-chelsea-read-mannings-full-statement-6C10974052|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=[[Today (American TV program)|Today]]}}</ref>

In December 2015, [[John Julius Norwich]] stated, in a letter published in ''[[The Times]]'' newspaper, that as a historian he resorted to Wikipedia "at least a dozen times a day", and had never yet caught it out. He described it as "a work of reference as useful as any in existence", with so wide a range that it is almost impossible to find a person, place, or thing that it has left uncovered and that he could never have written his last two books without it.<ref>{{cite news|date=December 14, 2015|title=The obstacles to reforming our prisons|journal=The Times|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4639755.ece|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=June 5, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221113161532/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-obstacles-to-reforming-our-prisons-v8fbf6tq3fm|archive-date=November 13, 2022}}</ref>

=== Sister projects{{snd}}Wikimedia ===
{{main|Wikimedia project}}
Wikipedia has spawned several sister projects, which are also wikis run by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. These other [[Wikimedia projects]] include [[Wiktionary]], a dictionary project launched in December 2002,<ref group="W">{{Cite mailing list|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-December/008311.html|title=Wiktionary project launched|date=December 12, 2002|mailing-list=Wikipedia-l|last=Moeller|first=Erik|access-date=February 4, 2023}}</ref> [[Wikiquote]], a collection of quotations created a week after Wikimedia launched,<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Woods|first1=Dan|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1300481129|title=Wikis for dummies|last2=Theony|first2=Peter|publisher=[[Wiley (publisher)|John Wiley & Sons]]|year=2007|isbn=978-1118050668|edition=1st|location=Hoboken, NJ|pages=58|chapter=3: The Thousand Problem-Solving Faces of Wikis|oclc=1300481129|ol=5741003W}}</ref> [[Wikibooks]], a collection of collaboratively written free textbooks and annotated texts,<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Talk:Science Hypertextbook project|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=153077|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|publisher=[[Wikimedia Commons]]}}</ref> [[Wikimedia Commons]], a site devoted to free-knowledge multimedia,<ref group="W">{{Cite mailing list|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-March/014885.html|title=Proposal: commons.wikimedia.org|date=March 19, 2004|mailing-list=Wikipedia-l|last=Moeller|first=Erik|access-date=February 4, 2023}}</ref> [[Wikinews]], for collaborative journalism,<ref group="W">{{Cite news|last=Eloquence|title=User:Eloquence/History|url=https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/History|access-date=February 4, 2023|newspaper=Wikinews|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> and [[Wikiversity]], a project for the creation of free learning materials and the provision of online learning activities.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=Wikiversity:History of Wikiversity|url=https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:History_of_Wikiversity|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=Wikiversity|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref> Another sister project of Wikipedia, [[Wikispecies]], is a catalogue of all species, but is not open for public editing.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=February 18, 2005|title=NET News: Calling All Taxonomists|journal=Science|volume=307|issue=5712|pages=1021|doi=10.1126/science.307.5712.1021a|s2cid=220095354 |doi-access=free}}</ref> In 2012, [[Wikivoyage]], an editable travel guide,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Luyt|first=Brendan|date=January 1, 2020|title=A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia|journal=Online Information Review|volume=45|issue=2|pages=356–371|doi=10.1108/OIR-03-2020-0104 }}</ref> and [[Wikidata]], an editable knowledge base, launched.<ref group="W">{{Cite web|last=Roth|first=Matthew|date=March 30, 2012|title=The Wikipedia data revolution|url=https://diff.wikimedia.org/2012/03/30/the-wikipedia-data-revolution/|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=Diff|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}</ref>

=== Publishing ===
[[File:WikiMedia DC 2013 Annual Meeting 08.JPG|right|thumb|A group of Wikimedians of the [[Wikimedia DC]] chapter at the 2013 DC Wikimedia annual meeting standing in front of the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' ''(back left)'' at the US National Archives]]
The most obvious economic effect of Wikipedia has been the death of commercial encyclopedias, especially printed versions like ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', which were unable to compete with a product that is essentially free.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Bosman|first1=Julie|date=March 13, 2012|title=After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses|url=https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com//2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230103001340/https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/|archive-date=January 3, 2023|access-date=January 26, 2015|website=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=March 20, 2012|title=Encyclopedia Britannica Dies At The Hands Of Wikipedia [Infographic]|url=https://www.gizmocrazed.com/2012/03/encyclopedia-britannica-dies-at-the-hands-of-wikipedia-infographic/|access-date=June 14, 2014|website=GizmoCrazed}}</ref><ref name="FT effect on traditional media">{{cite news|author=Caldwell|first=Christopher|author-link=Christopher Caldwell (journalist)|date=June 14, 2013|title=A chapter in the Enlightenment closes|newspaper=[[Financial Times]]|url=https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae22314a-d383-11e2-b3ff-00144feab7de.html|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=June 15, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221225084438/https://www.ft.com/content/ae22314a-d383-11e2-b3ff-00144feab7de|archive-date=December 25, 2022|quote=Bertelsmann did not resort to euphemism this week when it announced the end of the Brockhaus encyclopedia brand. Brockhaus had been publishing reference books for two centuries when the media group bought it in 2008. [...] The internet has finished off Brockhaus altogether. [...] What Germans like is Wikipedia.}}</ref> [[Nicholas G. Carr|Nicholas Carr]]'s 2005 essay "The amorality of [[Web 2.0]]" criticizes websites with [[user-generated content]] (like Wikipedia) for possibly leading to professional (and, in his view, superior) content producers' going out of business, because "free trumps quality all the time". Carr wrote, "Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the [[hegemony]] of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening."<ref name="RType WP traditional media effect 1">{{cite web|last=Carr|first=Nicholas|author-link=Nicholas G. Carr|date=October 3, 2005|title=The amorality of Web 2.0|url=https://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220804031256/https://www.roughtype.com/?p=110|archive-date=August 4, 2022|access-date=July 15, 2006|website=Rough Type}}</ref> Others dispute the notion that Wikipedia, or similar efforts, will entirely displace traditional publications. [[Chris Anderson (writer)|Chris Anderson]], the former editor-in-chief of ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'', wrote in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' that the "[[wisdom of the crowd|wisdom of crowds]]" approach of Wikipedia will not displace top [[scientific journal]]s with rigorous [[peer review]] processes.<ref name="nature.com crowds wisdom" />

Wikipedia's influence on the biography publishing business has been a concern for some. Book publishing data tracker Nielsen [[BookScan]] stated in 2013 that biography sales were dropping "far more sharply".<ref name=":22" /> [[Kathryn Hughes]], professor of [[life writing]] at the [[University of East Anglia]] and author of two biographies wrote, "The worry is that, if you can get all that information from Wikipedia, what's left for biography?"<ref name=":22">{{cite news|last=Flood|first=Alison|date=February 7, 2013|title=Alison Flood: ''Should traditional biography be buried alongside Shakespeare's breakfast?''|journal=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2013/feb/07/traditional-biography-shakespeare-breakfast|access-date=June 14, 2014}}</ref>

