User:Wikispace171

Wikipedia is a wiki, which is (according to Wikipedia) “a website that allows the easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a WYSIWYG text editor”. Wikis are generally collaborative and incorporate content created by people outside of the employ/membership of the web site's owner(s) itself.

Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit group dedicated to the global collection and dissemination of knowledge. There is a hierarchy of user power defined by access levels and a board of administrators called the Arbitration Committee, though users themselves are supposed to be equal in terms of discussion and consensus. Wikipedia is governed by a documented set of rules, though according to one of its core policies, WP:IGNORE, rules can be ignored freely by users when following the rules would inhibit the improvement or maintenance of Wikipedia.

All articles on the wiki have associated discussion pages, which form a social space with a unique set of values and contexts. Discussions range from policy proposals to deletion discussions to arguments about article content. Wikipedia's guidelines, policies, and precedence structure these discussions and how they are applied to actual article material.

Funding
Where does wikipedia get all their money???

Wikipedia has a Fundraising committee created by Daniel Mayer and approved on June 7, 2006

The Wikimedia Foundation's fundraiser from 16 December 2006-15 January 2007 succeeded in raising just more than US$1 million

Running from October 22, 2007 to January 6, 2008, the 07-08 Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser led to contributions totaling 2.162 million dollars from nearly 45,000 donors worldwide

The 2008 Annual Fundraiser succeeded in exceeding its $6 million dollar goal. The fundraiser started on November 4th, 2008 and ended on January 9th, 2009.

Wikipedia's success can be attributed to it's model of operation: crowdsourcing [article blacklisted].

Unfortunately, the number of editors and administrators are decreasing. More and more are "throwing in the towel" with no one to replace them. New users have more and more barriers to cross in order to participate in the community.

PC World's Ian Lamont says that "Wikipedia's obscure markup language has always been a turnoff for new contributors, but the introduction of various rules over the years to counteract spam, vandalism, conflicts of interest and other problems has made contributing even minor updates an exercise in frustration."

Rules to follow
First - topic must be notable, must have received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources such as mainstream media or major academic journals that are independent of the subject of the topic.

Second - must show information that can be verified by a reliable source. It cannot be new information or original works.

Third - must not be biased, must have neutral point of view (NPOV).

This exists because of concerns about vandalism and appropriateness of content

Deletionism and Inclusionism
Deletionism and inclusionism are the two main opposing philosophies held by editors of Wikipedia, regarding whether content should be deleted or included. These two philosophies spawned The Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.

Deletionists argue for the deletion of articles that they claim are short and poorly written, unreferenced or referenced only by Web-based sources, that they claim fail the community standards of notability or contain trivial, unencyclopedic attributes. Favors objectivity and conformity, "Wikipedia is not Google," a "junkyard," or "a dumping ground for facts."

Inclusionists aim to preserve more content, for higher tolerance of "stub" articles, and for an acceptance of notable blogs and other Web-based sources. Favors the idiosyncratic and subjective, slogan is "Wikipedia is not paper."

* Membership for both groups is neither limited nor difficult to join.

Things to avoid
Over time, the community has developed Notability jargon:

Wikipuffery- "larding" a subject to legitimize it

Peacocking - promoting subject with adjectives

Bombardment - large number of references

Masking - attempting to prove notability

Weasel Words - evasive, ambiguous, or misleading words

Frankenstein - numerous sources not related to the subject

If a topic is deemed unworthy of its own article, the Deletionpedia bot picks it up and archives it. This furthers our recent fascination with technology's ability to preserve space and information.

Wikis
Wikipedia functions in a more general space of the internet wiki community (as well as the internet as a whole, and even more generally, educational/journalistic space). Most of the wiki community is very familiar with Wikipedia, and there are a variety of smaller wikis on the web that are related to or imitate Wikipedia. Many of these sites use MediaWiki, Wikipedia's wiki software, though some choose other or more specialized wikis, like DocuWiki (wiki software) or TV Tropes (proprietary wiki). The Wikipedia Foundation itself hosts a number of sites and wikis related to Wikipedia, like Wiktionary and Wikibooks.

Wikipedia is owned and maintained by the Wikipedia Foundation, of which Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder and community leader, is a member of the Board of Trustees. The Foundation is non-profit, though Wales has started for-profit endeavors based around it, such as Wikia.


