Jump to content

Wikipedia Review: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Janeyryan (talk | contribs)
263 edits
removing promotional fluff from blog. This person is a science fiction writer and her self published blog can't be used as a source on WR, per WP:SPS
a self-published source is fine WHEN GIVING THAT PERSON'S VIEWS
Line 18: Line 18:
}}
}}


The '''Wikipedia Review''' is an [[Internet forum]] for the discussion of [[Wikimedia]] projects, particularly the [[English Wikipedia]], its content and conflicts,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/415771/not_everything_on_wikipedia_is_fact/index.html|title=Not everything on Wikipedia is fact|last=Mahadevan|first=Jeremy|date=2006-03-05|work=[[New Straits Times]]|accessdate=2008-07-01}}</ref> and its participants' editing practices.<ref>{{cite web|last=Spalding|first=Steve|url=http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/wikipedias-doubleplusgood-editing-practices/|title=Wikipedia's Doubleplusgood Editing Practices|publisher=How to Split an Atom|date=2007-12-04|accessdate=2008-07-04}}</ref> [[InformationWeek]] described Wikipedia Review, along with [[Wikitruth]], as being a "[[watchdog]]" site, "dedicated to scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws".<ref name="spawn">{{cite web|url=http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/07/spawn_of_wikipe.html|title=Spawn Of Wikipedia|last=LaPlante|first=Alice|date=2006-07-14|work=[[InformationWeek]]|accessdate=2008-07-01}}</ref> It provides an independent forum, whose frequenters include users banned from Wikipedia,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/06/express/nobodys-safe-in-cyber-space|title=Nobody's safe in cyberspace|last=Shankbone|first=David|date=June 2008|work=[[The Brooklyn Rail]]|accessdate=2008-07-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15889|publisher=Wikipedia Review|date=2008-02-15|accessdate=2008-08-15|title=FLIPSIDE banned from Wikipedia}}</ref> to discuss Wikipedia editors and their influence on Wikipedia content. As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.<ref name="main" />
The '''Wikipedia Review''' is an [[Internet forum]] for the discussion of [[Wikimedia]] projects, particularly the [[English Wikipedia]], its content and conflicts,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/415771/not_everything_on_wikipedia_is_fact/index.html|title=Not everything on Wikipedia is fact|last=Mahadevan|first=Jeremy|date=2006-03-05|work=[[New Straits Times]]|accessdate=2008-07-01}}</ref> and its participants' editing practices.<ref>{{cite web|last=Spalding|first=Steve|url=http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/wikipedias-doubleplusgood-editing-practices/|title=Wikipedia's Doubleplusgood Editing Practices|publisher=How to Split an Atom|date=2007-12-04|accessdate=2008-07-04}}</ref> [[InformationWeek]] described Wikipedia Review, along with [[Wikitruth]], as being a "[[watchdog]]" site, "dedicated to scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws".<ref name="spawn">{{cite web|url=http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/07/spawn_of_wikipe.html|title=Spawn Of Wikipedia|last=LaPlante|first=Alice|date=2006-07-14|work=[[InformationWeek]]|accessdate=2008-07-01}}</ref> It provides an independent forum, whose frequenters include users banned from Wikipedia,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/06/express/nobodys-safe-in-cyber-space|title=Nobody's safe in cyberspace|last=Shankbone|first=David|date=June 2008|work=[[The Brooklyn Rail]]|accessdate=2008-07-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15889|publisher=Wikipedia Review|date=2008-02-15|accessdate=2008-08-15|title=FLIPSIDE banned from Wikipedia}}</ref> to discuss Wikipedia editors and their influence on Wikipedia content. As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.<ref name="main" />


==Background==
==Background==

Revision as of 11:21, 17 August 2008

Wikipedia Review
File:Wikipediareviewlogo.gif
The Wikipedia Review logo, which uses a white hat
Type of site
Internet forum
Available inEnglish
RevenueNil / accepts donation
URLhttp://www.wikipediareview.com/
CommercialNo
RegistrationOptional (required to post); must be over 13 years of age.[1]