=== Research use ===
Wikipedia has been widely used as a [[text corpus|corpus]] for linguistic research in [[computational linguistics]], [[information retrieval]] and [[natural language processing]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Mayo|first=Matthew|date=November 23, 2017|title=Building a Wikipedia Text Corpus for Natural Language Processing|url=https://www.kdnuggets.com/building-a-wikipedia-text-corpus-for-natural-language-processing.html|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=KDnuggets}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Lindemann|first=Luke|date=February 19, 2021|title=Wikipedia Corpus|url=https://lukelindemann.com/wiki_corpus.html|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=lukelindemann.com}}</ref> In particular, it commonly serves as a target knowledge base for the [[entity linking]] problem, which is then called "wikification",<ref name="wikify">{{cite conference|url=https://www.cse.unt.edu/~tarau/teaching/NLP/papers/Mihalcea-2007-Wikify-Linking_Documents_to_Encyclopedic.pdf|title=Wikify!: linking documents to encyclopedic knowledge|first1=Mihalcea|last1=Rada|first2=Andras|last2=Csomai|author1-link=Rada Mihalcea|date=November 2007|conference=ACM [[Conference on Information and Knowledge Management]]|book-title=CIKM '07: Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management|publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160218062051/https://www.cse.unt.edu/~tarau/teaching/NLP/papers/Mihalcea-2007-Wikify-Linking_Documents_to_Encyclopedic.pdf|archive-date=February 18, 2016|location=Lisbon; New York City|pages=233–242|isbn=978-1595938039|doi=10.1145/1321440.1321475|url-status=live}}</ref> and to the related problem of [[word-sense disambiguation]].<ref name="milne witten WP usage 1">{{cite conference|chapter-url=https://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~ihw/papers/08-DNM-IHW-LearningToLinkWithWikipedia.pdf|chapter=Learning to Link with Wikipedia|first1=David|last1=Milne|first2=Ian H.|last2=Witten|title=Proceeding of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge mining – CIKM '08|author2-link=Ian H. Witten|date=October 2008|conference=ACM [[Conference on Information and Knowledge Management]]|book-title=CIKM '08: Proceedings of the seventeenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management|publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]]|location=Napa Valley, CA; New York|pages=509–518|isbn=978-1595939913|doi=10.1145/1458082.1458150|citeseerx=10.1.1.148.3617 }}</ref> Methods similar to wikification can in turn be used to find "missing" links in Wikipedia.<ref name="discovering missing WP links 1">{{cite conference|last1=Adafre|first1=Sisay Fissaha|last2=de Rijke|first2=Maarten|author2-link=Maarten de Rijke|date=August 2005|title=Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery – LinkKDD '05|url=https://staff.science.uva.nl/~mdr/Publications/Files/linkkdd2005.pdf|conference=ACM LinkKDD|location=Chicago; New York City|publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]]|pages=90–97|doi=10.1145/1134271.1134284|isbn=978-1595931351|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120717054413/https://staff.science.uva.nl/~mdr/Publications/Files/linkkdd2005.pdf|archive-date=July 17, 2012|chapter-url=https://staff.science.uva.nl/~mdr/Publications/Files/linkkdd2005.pdf|chapter=Discovering missing links in Wikipedia|book-title=LinkKDD '05: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2015, French researchers José Lages of the [[University of Franche-Comté]] in [[Besançon]] and Dima Shepelyansky of [[Paul Sabatier University]] in [[Toulouse]] published a global university ranking based on Wikipedia scholarly citations.<ref name=mitmining>{{cite news|title = Wikipedia-Mining Algorithm Reveals World's Most Influential Universities: An algorithm's list of the most influential universities contains some surprising entries|url = https://www.technologyreview.com/view/544266/wikipedia-mining-algorithm-reveals-worlds-most-influential-universities/|access-date = December 27, 2015|work = [[MIT Technology Review]]|date = December 7, 2015|archive-date = February 1, 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160201174817/https://www.technologyreview.com/view/544266/wikipedia-mining-algorithm-reveals-worlds-most-influential-universities/|url-status = dead}}</ref><ref name=harvardisonlymarmow>{{cite news|last1 = Marmow Shaw|first1 = Jessica|title = Harvard is only the 3rd most influential university in the world, according to this list|url=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/two-universities-beat-harvard-in-this-surprising-school-ranking-2015-12-09|access-date = December 27, 2015|work = [[MarketWatch]]|date = December 10, 2015}}</ref><ref name=wikipediarankingtimesworldunifranche>{{cite news|last1 = Bothwell|first1 = Ellie|title = Wikipedia Ranking of World Universities: the top 100. List ranks institutions by search engine results and Wikipedia appearances|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/wikipedia-ranking-world-universities-top-100|access-date = December 27, 2015|work = [[Times Higher Education]]|date = December 15, 2015}}</ref> They used [[PageRank]], [[CheiRank]] and similar algorithms "followed by the number of appearances in the 24 different language editions of Wikipedia (descending order) and the century in which they were founded (ascending order)".<ref name=wikipediarankingtimesworldunifranche /><ref>{{cite journal|author1=Lages, J.|author2=Patt, A.|author3=Shepelyansky, D.|year=2016|title=Wikipedia ranking of world universities|journal=[[European Physical Journal B|Eur. Phys. J. B]]|volume=89|page=69|arxiv=1511.09021|bibcode=2016EPJB...89...69L|doi=10.1140/epjb/e2016-60922-0|number=69|s2cid=1965378}}</ref> The study was updated in 2019.<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Coquidé, C.|author2=Lages, J.|author3=Shepelyansky, D.L.|year=2019|title=World influence and interactions of universities from Wikipedia networks.|journal=[[European Physical Journal B|Eur. Phys. J. B]]|volume=92|page=3|arxiv=1809.00332|bibcode=2019EPJB...92....3C|doi=10.1140/epjb/e2018-90532-7|number=3|s2cid=52154548}}</ref>

A 2017 [[MIT]] study suggests that words used on Wikipedia articles end up in scientific publications.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Brookshire|first1=Bethany|date=February 5, 2018|title=Wikipedia has become a science reference source even though scientists don't cite it|work=ScienceNews|department=SciCurious|url=https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/wikipedia-science-reference-citations|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=February 4, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180210120955/https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/wikipedia-science-reference-citations|archive-date=February 10, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Thompson|first1=Neil|last2=Hanley|first2=Douglas|date=February 13, 2018|title=Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence From a Randomized Control Trial|journal=MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5238-17|location=Rochester, NY|doi=10.2139/ssrn.3039505|ssrn=3039505|s2cid=30918097|via=[[SSRN]]}}</ref>

