Wikipedia Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Review
Wikipediareviewlogo.png
The Wikipedia Review logo, which uses a white hat
Web address wikipediareview.com
Commercial? No
Type of site Internet watchdog, Internet forum and blog
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 donations
Alexa rank negative increase 1,315,047 (April 2014)[3]

Wikipedia Review is an Internet forum and blog for the discussion of Wikimedia projects, in particular the content and conflicts of Wikipedia.[4][5] An InformationWeek Grok on Google blog described Wikipedia Review as "one of a number of Wikipedia watchdog" websites, "dedicated to scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws".[6] It provides an independent forum to discuss Wikipedia editors and their influence on Wikipedia content. At its peak, participants included current Wikipedia editors, former Wikipedia editors, a few users banned from Wikipedia, and people who have never edited.[7]

Background[edit]

The site was founded in November 2005 by "Igor Alexander", and hosted by ProBoards. This version of the site closed down.[1] In February 2006 it was restarted by "Selina" as a forum located at its own domain name using Invision Power Board software.[2][8] The site requires registration using a valid e-mail address to post. It blacklists email providers which allow anonymity, which it says is to discourage the operation of multiple accounts by a single user.[9]

Wikipedia Review has been cited for its discussion and evaluation of concepts surrounding wiki-editing, such as the Palo Alto Research Company's WikiDashboard,[10][11] as well as used as an evaluation subject for the tool.[12]

Commentary[edit]

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. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.

Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. That's what we're doing...

—Statement made when the site was out of service, Wikipedia Review[13]

Seth Finkelstein wrote in The Guardian that Wikipedia Review has provided a focal point for investigation into Wikipedia-related matters such as the "Essjay controversy".[14][15] Cade Metz, writing for The Register, credited Wikipedia Review with the discovery of a private mailing list that led to the resignation of a Wikipedia administrator; he also wrote that a Wikipedia proposal called "BADSITES" intended to ban the mention of Wikipedia Review and similar sites on Wikipedia.[16][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] The 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]

Content and structure[edit]

Wikipedia Review's publicly accessible forums are broken up into four general topic areas:

  1. Forum information;
  2. Wikimedia-oriented discussion, which contains subforums focusing on editors, the Wikipedia bureaucracy, meta discussion, articles and general Wikimedia-focused topics not fitting elsewhere;
  3. Media forums containing a news feed and discussion about news and blogs featuring Wikipedia/Wikimedia; and
  4. Off topic, non-Wikimedia related discussion.[21]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "Original Wikipedia Review on Proboards". Wikipedia Review. 2005-11-25. Archived from the original on 2006-01-17. 
  2. ^ a b "First post on wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. 2006-02-19. Archived from the original on 2006-05-31. 
  3. ^ "Wikipediareview.com Site Info". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2014-04-01. 
  4. ^ Mahadevan, Jeremy (2006-03-05). "Not everything on Wikipedia is fact". New Straits Times. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  5. ^ "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. 
  6. ^ LaPlante, Alice (2006-07-14). "Spawn Of Wikipedia". InformationWeek. Archived from the original on 2011-06-12. Retrieved 2012-09-01. 
  7. ^ Shankbone, David (June 2008). "Nobody's safe in cyberspace". The Brooklyn Rail. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  8. ^ "Second post on wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. "Was The Wikipedia Review created by Igor Alexander? Yes. Is The Wikipedia Review run by Igor Alexander? No." 
  9. ^ "Info for new registrants". Wikipedia Review. 2006-03-24. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  10. ^ Ed H. Chi, Peter Pirolli, Bongwon Suh, Aniket Kittur, Bryan Pendleton, Todd Mytkowicz (2008). "Augmented social cognition: understanding social foraging and social sensemaking" (PDF). Palo Alto Research Center. p. 5. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  11. ^ General chairs: Mary Czerwinski and Arnie Lund; program chair: Desney Tan. (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. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  12. ^ Chi, E. H.; Suh, B.; Kittur, A (2008-04-06). "Providing social transparency through visualizations in Wikipedia". ACM-SIGCHI (CHI 2008, Florence, Italy: IBM / Palo Alto Research Company). Social Data Analysis Workshop. Retrieved 2008-07-04. 
  13. ^ "Wikipedia Review out-of-service page". Wikipedia Review. 2008-06-24. Archived from the original on 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2008-07-02. 
  14. ^ Finkelstein, Seth (2007-12-06). "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  15. ^ "Who is Essjay?, Probably he's Ryan Jordan". Wikipedia Review. 2006-07-26. 
  16. ^ Metz, Cade (2007-12-04). "Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia". The Register. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  17. ^ WP:BADSITES
  18. ^ Marsden, Rhodri (2007-12-06). "Cyberclinic: Who are the editors of Wikipedia?". The Independent. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  19. ^ Boran, Marie (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia under fire for 'editorial elite'". Silicon Republic. Archived from the original on 2009-04-22. Retrieved 2008-07-01. 
  20. ^ Coppens, Philip (October–November 2007). "The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld". Nexus. pp. 11–15, 77. Retrieved 2008-07-02. 
  21. ^ "Wikipedia Review". Retrieved 9 June 2010. 

External links[edit]