Wikipedia community: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:13, 1 July 2015

Your mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mum Your mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mum

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+Your mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mum Your mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mumYour mum
-{{Selfref|"Wikipedians" redirects here. You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians]].}}
-{{Infobox organization
-|name    = Wikipedia community
-|image   = Wikimania 2012 Group Photograph-0001a.jpg
-|size    = 300px
-|caption = [[Wikimania 2012]] group photograph
-}}
-The '''Wikipedia community''' is the community of contributors to the online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]]. Individual contributors are known as "'''Wikipedians'''". [[Oxford English Dictionary]] added the word "Wikipedian" in August 2012.<ref>{{cite web|title=Hella ridic new words to make you lolz: ODO August 2012 update|work=OxfordWords blog|url=http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/08/hella-ridic-new-words-to-make-you-lolz/|accessdate=2012-09-27|date=2012-08-23|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]}}</ref>
-The overwhelming majority of Wikipedians are volunteers. With the increased maturity and visibility of Wikipedia other categories of Wikipedians emerged, such as [[Wikipedian in residence]] and students with assignments related to editing Wikipedia.
-== Size ==
-[[Image:Wikipedia Monument 2.JPG|thumb|right|The [[Wikipedia Monument]] in [[Słubice, Poland]]. In part, the inscription reads "With this monument the citizens of Słubice would like to pay homage to thousands of anonymous editors all over the world, who have contributed voluntarily to the creation of Wikipedia, the greatest project co-created by people regardless of political, religious or cultural borders."]]
-Studies of the size of the community of Wikipedia showed an exponential growth rate of the number of Wikipedia contributors during the early years. By 2009, the growth of the community slowed down.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1641322 | title=The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia | publisher=ACM | work=WikiSym '09 Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration | date=2009 | accessdate=July 15, 2011 | author=Suh, Bongwon, et al.}}</ref> In November 2011, there were approximately 31.7 million registered user accounts across all language editions, of which around 270,000 accounts were active on a monthly basis.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias]. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Retrieved 2011-11-18.</ref>
-In April 2008, writer and lecturer [[Clay Shirky]] and computer scientist [[Martin M. Wattenberg|Martin Wattenberg]] estimated the total effort to create Wikipedia at roughly 100&nbsp;million [[man-hour]]s.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008009.html | title=Gin, Television, and Social Surplus | last=Shirky | first=Clay | authorlink=Clay Shirky | work=World Changing| date=7 May 2008 | accessdate=8 Jun 2014 }}</ref> As of October 2013, the community of volunteers [[Wikipedia#Decline in participation since 2007|declined at least by a third since 2007]] and is continuing to drop. Some 31,000 editors are active on the project. Despite being fewer in number, these editors continue to increase the number and length of Wikipedia's articles. About half of the active editors spend at least one hour a day editing, and a fifth spend more than three hours.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Simonite |first=Tom |url=http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ |title=The Decline of Wikipedia |date=October 22, 2013 |journal=[[MIT Technology Review]] |accessdate=October 23, 2013}}</ref>
-== Motivation ==
-[[File:The Impact Of Wikipedia.webm|thumbtime=3:52|thumb|left|Video which articulates the enthusiasm of the Wikipedia community]]<!-- Motivation is just a small part of the topic. Would be much better in the lead. This is not even specifically about Wikipedia's community, should possibly move to the Wikipedia article. Chealer -->
-[[File:WP April 2011, Editor Survey, reasons for continuing to contribute.png|thumb|Data from April 2011 Editor Survey shows the top reported reasons for continuing to contribute]]
-[[File:WP April 2011, Editor Survey, Negative feedback loops don't work.png|thumb|Data from April 2011 Editor Survey shows the top reported reasons for hating to contribute]]
