Wikipedia Review

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Review
250px
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 in English, German
Owner Anonymous
Launched Original site: November 2005.[1]
Current site: February 19, 2006.[2]
Revenue Accepts donations
Alexa rank
 Negative increase 2,089,261 (Jun 2015)[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

The site was founded in November 2005 by "Igor Alexander", and hosted by ProBoards.[1] On 19 February 2006 it moved to 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

<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

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 in 2008, 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

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

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  10. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  11. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  12. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  13. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  14. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  16. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  17. ↑ WP:BADSITES
  18. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  19. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  20. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  21. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&oldid=719306202"