Jump to content

Wikipedia Review: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
re-remove "itself". Just saying "banned from Wikipedia". is enough. it is hardly a shock that people who criticise a site might have been banned from there.
Line 49: Line 49:
*[http://www.wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review homepage]
*[http://www.wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review homepage]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060220153241/http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/ Old Wikipedia Review site], from the [[Internet Archive]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060220153241/http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/ Old Wikipedia Review site], from the [[Internet Archive]]
*[http://wikipediacritic.proboards47.com/index.cgi 2nd version of Wikipedia Review, run by one of its original founders]


{{Wikipediahistory}}
{{Wikipediahistory}}

Revision as of 10:20, 9 July 2008

This article concerns the forum Wikipedia Review. For general criticism of Wikipedia, see Criticism of Wikipedia.
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)

The Wikipedia Review is an Internet forum devoted to 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][6] It provides an independent forum, whose frequenters include users banned from Wikipedia,[7] to discuss Wikipedia editors and their editing patterns, including whether they are trying to influence content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia editing policy.[8] As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.[9]

Background

The site was originally founded in November 2005,[1] when it was hosted by ProBoards,[10] but switched to Invision Power Board software in February 2006 and is now located at its own domain name.[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.[11]

Criticisms of Wikipedia posted on the Wikipedia Review website include accusations of plagiarism, discussions of the validity of pseudonymous and amateur editing, and critiques of the influence of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.[12] 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,[13][14] as well as used as an evaluation subject for the tool.[15]

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[16]

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".[17] 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.[18] The Independent noted the involvement of Wikipedia Review in various controversial Wikipedia issues such as the online encyclopedia's Overstock.com article.[6] 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 on WikiScanner and allegations that intelligence agencies had been using Wikipedia to spread disinformation, which appeared in Nexus Magazine.[20]

Investigative reporter and author Gary Weiss described Wikipedia Review as a "limited-readership message board dedicated to attacking Wikipedia" in his blog, and accused members of "vandalizing Wikipedia and threatening Wikipedia administrators".[21]

Content and structure

The Wikipedia Review 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. Several forums are hidden from guest readers.[9]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b "Original Wikipedia Review on Proboards". Internet Archive. 2005-11-25. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
  2. ^ a b "First post on www.wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. 2006-02-19.
  3. ^ Mahadevan, Jeremy (2006-03-05). "Not everything on Wikipedia is fact". New Straits Times. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  4. ^ Spalding, Steve (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia's Doubleplusgood Editing Practices". How to Split an Atom. Retrieved 2008-07-04.
  5. ^ LaPlante, Alice (2006-07-14). "Spawn Of Wikipedia". InformationWeek. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  6. ^ a b Marsden, Rhodri (2007-12-06). "Cyberclinic: Who are the editors of Wikipedia?". The Independent. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  7. ^ Shankbone, David (June 2008). "Nobody's safe in cyberspace". The Brooklyn Rail. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  8. ^ De Braeckeleer, Ludwig (2007-07-26). "Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services: Is the Net's popular encyclopedia marred by disinformation?". OhmyNews International. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
  9. ^ a b "Wikipedia Review". Retrieved 2008-07-07.
  10. ^ Orlowski, Andrew (2005-12-06). "Who owns your Wikipedia bio?". The Register. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  11. ^ "Info for new registrants". Wikipedia Review. 2006-03-24. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  12. ^ "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.
  13. ^ "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)
  14. ^ 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)
  15. ^ "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)
  16. ^ "Wikipedia Review out-of-service page". WebCite. 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
  17. ^ Finkelstein, Seth (2007-12-06). "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  18. ^ Metz, Cade (2007-12-04). "Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia". The Register. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  19. ^ Boran, Marie (2007-12-04). "Wikipedia under fire for 'editorial elite'". Silicon Republic. 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.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  21. ^ Gary Weiss (2007-06-04). "Overstock.com to Regulation FD: Drop Dead". BlogSpot. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&oldid=224547414"