 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
Furl |
 |
|
 |
Rojo |
| Add to OnlyWire |
 The Wikipedia Review logo, which uses a white hat |
|
| URL | http://www.wikipediareview.com/ |
|---|---|
| Commercial? | No |
| Type of site | Internet forum |
| Registration | Optional (required to post); must be over 13 years of age.[1] |
| Available language(s) | English, German |
| Launched | Original site: November 2005.[2] Current site: 19 February 2006.[3] |
| Revenue | Nil / 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,[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. As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.[9]
Contents |
Background
The site was originally founded in November 2005,[2] when it was hosted by ProBoards,[2][10][clarify] but switched to Invision Power Board[clarify] software in February 2006 and is now located at its own domain name which claims it was created by Igor Alexander.[3][11] 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 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] 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".[23]
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.[9]
See also
References
- ^ "The Wikipedia Review - registration". Retrieved on 10 July, 2008.
- ^ a b c "Original Wikipedia Review on Proboards". Internet Archive (2005-11-25). Retrieved on 2008-07-02.
- ^ a b "First post on www.wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review (2006-02-19).
- ^ Mahadevan, Jeremy (2006-03-05). "Not everything on Wikipedia is fact". New Straits Times. Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ Spalding, Steve (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia's Doubleplusgood Editing Practices". How to Split an Atom. Retrieved on 2008-07-04.
- ^ LaPlante, Alice (2006-07-14). "Spawn Of Wikipedia". InformationWeek. Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ Shankbone, David (June 2008). "Nobody's safe in cyberspace". The Brooklyn Rail. Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ "FLIPSIDE banned from Wikipedia". Wikipedia Review (2008-02-15). Retrieved on 2008-08-15.
- ^ a b "Wikipedia Review". Retrieved on 2008-07-07.
- ^ Orlowski, Andrew (2005-12-06). "Who owns your Wikipedia bio?". The Register. Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ Welcome to The Wikipedia Review!, Introduction and FAQ. Retrieved 2008-09-10
- ^ "Info for new registrants". Wikipedia Review (2006-03-24). Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ "L'édition de référence libre et collaborative : le cas de Wikipedia." (in French). Institut national de recherche pédagogique (April 2006). Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ "Augmented social cognition: understanding social foraging and social sensemaking" (PDF) 5. Palo Alto Research Center (2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ (2008) Lifting the veil: improving accountability and social transparency in Wikipedia with wikidashboard, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 1037–1040. ISBN 978-1-60558-011-1. Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ "Providing social transparency through visualizations in Wikipedia" (in English). 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 on 4 July 2008.
- ^ "Wikipedia Review out-of-service page". WebCite (2008-06-24). Retrieved on 2008-07-02.
- ^ Finkelstein, Seth (2007-12-06). "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop". The Guardian. Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ Metz, Cade (2007-12-04). "Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia". The Register. Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ Marsden, Rhodri (2007-12-06). "Cyberclinic: Who are the editors of Wikipedia?". The Independent. Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ Boran, Marie (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia under fire for 'editorial elite'". Silicon Republic. Retrieved on 2008-07-01.
- ^ Coppens, Philip (October-November 2007). "The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld". Nexus 11-15, 77. Retrieved on 2008-07-02.
- ^ Cramer, Kathryn (2007-01-25). ""A Proposal"". kathryncramer.com. Retrieved on 2008-08-15.
External links
|
||||||||||||||
