Template:Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

The brainchild of [[Jimmy Wales]], among others, and the original project of the subsequent [[:Category:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF), [[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia's]] stated objective is to have an officially '[[wp:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]' ([[:Category:NPOV|NPOV]]).  Sadly, many articles suffer from systemic bias; Wikipedia is often justifiably [[wp:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|accused]] by people on one side of an issue of being biased toward the other side, and vice-versa.  This is true across the political spectrum, as well as for many other issues and [[:Category:Wiki Topic|subjects]].  Wikipedia is the biggest fish in the global [[:Category:All|wiki]] pond, and receives far more traffic, ''and'' [[:Category:Wiki Edit Mode|editing]] activity, than any other [[WhatIsWiki|wiki]].  However, despite Wikipedias' claim to being an 'encyclopedia', many [[:Category:Education|academic]] institutes and other [[:Category:Professions|professional]] organisations recommend that Wikipedia is <u>not</u> used as a primary source of information, due to the fact that many articles are frequently incorrect, and can be routinely adversely biased.  Furthermore, many Wikipedia articles have a seemingly extremely low threshold of '[[wp:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable source]]' references and [[wp:Wikipedia:Citing sources|citations]].  Indeed, many Wikipedia articles fail their own [[wp:Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]] criteria, and can remain for many years without any citations, despite highly visible warning banners highlighting the lack of said citations (and threatening to delete said unreferenced articles); this even includes biographical articles for [[wp:Category:Living people|living people]].  Also, the [[English Wikipedia]] allows articles to be 'promoted' to a [[wp:Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] (GA) status – despite failing their own [[wp:Wikipedia:Good article criteria|criteria]] on having adequate reliable source citations, editorial conjecture, and even [[wp:Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. [http://eng.Anarchopedia.org/Criticism_of_Wikipedia]

In respect of [[:Category:Wiki License|licensing]], historically, when Wikipedia was founded, it released all textual [[wiki]] content under the 'copyleft' [[:Category:Wiki GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]] (GNU Free Doc License, or GFDL).  However, during [[:Category:FoundedIn2009|2009]], all existing Wikipedia wikis migrated to a new license – the [[:Category:Wiki Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike|Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 unported license]] (CC-BY-SA 3.0); and all content published until that migration date could be retro-released under either or [[:Category:Wiki MultiLicense|both licenses]].  All content published ''after'' the migration date is released under only the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, as are any newly created Wikipedia language versions. [https://news.Slashdot.org/story/09/05/21/2317253/wikipedia-moving-from-gfdl-to-creative-commons-license]

*[[Archive.org:20151005050537/https://www.Wikistatistics.net/wikimedia#Wikipedia|Wikipedia Interactive Statistics]] — from [[Wikistatistics.net]] – at [[Archive.org]]

*[https://archive.is/CsyKa Wikipedia-Watch.org] — an interesting site exposing some core Wikipedia policies – at [[archive.is]]

*[[Archive.org:20120730142451/http://Encyc.org/ReasonsNotToContributeToWikipedia|Reasons not to contribute to Wikipedia]] — [[Encyc (PmWiki)|Encyc.org]] – at Archive.org