-Various studies have been done with regard to the motivations of Wikipedia contributors. In a 2003 study of Wikipedia as a community, economics [[Doctor of Philosophy|Ph.D.]] student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low [[transaction cost]]s of participating in [[wiki]] software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a "creative construction" approach encourages participation.<ref>Ciffolilli, Andrea. "[http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1108 Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia]," ''[[First Monday (journal)|First Monday]]'' December 2003.</ref> A paper written by Andrea Forte and Amy Bruckman in 2005, called "Why Do People Write for Wikipedia? Incentives to Contribute to Open-Content Publishing", discussed the possible motivations of Wikipedia contributors. It applied Latour and Woolgar's concept of the [[Laboratory Life#Cycles of Credit|cycle of credit]] to Wikipedia contributors, suggesting that the reason that people write for Wikipedia is to gain recognition within the community.<ref name="Forte and Bruckman">{{cite journal|last=Forte|first=Amy|author2=Bruckman, Andrea |title=Why Do People Write for Wikipedia? Incentives to Contribute to Open-Content Publishing|journal=SIGGROUP 2005 Workshop: Sustaining community|date=2005|id={{citeseerx|10.1.1.120.7906}} }}</ref>
-Oded Nov, in his 2007 paper "What Motivates Wikipedians", related the motivations of volunteers in general to the motivations of people who contribute to Wikipedia.<ref name=Nov>{{cite journal|last=Nov|first=Oded|title=What Motivates Wikipedians?|journal=Communications of the ACM|date=2007|volume=50|issue=11|pages=60–64|url=http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1297797.1297798 |accessdate=11 August 2011|doi=10.1145/1297797.1297798}}</ref> Nov carried out a survey using the six motivations of volunteers, identified in an earlier paper.<ref name=Clary>{{cite journal |last=Clary|first=E. |author2=Snyder, M. |author3=Ridge, R. |author4=Copeland, J. |author5=Stukas, A. |author6=Haugen, J. |author6=Miene, P. |lastauthoramp=yes |title=Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach |journal=J. Personality and Social Psychology |date=1998 |volume=74 |pages=1516–1530}}</ref> The six motivations he used were:
-*'''Values''' – expressing values to do with altruism and helping others
-*'''Social''' – engaging with friends, taking part in activities viewed favourably by others
-*'''Understanding''' – expanding knowledge through activities
-*'''Career''' – gaining work experience and skills
-*'''Protective''' – e.g. reducing guilt over [[Privilege (social inequality)|personal privilege]]
-*'''Enhancement''' – demonstrating knowledge to others
-To these six motivations he also added:
-*'''Ideology''' – expressing support for what is perceived to be the underlying [[ideology]] of the activity (e.g. the belief that [[libre knowledge|knowledge should be free]])
-*'''Fun''' – enjoying the activity
-The survey found that the most commonly indicated motives were "fun," "ideology," and "values," whereas the least frequently indicated motives were "career," "social," and "protective."<ref name=Nov />
-The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] has carried out several surveys of Wikipedia contributors and users. In 2008 the Wikimedia Foundation, alongside the Collaborative Creativity Group at [[UNU-MERIT|UNU-Merit]] launched a survey of readers and editors of Wikipedia. It was the most comprehensive survey of Wikipedia ever conducted.<ref name=Moeller>{{cite web|last=Möller|first=Erik |authorlink=Erik Möller |title=New Reports from November 2008 Survey Released|url=http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/04/02/new-reports-from-november-2008-survey-released/|work=Wikimedia Foundation Blog|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|accessdate=11 August 2011}}</ref> The results of the survey were published two years later on March 24, 2010.<ref name=wikistudy>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia Survey - Overview of Results|url=http://www.wikipediastudy.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf|work=Wikipedia Study|publisher=UNU-MERIT|accessdate=20 July 2011|author=Glott, Ruediger |author2=Schmidt, Phillipp |author3=Ghosh, Rishab }}</ref> The Wikimedia Foundation began a process in 2011 of semi-annual surveys in order to understand Wikipedia editors more and better cater to their needs.<ref name="editor survey">{{cite web|last=Wikimedia Foundation|title=Wikipedia editors do it for fun: First results of our 2011 editor survey|url=http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/10/wikipedia-editors-do-it-for-fun-first-results-of-our-2011-editor-survey/|work=Wikimedia Foundation Blog|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|accessdate=2 August 2011}}</ref><ref name="editor survey 2">{{cite web|last=Wikimedia Foundation|title=Launching our semi-annual Wikipedia editors survey|url=http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/04/18/launching-our-semi-annual-wikipedia-editors-survey/|work=Wikimedia Foundation Blog|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|accessdate=2 August 2011}}</ref>