Studies related to Wikipedia have been using [[machine learning]] and [[artificial intelligence]]<ref name="NYT-20230718">{{cite news|last=Gertner|first=Jon|title=Wikipedia's Moment of Truth – Can the online encyclopedia help teach A.I. chatbots to get their facts right — without destroying itself in the process? + comment|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/magazine/wikipedia-ai-chatgpt.html#permid=126389255|date=July 18, 2023|work=[[The New York Times]]|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20230719220706/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/magazine/wikipedia-ai-chatgpt.html#permid=126389255|archivedate=July 19, 2023|accessdate=July 19, 2023 }}</ref> to support various operations. One of the most important areas is the automatic detection of vandalism<ref>{{cite conference|last1=Sarabadani|first1=Amir|last2=Halfaker|first2=Aaron|last3=Taraborelli|first3=Dario|title=Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion – WWW '17 Companion|author2-link=Aaron Halfaker|chapter=Building automated vandalism detection tools for Wikidata|date=April 2017|conference= International Conference on World Wide Web Companion|book-title=WWW '17 Companion: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion|publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]]|location=Perth; New York|pages=1647–1654|isbn=978-1450349147|doi=10.1145/3041021.3053366|arxiv=1703.03861}}</ref><ref>{{cite conference|last1=Potthast|first1=Martin|last2=Stein|first2=Benno|last3=Gerling|first3=Robert|title=Advances in Information Retrieval|chapter=Automatic Vandalism Detection in Wikipedia|book-title=Advances in Information Retrieval|date=2008|volume=4956|pages=663–668|doi=10.1007/978-3-540-78646-7_75|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science|isbn=978-3540786450|editor1-first=Craig|editor1-last=Macdonald|editor2-first=Iadh|editor2-last=Ounis|editor3-first=Vassilis|editor3-last=Plachouras|editor4-first=Ian|editor4-last=Ruthven|editor5-first=Ryen W.|editor5-last=White|conference=30th [[ECIR]]|location=Glasgow|publisher=Springer|citeseerx=10.1.1.188.1093 }}</ref> and [[data quality]] assessment in Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Asthana|first1=Sumit|last2=Halfaker|first2=Aaron|author2-link=Aaron Halfaker|editor1-last=Lampe|editor1-first=Cliff|editor1-link=Cliff Lampe|title=With Few Eyes, All Hoaxes are Deep|journal=Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction|date=November 2018|volume=2|issue=CSCW|doi=10.1145/3274290|at=21|publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]]|location=New York City|issn=2573-0142|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Petroni|first1=Fabio|last2=Broscheit|first2=Samuel|last3=Piktus|first3=Aleksandra|last4=Lewis|first4=Patrick|last5=Izacard|first5=Gautier|last6=Hosseini|first6=Lucas|last7=Dwivedi-Yu|first7=Jane|last8=Lomeli|first8=Maria|last9=Schick|first9=Timo|last10=Bevilacqua|first10=Michele|last11=Mazaré|first11=Pierre-Emmanuel|last12=Joulin|first12=Armand|last13=Grave|first13=Edouard|last14=Riedel|first14=Sebastian|title=Improving Wikipedia verifiability with AI|journal=[[Nature Machine Intelligence]]|date=2023|volume=5|issue=10|pages=1142–1148|doi=10.1038/s42256-023-00726-1|doi-access=free|arxiv=2207.06220}}</ref>

In February 2022, [[Civil Service (United Kingdom)|civil servants]] from the UK's [[Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities]] were found to have used Wikipedia for research in the drafting of the [[Levelling Up White Paper]] after journalists at ''[[The Independent]]'' noted that parts of the [[White paper#In government|document]] had been lifted directly from Wikipedia articles on [[Constantinople]] and the [[list of largest cities throughout history]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Stone|first=Jon|date=February 3, 2022|title=Parts of Michael Gove's levelling-up plan 'copied from Wikipedia'|work=[[The Independent]]|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/levelling-up-plan-copied-wikipedia-michael-gove-b2006757.html|url-status=live|access-date=February 3, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221213080622/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/levelling-up-plan-copied-wikipedia-michael-gove-b2006757.html|archive-date=December 13, 2022}}</ref>

== Related projects ==
Several interactive multimedia encyclopedias incorporating entries written by the public existed long before Wikipedia was founded. The first of these was the 1986 [[BBC Domesday Project]], which included text (entered on [[BBC Micro]] computers) and photographs from more than a million contributors in the UK, and covered the geography, art, and culture of the UK. This was the first interactive multimedia encyclopedia (and was also the first major multimedia document connected through internal links), with the majority of articles being accessible through an interactive map of the UK. The user interface and part of the content of the Domesday Project were emulated on a website until 2008.<ref name="Domesday Project" />

Several free-content, collaborative encyclopedias were created around the same period as Wikipedia (e.g. [[Everything2]]),<ref>{{cite news|last=Frauenfelder|first=Mark|date=November 21, 2000|title=The next generation of online encyclopedias|website=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/21/net.gen.encyclopedias.idg/index.html|url-status=live|access-date=February 4, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040814034109/https://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/21/net.gen.encyclopedias.idg/index.html|archive-date=August 14, 2004}}</ref> with many later being merged into the project (e.g. [[GNE (encyclopedia)|GNE]]).<ref group="W">{{Cite web|title=The Free Encyclopedia Project|url=https://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=GNU Operating System}}</ref> One of the most successful early online encyclopedias incorporating entries by the public was [[h2g2]], which was created by [[Douglas Adams]] in 1999. The h2g2 encyclopedia is relatively lighthearted, focusing on articles which are both witty and informative.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Rubin|first=Harriet|date=May 31, 1998|title=The Hitchhikers Guide to the New Economy|work=[[Fast Company]]|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/34100/hitchhikers-guide-new-economy|access-date=February 4, 2023}}</ref>

Subsequent collaborative [[knowledge base|knowledge]] websites have drawn inspiration from Wikipedia. Others use more traditional [[peer review]], such as ''[[Encyclopedia of Life]]'' and the online wiki encyclopedias ''[[Scholarpedia]]'' and [[Citizendium]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Encyclopedia of Life|url=http://naturalhistory.si.edu/research/eol|access-date=February 4, 2023|website=[[National Museum of Natural History]]|publisher=[[Smithsonian Institution|Smithsonian]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Scholarpedia: the free peer-reviewed encyclopedia|url=http://applied-neuroscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222104006/http://applied-neuroscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79|archive-date=February 22, 2012|website=Society of Applied Neuroscience}}</ref> The latter was started by Sanger in an attempt to create a reliable alternative to Wikipedia.<ref name="Orlowski18"/><ref name="JayLyman">{{cite news|first = Jay|last = Lyman|url = https://www.crmbuyer.com/story/53137.html|title = Wikipedia Co-Founder Planning New Expert-Authored Site|publisher = LinuxInsider|date = September 20, 2006|access-date = June 27, 2007|archive-date = September 28, 2007|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070928002933/http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/53137.html|url-status = dead }}</ref>

