Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
To answer this question, some great people have written some explanations and arguments on this page. Everybody should use Wikipedia, either as a source or, if you find deficiencies, as a medium you can make contributions. For comparison, see also Wikipedia: Why Wikipedia is not so great, and Wikipedia: Replies to common objections. You can ...
A 2014 trend analysis published in The Economist stated that "The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years." [25] The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was described by The Economist as substantially higher than in other (non-English Wikipedias).
detailed knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines, procedures and biases - Everyone knows intuitively what an encyclopedia is -- it's a place to look up information -- but people should not be confused or smacked down for being confused about all the things Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, or oddities like its inclusion of Pokémon but exclusion of ...
Not least in articles about Why Wikipedia is not so great which by no means reflect all the Wikipedia:Criticisms that qualified people have levied on it. Similarly, fanatical or ignorant users adhering to generally good rules to Wikipedia:avoid self-references and Wikipedia:Redirects have failed to recognize the few places where these are in ...
Politicians view Wikipedia as sufficiently influential to warrant manipulating their own biographies. [11] [12] In a 2023 article titled "Wikipedia's influence grows", we read the marketing perspective: "Wikipedia is very central to how companies, brands and public figures are seen online" [13]. An industry of paid editing has sprung up.
Wikipedia shows every edit made by a username or an IP address; “Wikipedia even lists the top 1000 contributors with the most edits, some of whom have been identified by name in the popular press” [37]. Many authors also write under pseudonyms for print sources, especially those who write under pen names for fictional works.
Wikipedia appears to do this automatically, because articles with the most views tend to get the most edits, and thus the most popular articles (probably) improve the fastest. While it is true that Wikipedia is gaining a huge number of new articles which improve slowly, if an article receives few edits, most likely that means the article is not ...
Largely inactive nowadays. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be much fun anymore. |ANON (2007) Consider me, essentially, an ex-editor. If I'm seen in edit histories anymore, understand only that I have changed something during my normal usage of Wikipedia. I have no further interest in regularly contributing to Wikipedia or its related projects.