 * See: Uncyclopedia
 * See: Encyclopaedia Dramatica

Many wiki's, especially those hosted using the MediaWiki software (like Wikia wikis), link extensively to Wikipedia, particularly for policy and guideline blueprints. In turn, these wikis are commonly added as links in relevant Wikipedia articles, thus creating a network of information and users. This reinforces the notion of Wikis as occupying a larger shared space than just themselves.

Media
Wikipedia is currently treated as a useful tool by many web users, though it has a somewhat taboo status in academia, and criticism of it is plentiful. Wikipedia itself has been addressed many times by old media and new media alike, such as newspapers and blogs. These outlets collectively construct Wikipedia's place among other forms of media in the internet/media landscape. Wikipedia is large enough for examples of a plethora of critiques of the site can be backed up, and most of Wikipedia's applicability is rooted in how these other institutions and other forms of media create a framework of when it's appropriate to use Wikipedia and when it is not.
 * See: Conservapedia
 * See: Criticism of Wikipedia
 * See: MSN Article

The Wikipedia Foundation shares most of its material by using the GNU license, including its wiki software, MediaWiki. Additionally, Wikipedia can be used (and abused) in order to bring attention to (or promote) specific ideas and ideologies, which influences general users—especially those using Wikipedia as a research tool—and can impact other forms of media like blogs and editorials.

On multiple occasions, articles have been edited by users and groups that violate POV policy, and have been publicly ostracized for their activities. It's clear that those who shouldn't be editing Wikipedia frequently attempt to do so, and it's likely that the majority of them aren't caught (those that are caught are only found because they make edits using company computers/IP addresses). Groups benefit from their ability to manipulate their image on Wikipedia, and individuals benefit by being able to take part in building that image against or alongside them.


 * See: my uncle's article

In the space Wikipedia occupies, no one body holds total power. Wikipedia is heavily dependent on other forms of media, as it does not accept original research for articles. This creates a self-referential loop for media forms, as other media might be references on Wikipedia, which might itself be referenced by another media, which might itself be referenced by Wikipedia, and so on. Other media sources, in turn, are given legitimacy and exposure when linked by Wikipedia.

Outside Forces
thumb|right|Conservapedia logo Wikipedia is never given total immunity to outside forces in any way. While it can regulate itself internally, it cannot protect itself as a member of information providers. Its reputation can be damaged from outside, similarly to its pages, and targeted vandalism can take place that damages the site's integrity. Wikipedia itself is frequently made from of by other forms of media and wiki's themselves.


 * See: Wikiality

Other wikis like Encyclopaedia Dramatica and Conservapedia provide unique alternatives and critiques to Wikipedia. While actively criticizing Wikipedia, they rely on the Wikipedia Foundation for their MediaWiki software and on the concept of Wikipedia as a reference for users. By supplying these other sites with their software, Wikipedia provides opportunities for dissent and difference. However, in its act of free information aggregation, it has potential to damage other forms of media (books), thereby discouraging different methods of sharing knowledge.

Wikipedia is usually valued as a tool to introduce oneself to a topic or gain general knowledge. It isn't usually used as a cited source for research. Many users value it as a place of public discussion indirectly by the way controversial articles act as shifting compromises to opposing sides, or as a target for vandalism. Online, Wikipedia is valued heavily as a general information repository, oftentimes coming up as the first Google result for searches relating to a wide range of topics. Wikipedia itself values other forms of media extensively, using them for citations and sometimes donations.

Wikipedia, in the scope of educational information spaces, has issues with accuracy, relevance, and context, which have been very influential in determining Wikipedia's place in daily life and in research. In order to improve its image among media sources and skeptical users, it may prove beneficial for them to embrace technology like WikiTrust, which helps to alleviate the perceived problems with the wiki.


 * See: WikiTrust

Formalization
Wikipedia promotes certain cultural and ideological rhetoric. Its policies and practices are largely against censorship of any kind. Its nature and license very much promotes collaboration and free information, which as a culture has had an impact on other media such as news and computer software.

Wikipedia, as an extremely relational but also very accessible work, has permeated into everyday life for much of the web-connected world. As both a collection and an affecter of “common knowledge,” Wikipedia has a role in all sorts of spaces, especially the political and the academic. Wikipedia has made efforts to transfer portions of its information on offline media in order to share it with less connected regions (such as on CD), though all distribution has generally required modern electronic equipment to use.

Over the years, Wikipedia has emerged as a central hub of knowledge, probably moreso than any other site or body. As such, it will continue to have a strong impact—and be strongly impacted by—all other forms of media and sources of knowledge.