== See also ==
{{main category|Wikipedia}}
{{portal|Internet|Wikipedia}}
{{div col|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Democratization of knowledge]]
* [[Interpedia]], an early proposal for a collaborative [[Internet]] encyclopedia
* [[List of online encyclopedias]]
* [[List of Wikipedia controversies]]
* [[List of wikis]]
* [[Network effect]]
* [[Outline of Wikipedia]]{{snd}}guide to the subject of ''Wikipedia'' presented as a [[tree structure]]d list of its subtopics; for an outline of the contents of Wikipedia, see [[Portal:Contents/Outlines]]
* [[QRpedia]]{{snd}}multilingual, mobile interface to Wikipedia
* [[Wikipedia Review]]
{{div col end}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=note}}

== References ==
=== Wikipedia-affiliated and primary sources ===
<!--For Wikipedia internal pages, other WMF project pages, and WMF-published sources-->
{{reflist|group=W|refs=
<ref name=modelling group="W">[[Wikipedia: Modelling Wikipedia's growth]]</ref>
<ref name=Sanger group="W">{{cite news|first = Larry|last = Sanger|title = Wikipedia Is Up!|date = January 17, 2001|url=https://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000684.html|access-date = December 26, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010506042824/https://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000684.html|archive-date = May 6, 2001}}</ref>
<ref name=WikipediaHome group="W">{{cite web|url=https://www.wikipedia.com/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010331173908/https://www.wikipedia.com/|archive-date = March 31, 2001|title = Wikipedia: HomePage|access-date = March 31, 2001}}</ref>
<ref name=NOR group="W">{{self-reference link|Wikipedia:No original research|No original research}}. February 13, 2008. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought."</ref>
<ref name=autogenerated2 group="W">{{self-reference link|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view}}. February 13, 2008. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias."</ref>
<ref name="WP vandalism manipulation 1" group="W">{{self-reference link|Wikipedia:Vandalism|Vandalism}}. ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved November 6, 2012.</ref>
<ref name="WP DB usage policy 1" group="W">{{self-reference link|Wikipedia:Database download|Wikipedia policies}} on data download</ref>
<ref name="voteresult" group="W">[[meta:Licensing update/Result|Wikimedia]]</ref>
<ref name="NPOV" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], Wikipedia (January 21, 2007).</ref>
<ref name="Wikipedia in media" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media]]</ref>
<ref name="ListOfWikipedias" group="W">[[Special:Statistics]]</ref>
<ref name="stallman1999" group="W">{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html|title = The Free Encyclopedia Project|first = Richard M.|last = Stallman|author-link = Richard Stallman|date = June 20, 2007|publisher = Free Software Foundation|access-date = January 4, 2008}}</ref>
}}

