The Full Wiki

Wikipedia Review: Wikis

Advertisements
  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Review
Wikipediareviewlogo.png
The Wikipedia Review logo, which uses a white hat
URL www.wikipediareview.com
Commercial? No
Type of site Internet forum
Registration Optional (required to post)
Available language(s) English, German
Owner Anonymous
Launched Original site: November 2005.[1]
Current site: February 19, 2006.[2]
Revenue Accepts donation
Current status Active

The Wikipedia Review is an Internet forum for the discussion of Wikimedia projects, particularly the English Wikipedia, its content and conflicts,[3] and its participants' editing practices.[4] InformationWeek described Wikipedia Review, along with Wikitruth, as being a "watchdog" site, "dedicated to scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws".[5] It provides an independent forum, whose frequenters include users banned from Wikipedia,[6][7] to discuss Wikipedia editors and their influence on Wikipedia content. As of September 2009 the forum contained more than 180,000 posts.[8]

Contents

Background

The site was originally founded in November 2005 by "Igor Alexander", and hosted by ProBoards.[1][9] Since February 2006, the forum has been located at its own domain name and uses Invision Power Board software.[2] The site requires registration using a valid e-mail address to post and blacklists email providers which allow anonymity, which it says is to discourage the operation of multiple accounts by a single user.[10]

Criticisms of Wikipedia posted on the Wikipedia Review website include examples of plagiarism, discussions of the validity of pseudonymous and "amateur" (or layman) editing, and critiques of the influence of Jimmy Wales.[11] As well as criticism, the site has also been cited for its discussion and evaluation of concepts surrounding wiki-editing, such as the Palo Alto Research Company's WikiDashboard,[12][13] as well as used as an evaluation subject for the tool.[14]

Involvements

Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others.
Statement made when the site was out of service, Wikipedia Review[15]

The Guardian's Seth Finkelstein writes that the site has provided a focal point for investigation into Wikipedia-related matters such as the "Essjay controversy".[16] Cade Metz, writing for The Register, attributed the discovery of a private mailing list that led to the resignation of a Wikipedia administrator to Wikipedia Review, and suggested that mentioning Wikipedia Review was banned on Wikipedia.[17] The Independent noted that "allegations against certain administrators came to a head on a site called Wikipedia Review, where people debate the administrators' actions."[18] Irish technology website Silicon Republic suggested visiting Wikipedia Review in order to "follow disputes, discussions, editors and general bureaucracy on Wikipedia".[19] Philip Coppens used posts made on Wikipedia Review to help construct a report, published in Nexus Magazine, on WikiScanner and allegations that intelligence agencies had been using Wikipedia to spread disinformation. .[20] Science fiction writer Kathryn Cramer used the site to gain a better insight into Wikipedia editors, and described topics on Wikipedia Review as "fascinating reading".[21]

Content and structure

The Wikipedia Review's publicly accessible forums are broken up into four general topic areas: Forum information; Wikimedia-oriented discussion, which contains subforums focusing on editors, the Wikipedia bureaucracy, meta discussion, articles and general Wikimedia-focused topics not fitting elsewhere; Media forums containing a news feed and discussion about news and blogs featuring Wikipedia/Wikimedia; and off topic, non-Wikimedia related discussions.[8]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b "Original Wikipedia Review on Proboards". Wikipedia Review. 2005-11-25. Archived from the original on 2006-01-17. http://web.archive.org/web/20060117153536/wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132934970&page=1. 
  2. ^ a b "First post on www.wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. 2006-02-19. Archived from the original on 2006-05-31. http://web.archive.org/web/20060531011359/http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1. 
  3. ^ Mahadevan, Jeremy (2006-03-05). "Not everything on Wikipedia is fact". New Straits Times. http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/415771/not_everything_on_wikipedia_is_fact/index.html. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  4. ^ Spalding, Steve (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia's Doubleplusgood Editing Practices". How to Split an Atom. http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/wikipedias-doubleplusgood-editing-practices/. Retrieved 2008-07-04. 
  5. ^ LaPlante, Alice (2006-07-14). "Spawn Of Wikipedia". InformationWeek. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/07/spawn_of_wikipe.html. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  6. ^ Shankbone, David (June 2008). "Nobody's safe in cyberspace". The Brooklyn Rail. http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/06/express/nobodys-safe-in-cyber-space. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  7. ^ "Flipside banned from Wikipedia". Wikipedia Review. 2008-02-15. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15889. Retrieved 2008-08-15. 
  8. ^ a b "Wikipedia Review". http://wikipediareview.com/. Retrieved 2009-09-04. 
  9. ^ "Second post on www.wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. http://www.wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2. "Was The Wikipedia Review created by Igor Alexander? Yes." 
  10. ^ "Info for new registrants". Wikipedia Review. 2006-03-24. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=286. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  11. ^ "L'édition de référence libre et collaborative : le cas de Wikipedia." (in French). Institut national de recherche pédagogique. April 2006. p. 7. http://www.inrp.fr/vst/Dossiers/Wikipedia/Wiki/encyclopedie3.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  12. ^ "Augmented social cognition: understanding social foraging and social sensemaking" (PDF). Palo Alto Research Center. 2008. pp. 5. http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/papers/2008-AAAI/2008-AAAI-AugSocialCognition.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  13. ^ general chairs, Mary Czerwinski and Arnie Lund ; program chairs, Desney Tan. --; Bongwon Suh, Ed H. Chi, Aniket Kittur, Bryan A. Pendleton (2008). Lifting the veil: improving accountability and social transparency in Wikipedia with wikidashboard. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1037–1040. ISBN 978-1-60558-011-1. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357214. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  14. ^ "Providing social transparency through visualizations in Wikipedia". ACM-SIGCHI (CHI 2008, Florence, Italy: IBM / Palo Alto Research Company) Social Data Analysis Workshop. 2008-04-06. http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/visual/social_data_analysis_workshop/papers/ed_chi.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-04. 
  15. ^ "Wikipedia Review out-of-service page". Wikipedia Review. 2008-06-24. Archived from the original on 2008-06-24. http://www.webcitation.org/5Z0pjEk6t. Retrieved 2008-07-02. 
  16. ^ Finkelstein, Seth (2007-12-06). "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia?gusrc=rss&feed=technology. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  17. ^ Metz, Cade (2007-12-04). "Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia". The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/page2.html. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  18. ^ Marsden, Rhodri (2007-12-06). "Cyberclinic: Who are the editors of Wikipedia?". The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/cyberclinic-who-are-the-editors-of-wikipedia-764529.html. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  19. ^ Boran, Marie (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia under fire for 'editorial elite'". Silicon Republic. http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single9782. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  20. ^ Coppens, Philip (October-November 2007). "The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld". Nexus. pp. 11–15, 77. http://www.nexusmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=86&Itemid=71. Retrieved 2008-07-02. 
  21. ^ Cramer, Kathryn (2007-01-25). "A Proposal". kathryncramer.com. http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2007/01/a_proposal_shou.html. Retrieved 2008-08-15. 

External links

Advertisements

Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message