-"Motivations of Wikipedia content contributors", a paper by Heng-Li Yang and Cheng-Yu Lai, hypothesised that because contributing to Wikipedia is voluntary, an individual's enjoyment of participating would be the highest motivator.<ref name="Yang and Lai">{{cite journal|last=Yang|first=Heng-Li|author2=Lai, Cheng-Yu  |title=Motivations of Wikipedia content contributors|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|date=November 2010|volume=26|issue=6|pages=1377–1383|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.011|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563210000877|accessdate=2 August 2011}}</ref> However, their study showed that although people might initially start editing Wikipedia out of enjoyment, the most likely motivation for continuing to participate is [[self-concept]] based motivations such as "I like to share knowledge which gives me a sense of personal achievement."<ref name="Yang and Lai"/>
-A [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0144929X.2014.929744 further study in 2014] by Cheng-Yu Lai & Heng-Li Yang explored the reasons why people continue editing Wikipedia content.  The study used authors of the English-language version of the site and received 288 valid online survey responses.  Their [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0144929X.2014.929744 results] indicated and confirmed that subjective task value, commitment, and procedural justice were significant to satisfaction of Wikipedians; and satisfaction significantly influenced an author’s continued intention to edit Wikipedia content.<ref>Cheng-Yu Lai & Heng-Li Yang, 2014, "The reasons why people continue editing Wikipedia content – task value confirmation perspective". Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0144929X.2014.929744</ref>
-Editors of Wikipedia have occasionally given personal testimonials of why they contribute to Wikipedia. A common theme of these testimonials is the enjoyment that editors seem to get from contributing to Wikipedia and being part of the Wikipedia community. Also mentioned is the potential addictive quality of editing Wikipedia. [[Gina Trapani]] of [[Lifehacker]] said "it turns out editing an article isn't scary at all. It's easy, surprisingly satisfying and can become obsessively addictive."<ref name=Trampani>{{cite web|last=Trampani|first=Gina|title=Geek to Live: How to contribute to Wikipedia|url=http://lifehacker.com/133747/geek-to-live--how-to-contribute-to-wikipedia|work=Lifehacker|publisher=Gawker Media|accessdate=12 August 2011}}</ref> [[Jimmy Wales]] has also commented on the addictive quality of Wikipedia, saying "The main thing about Wikipedia [...] is that it’s fun and addictive".<ref name=Griffin>{{cite book|last=Griffin|first=Ricky W.|title=Management|date=2011|publisher=South-Western Cengage Learning|location=Mason, OH. USA.|isbn=1-4390-8099-2|edition=10th|accessdate=12 August 2011}}</ref> Wikipedians sometimes award one another [[Wikipedia:Barnstars|virtual barnstars]] for good work. These personalized tokens of appreciation reveal a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation work. The barnstar phenomenon has been analyzed by researchers seeking to determine what implications it might have for other communities engaged in large-scale collaborations.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in Wikipedia through barnstars|author=T. Kriplean|author-separator=,|author2=I. Beschastnikh|display-authors=2|last3=McDonald|first3=David W.|url=http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460563.1460573|publisher=Proceedings of the ACM|date=2008|doi=10.1145/1460563.1460573|page=47|chapter=Articulations of wikiwork|isbn=978-1-60558-007-4|postscript=}} {{Subscription required|s}}</ref>
-== Media ==
-Wikipedia has spawned several community news publications. An online newsletter, {{Srlink|Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost|''The Signpost''}}, has been published weekly since 10 January 2005. Professional cartoonist Greg Williams created a webcomic called "{{Srlink|Wikipedia:WikiProject_WikiWorld|WikiWorld}}" which ran in ''The Signpost'' from 2006 to 2008. A podcast called ''Wikipedia Weekly'' was active from 2006 to 2009 while a series of conference calls titled ''Not The Wikipedia Weekly'' ran from 2008 to 2009. Some topic-specific communities within Wikipedia called "WikiProjects" have also distributed newsletters and other correspondence.