=== Other sources ===
{{reflist|refs=
<ref name="nature.com crowds wisdom">{{cite web|title = Technical solutions: Wisdom of the crowds|url=https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04992.html|website = Nature|access-date = October 10, 2006}}</ref>
<!-- unused <ref name="Alexa siteinfo">{{cite web|title=Wikipedia.org Traffic, Demographics and Competitors|url=https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org|publisher=[[Alexa Internet]]|access-date=October 1, 2019}}</ref> -->
<ref name=comscore>{{cite web|url=https://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=849|title = 694 Million People Currently Use the Internet Worldwide According To comScore Networks|date = May 4, 2006|publisher = comScore|access-date = December 16, 2007|quote = Wikipedia has emerged as a site that continues to increase in popularity, both globally and in the US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080730011713/https://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=849|archive-date = July 30, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="Wikipedia users">{{cite web|first1 = Lee|last1 = Rainie|first2 = Bill|last2 = Tancer|title = Wikipedia users|publisher = Pew Research Center|website = Pew Internet & American Life Project|date = December 15, 2007|quote = 36% of online American adults consult Wikipedia. It is particularly popular with the well-educated and current college-age students.|url=https://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf|access-date = December 15, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080306031354/https://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf|archive-date = March 6, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="Bourgeois">{{cite web|url=https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf|title = Bourgeois et al. v. Peters et al.|access-date = February 6, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070203021430/https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf|archive-date = February 3, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="Courts turn to Wikipedia">{{cite news|last = Cohen|first = Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen|date = January 29, 2007|title = Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively|work = The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="US Intelligence">{{cite web|url = https://fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/03/the_wikipedia_factor_in_us_int.html|title = The Wikipedia Factor in US Intelligence|first = Steven|last = Aftergood|publisher = Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy|date = March 21, 2007|access-date = April 14, 2007|archive-date = January 18, 2013|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130118113948/http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/03/the_wikipedia_factor_in_us_int.html|url-status = dead }}</ref>
<ref name="Declan">{{cite journal|last = Butler|first = Declan|date = December 16, 2008|title = Publish in Wikipedia or perish|journal = Nature News|doi = 10.1038/news.2008.1312}}</ref>
<ref name=MiliardWho>{{cite news|url=https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-5129-feature-wikipediots-who-are-these-devoted-even-obsessive-contributors-to-wikipedia.html|first = Mike|last = Miliard|title = Wikipediots: Who Are These Devoted, Even Obsessive Contributors to Wikipedia?|work = [[Salt Lake City Weekly]]|date = March 1, 2008|access-date = December 18, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name=Time2006>{{cite news|date = December 13, 2006|url=https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,00.html|title = Time's Person of the Year: You|magazine = Time|access-date = December 26, 2008|first = Lev|last = Grossman}}</ref>
<ref name="AcademiaAndWikipedia">{{cite web|first = Danah|last = Boyd|url=https://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060316184224/https://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php|url-status=dead|archive-date = March 16, 2006|title = Academia and Wikipedia|website = Many 2 Many: A Group [[Blog|Weblog]] on Social Software|publisher = Corante|date = January 4, 2005|access-date = December 18, 2008|quote = [The author, Danah Boyd, describes herself as] an expert on social media[,] [...] a doctoral student in the School of Information at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] [,] and a fellow at the Harvard University [[Berkman Center for Internet & Society]] [at [[Harvard Law School]].]}}</ref>
<ref name="MIT_IBM_study">{{cite book|first1 = Fernanda B.|last1 = Viégas|first2 = Martin|last2 = Wattenberg|first3 = Kushal|last3 = Dave|title = CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems|chapter = The palm zire 71 camera interface|url=https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060125025047/https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf|archive-date = January 25, 2006|pages = 575–582|year = 2004|doi = 10.1145/985921.985953|isbn = 978-1581137026|s2cid = 10351688|access-date = January 24, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="CreatingDestroyingAndRestoringValue">{{cite journal|first1 = Reid|last1 = Priedhorsky|first2 = Jilin|last2 = Chen|author3 = Shyong (Tony) K. Lam|first4 = Katherine|last4 = Panciera|first5 = Loren|last5 = Terveen|first6 = John|last6 = Riedl|title = Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia|journal = Association for Computing Machinery Group '07 Conference Proceedings; GroupLens Research, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota|date = November 4, 2007|url=https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~reid/papers/group282-priedhorsky.pdf|access-date = October 13, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071025080718/https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~reid/papers/group282-priedhorsky.pdf|archive-date = October 25, 2007|df = mdy-all|citeseerx = 10.1.1.123.7456 }}</ref>
<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite news|url=https://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html|first = Jonathan|last = Sidener|title = Everyone's Encyclopedia|date = December 6, 2004|work = [[U-T San Diego]]|access-date = October 15, 2006|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071011150228/https://signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html|archive-date = October 11, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name=Meyers>{{cite news|first = Peter|last = Meyers|title = Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes+Topics%2FSubjects%2FC%2FComputer+Software|work = The New York Times|date = September 20, 2001|quote = 'I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph,' said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales.|access-date = November 22, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name=SangerMemoir>{{cite news|first = Larry|last = Sanger|title = The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir|date = April 18, 2005|work = Slashdot|url=https://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="EB_encyclopedia">{{cite encyclopedia|title = Encyclopedias and Dictionaries|encyclopedia = Encyclopædia Britannica|edition = 15th|year = 2007|volume = 18|pages = 257–286|author1 = <!-- Please add first missing authors to populate metadata. -->}}</ref>
<ref name=Shirky>{{cite book|first = Clay|last = Shirky|author-link = Clay Shirky|title = Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations|year=2008|publisher = The Penguin Press via Amazon Online Reader|url=https://archive.org/details/herecomeseverybo0000shir|isbn = 978-1594201530|page = [https://archive.org/details/herecomeseverybo0000shir/page/273 273]|access-date = December 26, 2008 }}</ref>
<ref name=FAZ>{{cite web|last = Thiel|first = Thomas|title = Wikipedia und Amazon: Der Marketplace soll es richten|website = Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung|language = de|date = September 27, 2010|url=https://www.faz.net/s/RubCF3AEB154CE64960822FA5429A182360/Doc~E7A20980B9C0D46E99A9F60BC09506343~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html|access-date = December 6, 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101126184904/https://www.faz.net/s/RubCF3AEB154CE64960822FA5429A182360/Doc~E7A20980B9C0D46E99A9F60BC09506343~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html|archive-date = November 26, 2010}}</ref>
<ref name="Seigenthaler">{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm|last = Seigenthaler|first = John|title = A False Wikipedia 'biography'|date = November 29, 2005|work = USA Today|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="Torsten_Kleinz">{{cite news|first = Torsten|last = Kleinz|title = World of Knowledge|work = Linux Magazine|quote = The Wikipedia's open structure makes it a target for trolls and vandals who malevolently add incorrect information to articles, get other people tied up in endless discussions, and generally do everything to draw attention to themselves.|date = February 2005|url=https://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/51/Wikipedia_Encyclopedia.pdf|access-date = July 13, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070925220722/https://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/51/Wikipedia_Encyclopedia.pdf|archive-date = September 25, 2007|df = mdy-all}}</ref>
<ref name="DeathByWikipedia">{{cite news|title = Death by Wikipedia: The Kenneth Lay Chronicles|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800135.html|first = Frank|last = Ahrens|newspaper = The Washington Post|date = July 9, 2006|access-date = November 1, 2006}}</ref>
<ref name="wikiality">{{cite news|title = Wikiality|url=https://www.cc.com/video-clips/z1aahs/the-colbert-report-the-word---wikiality|first = Stephen|last = Colbert|date = July 30, 2006|access-date = October 8, 2015}}</ref>
<ref name="Seeing Corporate Fingerprints">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html|title = Lifting Corporate Fingerprints From the Editing of Wikipedia|first = Katie|last = Hafner|work = The New York Times|date = August 19, 2007|access-date = December 26, 2008|page = 1}}</ref>
<ref name=Taylor>{{cite news|url=https://in.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idINIndia-32865420080405|title = China allows access to English Wikipedia|work = Reuters|first = Sophie|last = Taylor|date = April 5, 2008|access-date = July 29, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name=Kittur2009>{{cite conference|url=https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/papers/2009-CHI2009/p1509.pdf|title=What's in Wikipedia?: mapping topics and conflict using socially annotated category structure|first1=Aniket|last1=Kittur|first2=Ed H.|last2=Chi|first3=Bongwon|last3=Shu|author2-link=Ed Chi|date=April 2009|conference=CHI|book-title=CHI '09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems|publisher=Association for Computing Machinery|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413130503/https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/papers/2009-CHI2009/p1509.pdf|archive-date=April 13, 2016|location=Boston; New York|pages=1509–1512|isbn=978-1605582467|doi=10.1145/1518701.1518930}}</ref>

<!-- Not in use
<ref name=Rosenzweig>{{cite journal|first = Roy|last = Rosenzweig|title = Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past|journal = The Journal of American History|volume = 93|issue = 1|date = June 2006|pages = 117–146|url=https://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/?essayid=42|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100425130754/https://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/?essayid=42|url-status=dead|archive-date = April 25, 2010|access-date = August 11, 2006|doi = 10.2307/4486062|jstor = 4486062}} (Center for History and New Media.)</ref>
Not in use-->

