Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia Review"
(New page: The '''Wikipedia Review''' is an Internet forum for the discussion of Wikimedia projects, particularly the English Wikipedia. As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts....) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Wikipedia Review''' is an Internet forum for the discussion of [[Wikimedia]] projects, particularly the English [[Wikipedia]]. As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.[9] | The '''Wikipedia Review''' is an Internet forum for the discussion of [[Wikimedia]] projects, particularly the English [[Wikipedia]]. As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.[9] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Background == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Wikipedia Review was originally founded in November 2005, when it was hosted by ProBoards. It is now located at its own domain name supposedly created by Igor Alexander. The site requires registration using a valid e-mail address to post and claims to discourage the operation of multiple accounts by a single user. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Criticism of Wikipedia includes plagiarism, discussions of the validity of pseudonymous and "amateur" (or layman) editing, abuse of administrator tools and other corruption, and of the influence of Jimmy Wales. As well as criticism, the site has also been cited for its discussion and evaluation of wiki-editing. | ||
Revision as of 10:21, 13 October 2008
The Wikipedia Review is an Internet forum for the discussion of Wikimedia projects, particularly the English Wikipedia. As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.[9]
Background
Wikipedia Review was originally founded in November 2005, when it was hosted by ProBoards. It is now located at its own domain name supposedly created by Igor Alexander. The site requires registration using a valid e-mail address to post and claims to discourage the operation of multiple accounts by a single user.
Criticism of Wikipedia includes plagiarism, discussions of the validity of pseudonymous and "amateur" (or layman) editing, abuse of administrator tools and other corruption, and of the influence of Jimmy Wales. As well as criticism, the site has also been cited for its discussion and evaluation of wiki-editing.