The Wikipedia Review is an Internet forum for the discussion of Wikimedia projects, particularly the English Wikipedia, its content and conflicts,[4] and its participants' editing practices.[5] InformationWeek described Wikipedia Review, along with Wikitruth, as being a "watchdog" site, "dedicated to scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws".[6] It provides an independent forum, whose frequenters include users banned from Wikipedia,[7][8] to discuss Wikipedia editors and their influence on Wikipedia content. 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".[9] As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.[10]

Background

The site was originally founded in November 2005,[2] when it was hosted by ProBoards,[11] but switched to Invision Power Board software in February 2006 and is now located at its own domain name.[3] 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.[12]

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 Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.[13] 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,[14][15] as well as used as an evaluation subject for the tool.[16]

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[17]

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".[18] 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.[19] The Independent noted that "allegations against certain administrators came to a head on a site called Wikipedia Review, where people debate the administrators' actions."[20] Irish technology website Silicon Republic suggested visiting Wikipedia Review in order to "follow disputes, discussions, editors and general bureaucracy on Wikipedia".[21] Philip Coppens used posts made on Wikipedia Review to help construct a report on WikiScanner and allegations that intelligence agencies had been using Wikipedia to spread disinformation, which appeared in Nexus Magazine.[22]

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.[10]

See also

References

  1. ^ "The Wikipedia Review - registration". Retrieved 10 July. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b "Original Wikipedia Review on Proboards". Internet Archive. 2005-11-25. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
  3. ^ a b "First post on www.wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. 2006-02-19.
  4. ^ Mahadevan, Jeremy (2006-03-05). "Not everything on Wikipedia is fact". New Straits Times. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  5. ^ Spalding, Steve (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia's Doubleplusgood Editing Practices". How to Split an Atom. Retrieved 2008-07-04.
  6. ^ LaPlante, Alice (2006-07-14). "Spawn Of Wikipedia". InformationWeek. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  7. ^ Shankbone, David (June 2008). "Nobody's safe in cyberspace". The Brooklyn Rail. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  8. ^ "FLIPSIDE banned from Wikipedia". Wikipedia Review. 2008-02-15. Retrieved 2008-08-15.
  9. ^ Cramer, Kathryn (2007-01-25). ""A Proposal"". kathryncramer.com. Retrieved 2008-08-15.
  10. ^ a b "Wikipedia Review". Retrieved 2008-07-07.
  11. ^ Orlowski, Andrew (2005-12-06). "Who owns your Wikipedia bio?". The Register. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  12. ^ "Info for new registrants". Wikipedia Review. 2006-03-24. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  13. ^ "L'édition de référence libre et collaborative : le cas de Wikipedia" (in French). Institut national de recherche pédagogique. April 2006. p. 7. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  14. ^ "Augmented social cognition: understanding social foraging and social sensemaking" (PDF). Palo Alto Research Center. 2008. p. 5. Retrieved 2008-07-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ Lifting the veil: improving accountability and social transparency in Wikipedia with wikidashboard. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery. 2008. pp. 1037–1040. ISBN 978-1-60558-011-1. Retrieved 2008-07-01. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  16. ^ "Providing social transparency through visualizations in Wikipedia" (PDF). ACM-SIGCHI. Social Data Analysis Workshop. CHI 2008, Florence, Italy: IBM / Palo Alto Research Company. 2008-04-06. Retrieved 2008-07-04. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  17. ^ "Wikipedia Review out-of-service page". WebCite. 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
  18. ^ Finkelstein, Seth (2007-12-06). "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  19. ^ Metz, Cade (2007-12-04). "Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia". The Register. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  20. ^ Marsden, Rhodri (2007-12-06). "Cyberclinic: Who are the editors of Wikipedia?". The Independent. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  21. ^ Boran, Marie (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia under fire for 'editorial elite'". Silicon Republic. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  22. ^ Coppens, Philip (October–November 2007). "The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld". Nexus. pp. 11–15, 77. Retrieved 2008-07-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&oldid=232475054"