<ref name="WikipediaWatch">Public Information Research, Wikipedia Watch</ref>
<ref name="McHenry_2004">{{cite news|last1=McHenry|first1=Robert|title=The Faith-Based Encyclopedia|url=https://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html|work=[[TCS Daily|Tech Central Station]]|date=November 15, 2004|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060107210301/https://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html|archive-date=January 7, 2006}}</ref>
<ref name="WideWorldOfWikipedia">{{cite news|title = Wide World of Wikipedia|newspaper = The Emory Wheel|url=https://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=17902|date = April 21, 2006|access-date = October 17, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071107052908/https://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=17902|archive-date = November 7, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="AWorkInProgress">{{cite news|first = Burt|last = Helm|title = Wikipedia: 'A Work in Progress'|url=https://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm|work = Bloomberg BusinessWeek|date = December 14, 2005|access-date = January 29, 2007|archive-date = April 21, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120421000522/https://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm}}</ref>
<ref name="GilesJ2005Internet">{{cite journal|first = Jim|last = Giles|title = Internet encyclopedias go head to head|journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume = 438|issue = 7070|pages = 900–901|date = December 2005|pmid = 16355180|doi = 10.1038/438900a|author-link = Jim Giles (reporter)|bibcode = 2005Natur.438..900G|doi-access = free}} {{subscription required}}
Note: The study was cited in several news articles; e.g.:
* {{cite news|title = Wikipedia survives research test|work = BBC News|url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm|date = December 15, 2005 }}</ref>
<ref name="corporate.britannica.com">{{cite report|author=Encyclopædia Britannica|author-link=Encyclopædia Britannica|date=March 2006|title=Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal ''Nature''|url=https://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160709053629/https://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf|archive-date=July 9, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>
<ref name="stothart">Chloe Stothart. [https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=209408 "Web threatens learning ethos"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121221140310/https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=209408|date=December 21, 2012}} ''The Times Higher Education Supplement'', 2007, 1799 (June 22), p. 2.</ref>
<ref name="The Register-April">{{cite news|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/sanger_reports_wikimedia_to_the_fbi/|work = The Register|date = April 9, 2010|first = Cade|last = Metz|title = Wikifounder reports Wikiparent to FBI over 'child porn'|access-date = April 19, 2010}}</ref>
<ref name=AFP>{{cite news|last1 = Agence France-Presse|title = Wikipedia rejects child porn accusation|url=https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh.html|work = The Sydney Morning Herald|date = April 29, 2010}}</ref>
<ref name="David_Mehegan">{{cite news|first = David|last = Mehegan|title = Many contributors, common cause|url=https://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/13/many_contributors_common_cause|work = Boston Globe|date = February 13, 2006|access-date = March 25, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="user identification">{{cite web|title = The Authority of Wikipedia|url=https://www.public.iastate.edu/~goodwin/pubs/goodwinwikipedia.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091122202231/https://www.public.iastate.edu/~goodwin/pubs/goodwinwikipedia.pdf|archive-date = November 22, 2009|first = Jean|last = Goodwin|year = 2009|quote = Wikipedia's commitment to anonymity/pseudonymity thus imposes a sort of epistemic agnosticism on its readers|access-date = January 31, 2011}}</ref>
<ref name="WP_court_source">{{cite journal|last = Arias|first = Martha L.|date = January 29, 2007|url=https://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1668|title = Wikipedia: The Free Online Encyclopedia and its Use as Court Source|journal = Internet Business Law Services|access-date = December 26, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120520054827/https://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1668|archive-date = May 20, 2012|url-status=dead|df = mdy-all}} (The name "''World Intellectual Property Office''" should however read "''World Intellectual Property Organization''" in this source.)</ref>
<ref name=twsY23>{{cite news|author = Lexington|title = Classlessness in America: The uses and abuses of an enduring myth|newspaper = The Economist|quote = Socialist Labour Party of America [...] though it can trace its history as far back as 1876, when it was known as the Workingmen's Party, no less an authority than Wikipedia pronounces it "moribund".|date = September 24, 2011|url=https://www.economist.com/node/21530100|access-date = September 27, 2011}}</ref>
<ref name="Domesday Project">{{cite web|url = https://www.domesday1986.com/|title = Website discussing the emulator of the Domesday Project User Interface|author = Heart Internet|access-date = September 9, 2014|archive-date = May 17, 2014|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140517075130/http://domesday1986.com/|url-status = dead }}</ref>
<ref name="Orlowski18">{{cite news|first = Andrew|last = Orlowski|author-link = Andrew Orlowski|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia|title = Wikipedia founder forks Wikipedia, More experts, less fiddling?|work = The Register|date = September 18, 2006|quote = Larry Sanger describes the Citizendium project as a "progressive or gradual fork", with the major difference that experts have the final say over edits.|access-date = June 27, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="bing WP research and referencing">{{cite web|url=https://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2009/07/27/researching-with-bing-reference.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101023202054/https://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2009/07/27/researching-with-bing-reference.aspx|archive-date=October 23, 2010|title = Researching With Bing Reference|access-date = September 9, 2014}}</ref>
<ref name="J Sidener">{{cite news|url=https://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/tech/personaltech/20061009-9999-mz1b9wikiped.html|title = Wikipedia family feud rooted in San Diego|last = Sidener|first = Jonathan|date = October 9, 2006|work = [[The San Diego Union-Tribune]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111074945/https://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/tech/personaltech/20061009-9999-mz1b9wikiped.html|archive-date = November 11, 2016|access-date = May 5, 2009}}</ref>
<ref name="emory disputes handled 1">{{cite journal|title = Wikitruth through Wikiorder|ssrn = 1354424|journal = Emory Law Journal|volume = 59|issue = 1|year = 2009|page = 181|first1 = David A.|last1 = Hoffman|first2 = Salil K.|last2 = Mehra}}</ref>
}}

