Wikipedia Review

Infobox Website
name = Wikipedia Review
The Wikipedia Review logo, which uses a white hat


url = http://www.wikipediareview.com/
caption =
commercial = No
type = Internet forum
language = English, German
registration = Optional (required to post); must be over 13 years of age. [cite web|url=http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=Reg&CODE=00|title=The Wikipedia Review - registration|accessdate=10 July|accessyear=2008]
owner =
author =
launch date = Original site: November 2005.cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20060117153536/wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132934970&page=1|title=Original Wikipedia Review on Proboards|publisher=Internet Archive|date=2005-11-25|accessdate=2008-07-02] Current site: 19 February 2006.cite web|url=http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1|title=First post on www.wikipediareview.com|publisher=Wikipedia Review|date=2006-02-19]
current status = Active
revenue = Nil / accepts donation
slogan =

The Wikipedia Review is an Internet forum for the discussion of Wikimedia projects, particularly the English Wikipedia, its content and conflicts, [cite web|url=http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/415771/not_everything_on_wikipedia_is_fact/index.html|title=Not everything on Wikipedia is fact|last=Mahadevan|first=Jeremy|date=2006-03-05|work=New Straits Times|accessdate=2008-07-01] and its participants' editing practices. [cite web|last=Spalding|first=Steve|url=http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/wikipedias-doubleplusgood-editing-practices/|title=Wikipedia's Doubleplusgood Editing Practices|publisher=How to Split an Atom|date=2007-12-04|accessdate=2008-07-04] InformationWeek described Wikipedia Review, along with Wikitruth, as being a "watchdog" site, "dedicated to scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws".cite web|url=http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/07/spawn_of_wikipe.html|title=Spawn Of Wikipedia|last=LaPlante|first=Alice|date=2006-07-14|work=InformationWeek|accessdate=2008-07-01] It provides an independent forum, whose frequenters include users banned from Wikipedia, [cite web|url=http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/06/express/nobodys-safe-in-cyber-space|title=Nobody's safe in cyberspace|last=Shankbone|first=David|date=June 2008|work=The Brooklyn Rail|accessdate=2008-07-01] [cite web|url=http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15889|publisher=Wikipedia Review|date=2008-02-15|accessdate=2008-08-15|title=FLIPSIDE banned from Wikipedia] to discuss Wikipedia editors and their influence on Wikipedia content. As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.

Background

The site was originally founded in November 2005, when it was hosted by ProBoards, [cite web|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/page3.html|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|last=Orlowski|first=Andrew|authorlink=Andrew Orlowski|date=2005-12-06|accessdate=2008-07-01|work=The Register] clarifyme|date=September 2008 but switched to Invision Power Boardclarifyme|date=September 2008 software in February 2006 and is now located at its own domain name which claims it was created by Igor Alexander. [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2 Welcome to The Wikipedia Review!, Introduction and FAQ] . Retrieved 2008-09-10] 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. [cite web|url=http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=286|title=Info for new registrants|date=2006-03-24|publisher=Wikipedia Review|accessdate=2008-07-01]

Criticisms of Wikipedia posted on the Wikipedia Review website include examples of plagiarism, discussions of the validity of pseudonymous and "amateur" (or layman) editing, and critiques of the influence of Jimmy Wales. [cite web|url=http://www.inrp.fr/vst/Dossiers/Wikipedia/Wiki/encyclopedie3.htm|title=L'édition de référence libre et collaborative : le cas de Wikipedia.|publisher=Institut national de recherche pédagogique|date=April 2006|page=7|language=French|accessdate=2008-07-01] 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,cite web|url=http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/papers/2008-AAAI/2008-AAAI-AugSocialCognition.pdf |format=PDF|title=Augmented social cognition: understanding social foraging and social sensemaking|coauthors=Ed H. Chi, Peter Pirolli, Bongwon Suh, Aniket Kittur, Bryan Pendleton, Todd Mytkowicz|year=2008|publisher=Palo Alto Research Center|pages=5|accessdate=2008-07-01] [cite book|coauthors=Bongwon Suh, Ed H. Chi, Aniket Kittur, Bryan A. Pendleton|title=Lifting the veil: improving accountability and social transparency in Wikipedia with wikidashboard|publisher=Association for Computing Machinery|date=2008|series=Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems|pages=1037–1040|url=http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357214 |accessdate=2008-07-01|isbn=978-1-60558-011-1] as well as used as an evaluation subject for the tool. [cite journal|coauthors=Chi, E. H.; Suh, B.; Kittur, A|date=2008-04-06|title=Providing social transparency through visualizations in Wikipedia|journal=ACM-SIGCHI|publisher=IBM / Palo Alto Research Company|location=CHI 2008, Florence, Italy|volume=Social Data Analysis Workshop|language=English|url=http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/visual/social_data_analysis_workshop/papers/ed_chi.pdf|accessdate=2008-07-04]

Involvements

"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".cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia?gusrc=rss&feed=technology|title=Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop|last=Finkelstein|first=Seth|date=2007-12-06|work=The Guardian|accessdate=2008-07-01] 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, and suggested that mentioning Wikipedia Review was banned on Wikipedia.cite web|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/page2.html|title=Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia|last=Metz|first=Cade|date=2007-12-04|work=The Register|accessdate=2008-07-01] "The Independent" noted that "allegations against certain administrators came to a head on a site called Wikipedia Review, where people debate the administrators' actions."cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/cyberclinic-who-are-the-editors-of-wikipedia-764529.html|title=Cyberclinic: Who are the editors of Wikipedia?|last=Marsden|first=Rhodri|authorlink=Rhodri_Marsden|date=2007-12-06|work=The Independent|accessdate=2008-07-01] Irish technology website Silicon Republic suggested visiting Wikipedia Review in order to "follow disputes, discussions, editors and general bureaucracy on Wikipedia". [cite web|url=http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single9782|title=Wikipedia under fire for 'editorial elite'|last=Boran|first=Marie|date=2007-12-04|publisher=Silicon Republic|accessdate=2008-07-01] 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".cite web|url=http://www.nexusmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=86&Itemid=71|title=The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld|last=Coppens|first=Philip|authorlink=Philip_Coppens|date=October-November 2007|work=Nexus|pages=11-15, 77|accessdate=2008-07-02] Science fiction writer Kathryn Cramer used the site to gain a better insight into Wikipedia editors, and described topics on Wikipedia Review as "fascinating reading". [cite web|url=http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2007/01/a_proposal_shou.html|title="A Proposal"|last=Cramer|first=Kathryn|authorlink=Kathryn_Cramer|publisher=kathryncramer.com|date=2007-01-25|accessdate=2008-08-15]

Content and structure

The Wikipedia Review's publicly accessible 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.cite web|url=http://wikipediareview.com/|title=Wikipedia Review|accessdate=2008-07-07]

ee also

*Criticism of Wikipedia
*Wikipedia Watch

References

External links

* [http://www.wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review homepage]
*