-== Socializing ==
-Offline activities are organized by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] or the community of Wikipedia. A '''WikiMeet''' is an organized face-to-face meeting of Wikipedia members, sometimes small and informal, sometimes large and formal.
-=== Wikimania ===
-[[File:WM2006 0018.jpg|thumb|left|[[Wikimania]], an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation]]
-{{Main|Wikimania}}
-Wikimania is an annual international conference for users of the [[wiki]] projects operated by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (such as Wikipedia and other [[Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects|sister projects]]). Topics of presentations and discussions include Wikimedia Foundation projects, other wikis, [[open-source software]], free knowledge and free content, and the different social and technical aspects which relate to these topics.
-=== Wiknics ===
-[[File:Wiknic Pittsburgh 1, 2011-06-25.jpg|thumb|Wiknic 2011 in [[Pittsburgh]]]]
-The annual [[Wikipedia:Wiknic|Great American Wiknic]] is a social gathering that takes place, in major cities of the United States, each year during the summer, usually just prior to the 4th of July. The Wiknic concept allows Wikipedians to bring together picnic food and to interact in a personal way.<ref name="Great American Wiknic">{{cite web|title=Wikipedia editors log off long enough to mingle|url=http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20110625/NEWS0107/106250306/|publisher=The Washington Post|accessdate=5 July 2011|author=Hesse, Monica |date=25 June 2011}}</ref>
-== Criticism ==
-{{main|Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of the community}}
-Wikipedia has been subject to several criticisms.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/25/wikipedia.internet Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says]. ''[[The Guardian]]''. Published September 25, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/06/a_model_wikipedian/ Why you should care that Jimmy Wales ignores reality]. ''[[The Register]]''. Published March 6, 2008.</ref> For example, the [[Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthaler]] and [[Essjay controversy|Essjay]] incidents caused criticism of Wikipedia's reliability and usefulness as a reference.<ref name=Seigenthaler-incident>{{Cite news|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm|work=USA Today|date=2005-11-29|title=A false Wikipedia "biography"|author=[[John Seigenthaler]]}}</ref><ref>[[Katharine Q. Seelye]] (December 3, 2005) [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar"] [http://nytimes.com/ ''The New York Times'']</ref><ref name=Essjay-controversy>{{Cite news|first=Noam |last=Cohen |title=A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=f79cc41f899c2de6&ex=1330750800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=2007-03-05 |accessdate=}}</ref> The complaints related to the community include the effects of users' anonymity, the attitudes towards newcomers, the [[WP:Administrator abuse|abuse of privileges by administrators]], biases in the social structure of the community, in particular, gender bias and lack of female contributors,<ref>{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|title=Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=wikipedia%20noam%20cohen&st=cse|accessdate=August 15, 2012|newspaper=New York Times|date=January 30, 2011}}</ref> and the role of the project's co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]], in the community.<ref>{{cite news
-|first=Noam
-|last=Cohen
-|title=Open-Source Troubles in Wiki World
-|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/technology/17wikipedia.html?em&ex=1205899200&en=d6bb01e811e055d8&ei=5087%0A
-|publisher=[[The New York Times]]
-|date=March 17, 2008
