Test
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899101010101010101010101010mynameisaqwertyuioasdfghjklzxcvbnm`1234567890-=~!@#$%^&*()_+{}:">?<,./;'[]_+)$WQ␣ non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its 19 million articles (over 3.7 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, and it has about 90,000 active contributors.[3][4] As of July 2011, there were editions of Wikipedia in 282 languages. It has become the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet,[5][6][7][8] ranking around seventh among all websites on Alexa and having 365 million readers.[5][9] Wikipedia was launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.[10] Sanger coined the name Wikipedia,[11] which is a portmanteau of wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning "quick")[12] and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of encyclopedia building and the large presence of unacademic content has often been noted. When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of several examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook.[13] Some have noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear.[14][15] Students have been assigned to write Wikipedia articles as an exercise in clearly and succinctly explaining difficult concepts to an uninitiated audience.[16] Although the policies of Wikipedia strongly espouse verifiability and a neutral point of view, critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture),[17] and because it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial processes.[18] Its reliability and accuracy are also targeted.[19] Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information;[20] though some scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[21][22] A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors."[23] Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Nature of Wikipedia 2.1 Editing 2.2 Rules and laws governing content 2.3 Content licensing 2.4 Accessing Wikipedia's content 2.5 Defenses against undesirable edits 2.6 Coverage of topics 2.7 Quality of writing 2.8 Reliability 2.9 Plagiarism concerns 2.10 Sexual content 2.11 Privacy 2.12 Community 2.13 Language editions 3 Operation 3.1 Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters 3.2 Software and hardware 3.3 Mobile access 4 Impact 4.1 Impact on publishing 4.2 Cultural significance 4.2.1 Awards 4.2.2 Satire 5 Related projects 6 See also 7 Notes 8 Further reading 8.1 Academic studies 8.2 Books 8.3 Book reviews and other articles 8.4 Learning resources 8.5 Other media coverage 9 External links History Main article: History of Wikipedia Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project, Nupedia. Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process. Nupedia was founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of Bomis, Inc, a web portal company. Its main figures were Jimmy Wales, Bomis CEO, and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was licensed initially under its own Nupedia Open Content License, switching to the GNU Free Documentation License before Wikipedia's founding at the urging of Richard Stallman.[24] Main Page of the English Wikipedia on October 20, 2010. Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia.[25][26] While Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[27][28] Sanger is usually credited with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[29] On January 10, 2001, Larry Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[30] Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[31] and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[27] Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view"[32] was codified in its initial months, and was similar to Nupedia's earlier "nonbiased" policy. Otherwise, there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated independently of Nupedia.[27] Graph of the article count for the English Wikipedia, from January 10, 2001, to September 9, 2007 (the date of the two-millionth article). Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. It grew to approximately 20,000 articles and 18 language editions by the end of 2001. By late 2002, it had reached 26 language editions, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the final days of 2004.[33] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. English Wikipedia passed the two million-article mark on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, eclipsing even the Yongle Encyclopedia (1407), which had held the record for exactly 600 years.[34] Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in a perceived English-centric Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002.[35] Later that year, Wales announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and its website was moved to wikipedia.org.[36] Various other wiki-encyclopedia projects have been started, largely under a different philosophy from the open and NPOV editorial model of Wikipedia. Wikinfo does not require a neutral point of view and allows original research. New Wikipedia-inspired projects - such as Citizendium, Scholarpedia, Conservapedia, and Google's Knol where the articles are a little more essayistic[37] - have been started to address perceived limitations of Wikipedia, such as its policies on peer review, original research, and commercial advertising. Number of articles in the English Wikipedia plotted against Gompertz function trending to 4.4 million articles. Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of articles and of contributors, appeared to have flattened off around early 2007.[38] In 2006, about 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia; by 2010 that average was roughly 1,000.[39] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center speculated that this is due to the increasing exclusiveness of the project.[40] New or occasional editors have significantly higher rates of their edits reverted (removed) than an elite group of regular editors, colloquially known as the "cabal." This could make it more difficult for the project to recruit and retain new contributors over the long term, resulting in stagnation in article creation. Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because the low-hanging fruit already exist.[41][42] In November 2009, a Ph.D thesis written by Felipe Ortega, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.[43][44] The Wall Street Journal reported that "unprecedented numbers of the millions of online volunteers who write, edit and police [Wikipedia] are quitting." The array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content are among the reasons for this trend that are cited in the article.