== Further reading ==
=== Academic studies ===
{{main|Academic studies about Wikipedia}}
* {{cite book|isbn =978-1421415352|last=Leitch|first= Thomas|title=Wikipedia U: Knowledge, authority, and a liberal education in the digital age|year=2014|publisher=JHU Press }}
* {{cite journal|last=Jensen|first=Richard|title=Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812|journal=The Journal of Military History|volume=76|issue=4|date=October 2012|pages=523–556|url=https://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021042738/https://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF|archive-date=October 21, 2012}}
* {{cite journal|title = Circadian Patterns of Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A Demographic Analysis|first1 = Taha|last1 = Yasseri|year = 2012|journal = PLOS ONE|volume = 7|first2 = Robert|last2 = Sumi|first3 = János|last3 = Kertész|issue = 1|doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0030091|editor1-last = Szolnoki|editor1-first = Attila|page = e30091|pmid = 22272279|pmc = 3260192|arxiv = 1109.1746|bibcode = 2012PLoSO...730091Y|doi-access = free }}
* {{cite journal|ssrn = 1458162|title = Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its Consequences|first = Eric|last = Goldman|year = 2010|journal = Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law|volume = 8}} ([https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/02/catching_up_wit.htm A blog post by the author.])
* {{cite journal|first = Finn|last = Nielsen|title = Scientific Citations in Wikipedia|journal = [[First Monday (journal)|First Monday]]|volume = 12|issue = 8|date = August 2007|doi = 10.5210/fm.v12i8.1997|arxiv = 0805.1154|citeseerx = 10.1.1.246.4536|s2cid = 58893|doi-access = free }}
* {{cite journal|last1 = Pfeil|first1 = Ulrike|first2 = Panayiotis|last2 = Zaphiris|author3 = Chee Siang Ang|title = Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of Wikipedia|journal = Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication|year = 2006|volume = 12|issue = 1|page = 88|url = https://jcmc.indiana.edu./vol12/issue1/pfeil.html|doi = 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00316.x|access-date = December 26, 2008|doi-access = free }}
* {{cite book|author1=Priedhorsky|author2=Reid|first3=Jilin|last3=Chen|author4=Shyong (Tony) K. Lam|first5=Katherine|last5=Panciera|author6-link=Loren Terveen|first6=Loren|last6=Terveen|author7-link=John Riedl|first7=John|last7=Riedl|title=Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Conference on supporting group work – Group '07|doi=10.1145/1316624.1316663|chapter=Creating, destroying, and restoring value in Wikipedia|year=2007|isbn=978-1595938459|citeseerx=10.1.1.123.7456|pages=259–268|s2cid=15350808}}
* {{cite conference|first = Joseph|last = Reagle|title = Do as I Do: Authorial Leadership in Wikipedia|work = WikiSym '07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis|publisher = ACM|location = Montreal|year = 2007|url=https://reagle.org/joseph/2007/10/Wikipedia-Authorial-Leadership.pdf|hdl=2047/d20002876|access-date = December 26, 2008}}
* {{cite book|first = Emiel|last = Rijshouwer|date = 2019|title = Organizing Democracy. Power concentration and self-organization in the evolution of Wikipedia (PhD, Erasmus University Rotterdam)|publisher = Rijksuniversiteit Groningen|oclc = 1081174169|hdl = 1765/113937|isbn = 978-9402813715}} (Open access)
* [[Roy Rosenzweig|Rosenzweig, Roy]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090430201444/https://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42 Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past]. (Originally published in ''[[The Journal of American History]]'' 93.1 (June 2006): 117–146.)
* {{cite journal|title = Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia|first1 = Dennis M.|last1 = Wilkinson|first2 = Bernardo A.|last2 = Huberman|journal = First Monday|volume = 12|issue = 4|date = April 2007|doi = 10.5210/fm.v12i4.1763|arxiv = cs/0702140|citeseerx = 10.1.1.342.6933|bibcode = 2007cs........2140W|hdl = 2027.42/136037|s2cid = 10484077|doi-access = free }}
* {{cite journal|title = The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community|journal = American Behavioral Scientist|first = Aaron|last = Halfaker|author2 = R. Stuart Geiger|first3 = Jonathan T.|last3 = Morgan|first4 = John|last4 = Riedl|doi = 10.1177/0002764212469365|year = 2012|volume = 57|issue = 5|page = 664|s2cid = 144208941 }}
* {{cite journal|last1=Maggio|first1=Lauren A.|last2=Willinsky|first2=John M.|last3=Steinberg|first3=Ryan M.|last4=Mietchen|first4=Daniel|last5=Wass|first5=Joseph L.|last6=Dong|first6=Ting|author2-link=John Willinsky|title=Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia|journal=[[PLOS One]]|date=2017|volume=12|issue=12|pages=e0190046|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0190046|publisher=[[PLOS]]|pmid=29267345|pmc=5739466|bibcode=2017PLoSO..1290046M|doi-access=free}}

=== Books ===
{{main|List of books about Wikipedia}}
* {{cite book|last=Keen|first=Andrew|title=The Cult of the Amateur|publisher=Doubleday/Currency|year=2007|isbn=978-0385520805|author-link=Andrew Keen|title-link=The Cult of the Amateur}} (Substantial criticisms of Wikipedia and other web 2.0 projects.)
** Listen to: {{cite news|last=Keen|first=Andrew|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11131872|title=Does the Internet Undermine Culture? |newspaper=National Public Radio, US|date=June 16, 2007}} The NPR interview with A. Keen, Weekend Edition Saturday, June 16, 2007.
* {{cite book|first1=Phoebe|last1=Ayers|first2=Charles|last2=Matthews|first3=Ben|last3=Yates|title=How Wikipedia Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It|publisher=No Starch Press|location=San Francisco|year=2008|isbn=978-1593271763|url=https://archive.org/details/howwikipediawork00ayer_0}}
* {{cite book|last=Broughton|first=John|title=Wikipedia – The Missing Manual|publisher=O'Reilly Media|year=2008|isbn=978-0596515164|title-link=Wikipedia – The Missing Manual}} (See book review by Baker, as listed hereafter.)
* {{cite book|last=Broughton|first=John|title=Wikipedia Reader's Guide|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780596521745|url-access=registration|publisher=Pogue Press|location=Sebastopol|year=2008|isbn=978-0596521745}}
* {{cite book|first1=Sheizaf|last1=Rafaeli|first2=Yaron|last2=Ariel|year=2008|chapter=Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia|editor=Barak, A.|title=Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications|url=https://archive.org/details/psychologicalasp00bara|url-access=limited|pages=[https://archive.org/details/psychologicalasp00bara/page/n261 243]–267|location=Cambridge, UK|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-0521694643|author1-link=Sheizaf Rafaeli}}
* {{cite book|last=Dalby|first=Andrew|author-link=Andrew Dalby|title=The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality|publisher=Siduri|year=2009|isbn=978-0956205209|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/worldwikipediaho0000dalb}}
* {{cite book|last=Lih|first=Andrew|author-link=Andrew Lih|title=The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia|publisher=Hyperion|location=New York|year=2009|isbn=978-1401303716|title-link=The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia}}
* {{cite book|last=O'Sullivan|first=Dan|title=Wikipedia: a new community of practice?|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=htu8A-m_Y4EC|year=2009|publisher=Ashgate Publishing|isbn=978-0754674337}}
* {{cite book|last1=Rahmstorf|first1=Olaf|title=Wikipedia – die rationale Seite der Digitalisierung?|date=2023|publisher=transcript Verlag|isbn=978-3839458624|language=de}}
* {{cite book|last=Reagle|first=Joseph Michael Jr.|title=Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia|publisher=the [[MIT Press]]|location=Cambridge, MA|year=2010|isbn=978-0262014472|url=https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc|access-date=October 25, 2015}}
* {{cite book|first1=Dariusz|last1=Jemielniak|title=Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia|publisher=[[Stanford University Press]]|location=Stanford, CA|year=2014|isbn=978-0804789448|title-link=Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Reagle|editor1-first=Joseph|editor2-last=Koerner|editor2-first=Jackie|url=https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/wikipedia-20|title=Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution|publisher=[[MIT Press]]|year=2020|access-date=October 13, 2020|isbn=978-0262538176}}
* {{Cite book|last=Bruckman|first=Amy S.|title=Should You Believe Wikipedia?: Online Communities and the Construction of Knowledge|date=2022|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1108780704|doi=10.1017/9781108780704}}

=== Book review–related articles ===
* [[Nicholson Baker|Baker, Nicholson]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080303001807/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 "The Charms of Wikipedia"]. ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', March 20, 2008. Retrieved December 17, 2008. (Book rev. of ''The Missing Manual'', by John Broughton, as listed previously.)
* [[L. Gordon Crovitz|Crovitz, L. Gordon]]. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123897399273491031 "Wikipedia's Old-Fashioned Revolution: The online encyclopedia is fast becoming the best."] (Originally published in [[The Wall Street Journal|''Wall Street Journal'']] online{{snd}}April 6, 2009.)
* [[Virginia Postrel|Postrel, Virginia]], [https://psmag.com/social-justice/killed-wikipedia-93777 "Who Killed Wikipedia? : A hardened corps of volunteer editors is the only force protecting Wikipedia. They might also be killing it"], ''[[Pacific Standard]]'', November/December 2014 issue.

