Wikipedia Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Short description

Page Module:Infobox/styles.css has no content.

Wikipedia Review
Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:InfoboxImage/data' not found.
The Wikipedia Review logo, which uses a white hat
Type of site
Internet watchdog, Internet forum and blog
Available inEnglish, German
RevenueAccepts donations
URLwikipediareview.com
CommercialNo
RegistrationOptional (required to post)
LaunchedOriginal site: November 2005; 20 years ago (2005-11)[1]
Current site: February 19, 2006; 20 years ago (2006-02-19)[2]
Current statusOffline

Script error: No such module "Check for conflicting parameters".

Wikipedia Review was an Internet forum and blog for the discussion of Wikimedia Foundation projects, in particular the content and conflicts of Wikipedia.[3][4] Wikipedia Review sought to act as a watchdog website, scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws.[5] It provided an independent forum to discuss Wikipedia editors and their influence on Wikipedia content. At its peak, participants included current Wikipedia editors, former Wikipedia editors, users banned from Wikipedia, and people who had never edited.[6] The last post was on 31 May 2012.[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 required registration using a valid e-mail address to post and blacklisted email providers that allowed anonymity so as to discourage the operation of multiple accounts by a single user.[9] In its early years, the forum became a gathering place for critics of Wikipedia and its policies, attracting both former editors and outside observers interested in discussing issues related to online collaboration and reliability of information.

Wikipedia Review was cited for its discussion of wiki-editing concepts and its participation in the evaluation of the Palo Alto Research Company's WikiDashboard.[10][11][12]

Commentary

Page Template:Blockquote/styles.css has no content.

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 [Wikidata], 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] The Independent noted that "allegations against certain administrators came to a head on a site called Wikipedia Review, where people debate the administrators' actions."[17] The Irish technology website Silicon Republic suggested visiting Wikipedia Review in order to "follow disputes, discussions, editors and general bureaucracy on Wikipedia".[18] Philip Coppens used posts made on Wikipedia Review to help construct a report, published in Nexus, on WikiScanner and allegations that intelligence agencies had been using Wikipedia to spread disinformation.[19]

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.[20]

References

Page Template:Reflist/styles.css has no content.

  1. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Original Wikipedia Review on Proboards". Wikipedia Review. 2005-11-25. Archived from the original on 2006-01-17. Retrieved 2009-04-14.
  2. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."First post on wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. 2006-02-19. Archived from the original on 2006-05-31.
  3. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Mahadevan, Jeremy (2006-03-05). "Not everything on Wikipedia is fact". New Straits Times. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  4. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."L'édition de référence libre et collaborative : le cas de Wikipedia" (in français). Institut national de recherche pédagogique. April 2006. p. 7. Archived from the original on 2011-09-29. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  5. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.LaPlante, Alice (2006-07-14). "Spawn Of Wikipedia". InformationWeek. Archived from the original on 2011-06-12. Retrieved 2012-09-01.
  6. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Shankbone, David (June 2008). "Nobody's safe in cyberspace". The Brooklyn Rail. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  7. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."The Wikipedia Review". wikipediareview.com. Retrieved 2023-05-05.
  8. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Second post on wikipediareview.com". Wikipedia Review. Archived from the original on 2019-04-04. Retrieved 2012-01-23. Was The Wikipedia Review created by Igor Alexander? Yes. Is The Wikipedia Review run by Igor Alexander? No.
  9. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Info for new registrants". Wikipedia Review. 2006-03-24. Archived from the original on 2015-05-25. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  10. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.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. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Bongwon Suh; Ed H. Chi; Aniket Kittur; Bryan A. Pendleton (2008). Lifting the veil: improving accountability and social transparency in Wikipedia with wikidashboard. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. General chairs: Mary Czerwinski and Arnie Lund; program chair: Desney Tan. Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1037–1040. ISBN 978-1-60558-011-1. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  12. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Chi, E. H.; Suh, B.; Kittur, A. (2008-04-06). Providing social transparency through visualizations in Wikipedia. CHI 2008, Florence, Italy. Social Data Analysis Workshop. S2CID 2303183. Retrieved 2024-02-15 – via ResearchGate.
  13. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Wikipedia Review out-of-service page". Wikipedia Review. 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2008-07-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  14. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Finkelstein, Seth (2007-12-06). "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  15. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Who is Essjay?, Probably he's Ryan Jordan". Wikipedia Review. 2006-07-26. Archived from the original on 2009-02-20. Retrieved 2012-03-29.
  16. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Metz, Cade (2007-12-04). "Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia". The Register. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  17. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Marsden, Rhodri (2007-12-06). "Cyberclinic: Who are the editors of Wikipedia?". The Independent. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  18. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.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.
  19. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Coppens, Philip (October–November 2007). "The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld". Nexus. pp. 11–15, 77. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
  20. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Wikipedia Review". Archived from the original on 3 June 2010. Retrieved 9 June 2010.

Lua error in mw.title.lua at line 404: bad argument #2 to 'title.new' (unrecognized namespace name 'Portal').

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Navbox/configuration' not found.

Retrieved from "https://cosmopedia.co/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&oldid=7043546"