[45] These claims were disputed by Jimmy Wales, who denied the decline and questioned the methodology of the study.[46] In January 2007 Wikipedia initially entered the top ten list of the most popular websites in the United States, according to comScore Networks Inc. With 42.9 million unique visitors and rank #9, Wikipedia surpassed New York Times (#10) and Apple Inc. (#11). It is a significant increase as in January 2006 the rank was #33 with just 18.3 million unique visitors.[47] In April 2011 it was listed as the fifth most popular website by Google Inc.[48][49] Nature of Wikipedia See also: Reliability of Wikipedia and Academic studies about Wikipedia Editing See also: Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:Template messages In April 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation conducted a Wikipedia usability study, questioning users about the editing mechanism.[50] In a departure from the style of traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia employs an open, "wiki" editing model. Except for particularly vandalism-prone pages, every article may be edited anonymously or with a user account. Different language editions modify this policy: only registered users may create a new article in the English edition. No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, or is vetted by any recognized authority; rather, the articles are agreed on by consensus.[51] By default, any edit to an article becomes available immediately, prior to any review. This means that an article may contain errors, misguided contributions, advocacy, or even patent nonsense, until another editor corrects the problem. Different language editions, each under separate administrative control, are free to modify this policy. For example the German Wikipedia maintains a system of "stable versions" of articles,[52] to allow a reader to see versions of articles that have passed certain reviews. In June 2010, its administrators announced that the English Wikipedia would remove strict editing restrictions from "controversial" or vandalism-prone articles (such as George W. Bush, David Cameron or homework) by using reviews.[53][54] In place of an editing prohibition for new or unregistered users, there would be a "new system, called 'pending changes'" which, as Jimmy Wales told the BBC, would enable the English Wikipedia "to open up articles for general editing that have been protected or semi-protected for years." The "pending changes" system was introduced on June 15, 2010, shortly after 11 pm GMT. Edits to specified articles are now "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication." Wales opted against the German Wikipedia model of requiring editor review before edits to any article, describing it as "neither necessary nor desirable." He added that the administrators of the German Wikipedia were "going to be closely watching the English system, and I'm sure they'll at least consider switching if the results are good."[55] Editors keep track of changes to articles by checking the difference between two revisions of a page, displayed here in red. Contributors, registered or not, can take advantage of features available in the software that powers Wikipedia. The "History" page attached to each article records every single past revision of the article, though a revision with libelous content, criminal threats or copyright infringements may be removed afterwards.[56][57] This feature makes it easy to compare old and new versions, undo changes that an editor considers undesirable, or restore lost content. The "Discussion" pages associated with each article are used to coordinate work among multiple editors.[58] Regular contributors often maintain a "watchlist" of articles of interest to them, so that they can easily keep tabs on all recent changes to those articles. Computer programs called Internet bots have been used widely to remove vandalism as soon as it was made,[22] to correct common misspellings and stylistic issues, or to start articles such as geography entries in a standard format from statistical data. The editing interface of Wikipedia. Articles in Wikipedia are organized roughly in three ways according to: development status, subject matter and the access level required for editing. The most developed state of articles is called "featured article" status: articles labeled as such are the ones that will be featured in the main page of Wikipedia.[59][60] Researcher Giacomo Poderi found that articles tend to reach the FA status via the intensive work of few editors.[61] In 2007, in preparation for producing a print version, the English-language Wikipedia introduced an assessment scale against which the quality of articles is judged.[62] A WikiProject is a place for a group of editors to coordinate work on a specific topic. The discussion pages attached to a project are often used to coordinate changes that take place across articles. Wikipedia also maintains a style guide called the Manual of Style or MoS for short, which stipulates, for example, that, in the first sentence of any given article, the title of the article and any alternative titles should appear in bold. Rules and laws governing content For legal reasons, content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular copyright law) of Florida, where Wikipedia servers are hosted. Beyond that, the Wikipedian editorial principles are embodied in the "five pillars", and numerous policies and guidelines are intended to shape the content appropriately. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors as a community write and revise those policies and guidelines[63] and enforce them by deleting, annotating with tags, or modifying article materials failing to meet them. The rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia branched off a translation of the rules on the English Wikipedia and have since diverged to some extent. While they still show broad-brush similarities, they differ in many details. According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia to be worthy of inclusion must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-like.[64] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[65] which usually means that it must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as mainstream media or major academic journals that are independent of the subject of the topic. Further, Wikipedia must expose knowledge that is already established and recognized.