=== Other media coverage ===
{{see also|List of films about Wikipedia}}
* {{cite news|last = Balke|first = Jeff|url = https://blogs.chron.com/brokenrecord/2008/03/for_music_fans_wikipedia_myspa.html|title = For Music Fans: Wikipedia; MySpace|work = [[Houston Chronicle]]|agency = Broken Record (blog)|date = March 2008|access-date = December 17, 2008|archive-date = December 29, 2008|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20081229164945/http://blogs.chron.com/brokenrecord/2008/03/for_music_fans_wikipedia_myspa.html|url-status = dead }}
* {{cite news|last=Borland|first=John|date=August 14, 2007|title=See Who's Editing Wikipedia – Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign|url=https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiki-tracker/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151116134820/https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiki-tracker/|archive-date=November 16, 2015|url-status=live|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|access-date=October 23, 2018 }}
* {{cite news|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html|title = All the News That's Fit to Print Out|first = Jonathan|last = Dee|work = The New York Times Magazine|date = July 1, 2007|access-date = February 22, 2008 }}
* {{cite news|first = Jim|last = Giles|title = Wikipedia 2.0 – Now with Added Trust|url = https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526226.200|date = September 20, 2007|work = [[New Scientist]]|access-date = January 14, 2008 }}
* {{cite news|first = Mike|last = Miliard|title = Wikipedia Rules|url = https://thephoenix.com/Boston/Life/52864-Wikipedia-rules|work = [[The Phoenix (newspaper)|The Phoenix]]|date = December 2, 2007|access-date = February 22, 2008 }}
* {{cite news|first = Marshall|last = Poe|author-link = Marshall Poe|url = https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia|title = The Hive|work = [[The Atlantic]] Monthly|date = September 1, 2006|access-date = March 22, 2008 }}
* {{cite news|first = Michael S.|last = Rosenwald|url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204715.html?hpid=topnews|title = Gatekeeper of D.C.'s entry: Road to city's Wikipedia page goes through a DuPont Circle bedroom|date = October 23, 2009|newspaper = The Washington Post|access-date = October 22, 2009 }}
* {{cite news|first = David|last = Runciman|url = https://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html|title = Like Boiling a Frog|date = May 28, 2009|work = London Review of Books|access-date = June 3, 2009|archive-date = May 27, 2009|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090527013530/http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html|url-status = dead }}
* {{cite news|first = Chris|last = Taylor|url = https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066904-1,00.html|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050602012551/https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066904-1,00.html|url-status = dead|archive-date = June 2, 2005|title = It's a Wiki, Wiki World|date = May 29, 2005|magazine = [[Time (magazine)|Time]]|access-date = February 22, 2008 }}
* {{cite news|url = https://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11484062|title = Technological Quarterly: Brain Scan: The Free-knowledge Fundamentalist|newspaper = [[The Economist]]|date = June 5, 2008|access-date = June 5, 2008|quote = Jimmy Wales changed the world with Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What will he do next? }}
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24613608 "Wikipedia probe into paid-for 'sockpuppet' entries"], BBC News, October 21, 2013.
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ "The Decline of Wikipedia"] {{Webarchive|url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20131023135648/https://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the%2Ddecline%2Dof%2Dwikipedia/|date=October 23, 2013 }}, ''MIT Technology Review'', October 22, 2013
* [https://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-traced-1-police-plaza "Edits to Wikipedia pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo traced to 1{{nbsp}}Police Plaza"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150313150951/https://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-traced-1-police-plaza|date=March 13, 2015 }} (March 2015), ''[[Media in New York's Capital District|Capital]]''
* [https://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating Angola's Wikipedia Pirates Are Exposing Problems] (March 2016), ''[[Vice (magazine)|Motherboard]]''
* {{cite web|url=https://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-wikipedia|title=Dark Side of Wikipedia|access-date=April 17, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160804110601/https://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-wikipedia|archive-date=August 4, 2016|url-status=dead }} ''[[Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson]]'', April 17, 2016. <small>(Includes video.)</small>
* {{cite web|last1 = Wales|first1 = Jimmy|title = How Wikipedia Works|url = https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/how-wikipedia-works|website = cato.org|publisher = [[Cato Institute]]|date = December 9, 2016|quote = Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, discusses the site, how it's treated by governments, and how it's fueled by its users. }}
* [https://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2014/01/15/the-great-book-of-knowledge-part-1/ The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1: A Wiki is a Kind of Bus], ''[[Ideas (radio show)|Ideas, with Paul Kennedy]]'', [[CBC Radio One]], originally broadcast January 15, 2014. The webpage includes a link to the archived audio program (also [https://www.cbc.ca/ideas/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2430203709 found here]). The radio documentary discusses Wikipedia's history, development, and its place within the broader scope of the trend to democratized knowledge. It also includes interviews with several key Wikipedia staff and contributors, including [[Kat Walsh]] and [[Sue Gardner]] (audio, 53:58, Flash required).
* [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html "So Is Wikipedia Cracking Up?"] ''The Independent'', February 3, 2009.
* [https://gizmodo.com/wikipedias-yearend-list-shows-what-the-internet-needed-1840690794 Wikipedia's Year-End List Shows What the Internet Needed to Know in 2019]. Alyse Stanley, December 27, 2019, Gizmodo.

== External links ==
* {{official website}} – multilingual portal (contains links to all language editions)
* {{Twitter|Wikipedia}}
* {{Curlie|Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/Wikipedia}}
* {{Guardian topic}}
* [https://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/wikipedia Wikipedia] topic page at ''[[The New York Times]]''
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_wales_the_birth_of_wikipedia Video of TED talk by Jimmy Wales on the birth of Wikipedia]

{{Wikipedia|state=expanded}}
{{Wikipedias}}
{{Wikimedia Foundation}}
{{Wiki topics}}
{{Princess of Asturias Award for International Cooperation}}
{{subject bar|wikt=y|voy=Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikipedia|d=Q52|s=Category:Wikipedia|n=Category:Wikipedia|m=Wikipedia|mw=Wikipedia|species=no}}
{{Authority control}}


[[Category:Wikipedia| ]]
[[Category:Online encyclopedias]]
[[Category:Social information processing]]
[[Category:Wikimedia projects]]
[[Category:Multilingual websites]]
[[Category:Creative Commons-licensed websites]]
[[Category:Free-content websites]]
[[Category:2001 establishments in the United States]]
[[Category:Internet properties established in 2001]]
[[Category:Jimmy Wales]]
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]