-|accessdate=}}</ref> [[Sue Gardner]], former executive director of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], described Wikipedians as being like a "crusty old desk guy who knows the style guide backwards."<ref>{{cite news |author=Aaron Sharp |title=Is this the decline of Wikipedia? A third of staff have QUIT complaining site bosses have 'lowered the bar' on quality |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2477432/Is-decline-Wikipedia-A-staff-quit-site-thanks-dumbed-software-auto-delete-tools.html |quote= |pages= |work=Daily Mail |location= |date=October 26, 2013 |accessdate=2013-10-27 }}</ref> A significant controversy was stirred with paid contributors to Wikipedia, which prompted the Wikimedia Foundation to send a [[cease and desist]] letter to the [[Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia|Wiki-PR]] agency.<ref name=Change-2013>[http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/20/business/la-fi-tn-wikimedia-cease-desist-wikipr-20131120 "Wikimedia Foundation sends cease and desist letter to Wiki-PR"]</ref> Wikipedia relies on the efforts of its community members to remove vandalism from articles. According to Theresa Knott, a Wikipedian, "Vandalism would be difficult to police if there were more vandals, but the ratio of vandal editors to non-vandals is too low."<ref>{{cite news
-|first=Jenny
-|last=Kleeman
-|title=Wiki wars
-|url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2042231,00.html
-|publisher=[[The Observer]]
-|date=March 25, 2007
-|accessdate=}}</ref> Every year, on or around [[April Fools' Day]], the Wikipedia community prepares itself for the massive [[vandalism]] that is expected to take place because of the day's celebrations, which lasts for 48 hours instead of 24 due to its worldwide audience.<ref>
-{{cite news
-|first=Jenny
-|last=Kleeman
-|title=Wikipedia braces itself for April Fools' Day
-|url=http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2044525,00.html
-|publisher=[[The Guardian|The Guardian newspaper]]
-|date=March 28, 2007
-|accessdate=2013-10-23}}</ref>
-Jimmy Wales stated, "We need to maintain and improve our quality standards, while at the same time remaining open, friendly, and welcoming as a community. This is a challenge."<ref name="Daniel_Terdiman">
-{{cite news
-|last=Terdiman
-|first=Daniel
-|title=Wikipedia Faces Growing Painsdate
-|url=http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66210,00.html
-|date=January 1, 2005
-|publisher=[[Wired News]]
-|accessdate=2013-10-23
-}}</ref> Wikipedia's co-founder [[Larry Sanger]] characterizes the Wikipedia community as ineffective and abusive, stating that "The community does not enforce its own rules effectively or consistently. Consequently, administrators and ordinary participants alike are able essentially to act abusively with impunity, which begets a never-ending cycle of abuse."<ref>
-{{cite news
-| first = Donna
-| last = Bogatin
-| title = Can Wikipedia handle the truth?
-| url = http://www.zdnet.com/blog/micro-markets/can-wikipedia-handle-the-truth/899
-|work= ZDNet
-| agency = CBS Interactive
-| date = March 25, 2007
-| accessdate = 2013-10-23
-}}</ref> [[Oliver Kamm]], of ''[[The Times]]'', expressed skepticism toward Wikipedia's reliance on [[WP:CON|consensus]] in forming its content: "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices."<ref name=okw>[http://web.archive.org/web/20110814104256/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds | Oliver Kamm – Times Online (archive version 2011-08-14)] ([http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/wisdom-more-lik.html Author’s own copy])</ref>
-== References ==
-{{Selfref|This article incorporates text from the [[GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]] [[Wikipedia]] page [[Wikipedia:Replies to common objections]].}}
-{{Reflist|30em}}
-== External links ==
-{{commons category}}
-{{wiktionary|Wikipedian}}
-* [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Wikipedian Definition of word "Wikipedian"] at [[Oxford English Dictionary]]
-*[http://www.ickn.org/documents/COINs2009_iba_Nemoto.pdf "Analyzing the Creative Editing Behavior of Wikipedia Editors Through Dynamic Social Network Analysis"]
-{{Wikipediahistory}}
-{{DEFAULTSORT:Wikipedia community}}
-[[Category:Wikipedia|Community]]
-[[Category:Communities]]
-[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]