[66] In other words, it must not present, for instance, new information or original works. A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference to a reliable source. Among Wikipedia editors, this is often phrased as "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the truthfulness of the articles and making their own interpretations.[67] This can lead to the removal of information that is valid, thus hindering inclusion of knowledge and growth of the encyclopedia.[68] Finally, Wikipedia must not take a side.[69] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article.[70] This is known as neutral point of view, or NPOV. Wikipedia has many methods of settling disputes. A "bold, revert, discuss" cycle sometimes occurs, in which a user makes an edit, another user reverts it, and the matter is discussed on the appropriate talk page. In order to gain a broader community consensus, issues can be raised at the Village Pump, or a Request for Comment can be made soliciting other users' input. "Wikiquette Assistance" is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil, or other difficult communications with other editors. Specialized forums exist for centralizing discussion on specific decisions, such as whether or not an article should be deleted. Mediation is sometimes used, although it has been deemed by some Wikipedians to be unhelpful for resolving particularly contentious disputes. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee settles disputes when other methods fail. The ArbCom generally does not rule on the factual correctness of article content, although it sometimes enforces the "Neutral Point of View" policy. Statistical analyses suggest that Wikipedia's dispute resolution ignores the content of user disputes and focuses on user conduct instead, functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting users, but to weed out problematic users while weeding potentially productive users back in to participate. Its remedies include banning users from Wikipedia (used in 15.7% of cases), subject matter remedies (23.4%), article bans (43.3%) and cautions and probations (63.2%). Total bans from Wikipedia are largely limited to instances of impersonation and anti-social behavior. Warnings tend to be issued for editing conduct and conduct that is anti-consensus, rather than anti-social.[71] Content licensing All text in Wikipedia was covered by GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), a copyleft license permitting the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work,[72] up until June 2009, when the site switched to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-by-SA) 3.0.[73] Wikipedia had been working on the switch to Creative Commons licenses because the GFDL, initially designed for software manuals, was not considered suitable[clarification needed] for online reference works and because the two licenses were incompatible.[74] In response to the Wikimedia Foundation's request, in November 2008, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) released a new version of GFDL designed specifically to allow Wikipedia to relicense its content to CC-BY-SA by August 1, 2009. Wikipedia and its sister projects held a community-wide referendum to decide whether or not to make the license switch.[75] The referendum took place from April 9 to 30.[76] The results were 75.8% "Yes," 10.5% "No," and 13.7% "No opinion."[77] In consequence of the referendum, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees voted to change to the Creative Commons license, effective June 15, 2009.[77] The position that Wikipedia is merely a hosting service has been successfully used as a defense in court.[78][79] The handling of media files (e.g., image files) varies across language editions. Some language editions, such as the English Wikipedia, include non-free image files under fair use doctrine, while the others have opted not to. This is in part because of the difference in copyright laws between countries; for example, the notion of fair use does not exist in Japanese copyright law. Media files covered by free content licenses (e.g., Creative Commons' cc-by-sa) are shared across language editions via Wikimedia Commons repository, a project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Accessing Wikipedia's content Because Wikipedia content is distributed under an open license, anyone can reuse, or re-distribute it at no charge. The content of Wikipedia has been published in many forms, both online and offline, outside of the Wikipedia website. Web sites - Thousands of "mirror sites" exist that republish content from Wikipedia; two prominent ones, that also include content from other reference sources, are Reference.com and Answers.com. Another example is Wapedia, which began to display Wikipedia content in a mobile-device-friendly format before Wikipedia itself did. Mobile devices - A variety of mobile apps provide access to Wikipedia on hand-held devices. This can be via apps for the Android or the Apple iOS devices (see Wikipedia iOS apps), or via a mobile web browser that accesses specially formatted pages (see MediaWiki Mobile). Search engines - Some web search engines also display content from Wikipedia on search results: examples include Bing (via technology gained from Powerset)[80] and Duck Duck Go. Other wikis - Some wikis, most notably Enciclopedia Libre and Citizendium, began as forks of Wikipedia content. For example, the website DBpedia, begun in 2007, is a project that extracts data from the infoboxes and category declarations of the English-language Wikipedia and makes it available in a queriable semantic format, RDF. The possibility has also been raised to have Wikipedia export its data directly in a semantic format, possibly by using the Semantic MediaWiki extension. Such an export of data could also help Wikipedia reuse its own data, both between articles on the same language Wikipedia and between different language Wikipedias.[81] Compact Discs, DVDs - Collections of Wikipedia articles have also been published on optical disks. An English version, 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, contained about 2,000 articles.[82][83] The Polish-language version contains nearly 240,000 articles.[84] There are also German and Spanish-language versions.[85][86] Also: "Wikipedia for Schools", the Wikipedia series of CDs/DVDs, produced by Wikipedians and SOS Children, is a free, hand-checked, non-commercial selection from Wikipedia targeted around the UK National Curriculum and intended to be useful for much of the English-speaking world
??????????
ABCDEFGHIJK MNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Noel
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
alphabet
123456789
number
my name is alamamaterhdsaahjkf
weird