Wikipedia Swot

In: Business and Management

Submitted By pattocci
Words 2036
Pages 9
Wikipedia SWOT Analysis and Competitors
Wikipedia has a lot of strengths and a great field of opportunities; can be qualified as a Encyclopedia and as a Wiki, in both categories has competition and could be surpassed by a Chinese version of a free encyclo-pedia; Wikipedia as we will see encounters opportunities that are great but that could be a weakness too, the global nature of Wikipedia can make the community unmanageable and prone to corruption; Wikimedia counts with more than 30 chapters in more that 280 languages ; Wikimedia is part of a global network of individuals, organizations, chapters, clubs and communities and all work together to maintain Wikipedia .
Wikipedia has many competitors, many are “dead” but many others are making it’s own way in the knowledge field. Sites like Veropedia and Citizendium were created with the same objectives of globalize and share the knowledge, but with few differences like the information should be enhanced by experts, these models have been less successful. Veropedia was created in October 2007 and shut down in January 2009, their principals were very much like the Nupedia project, the idea was to enhance articles coming from Wik-ipedia and to fill the Veropedia servers with more accurate information, its revenue would come from user donations but at the end the project was supported exclusively by its creators ; as of today the Veropedia project has disappeared and its web page is hosting spam.
Citizendium is an online wiki based encyclopedia as well, it was launch in 2006, and its base is like the one from Nupedia; Citizendium’s goal is to create a “free, comprehensive, and reliable repository of structured knowledge.” but with certain rules; Citizendium only accepts registered users to edit information, anonymous editors are not allowed, the editor administrators need to have a bachelor degree and 25 years of…...

Similar Documents

Why Wikipedia Is Not a Valid Source

...Wikipedia started as Nupedia in 2000 and became Wikipedia in January 2001. Wikipedia is known as the free, user complied, open edited encyclopedia written by people who have not done extensive research on a subject. As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become increasingly concerned about the online reader produced encyclopedia. Plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries and some have discouraged or tried to ban students from using it. Wikipedia has been the subject of considerable debate for some time now. Several people think the site is not quotable, while others argue that it is. Many teachers do not accept Wikipedia pages as a source of information because any one can add or remove information from such pages. Also, this online encyclopedia does not always cite sources for its articles. Plus it is difficult to find the credentials of the authors. A huge part of credibility is attributed to a sources currency, indicating how recent a certain source has been updated. Wikipedia’s credibility lies within its immediate opportunity to alter, and update a specific topic. One may argue the fact that almost anyone can be an editor of this reference site, which allows opportunity to diminish the validity of certain information. However, once an editor posts information on a topic, the information is examined and removed or edited. With thousands of pages being edited daily, how is it......

Words: 725 - Pages: 3

Is Wikipedia a Valid Information Source?

...During the course of exchanging information with my learning team on whether Wikipedia is a credible source of information, my team mates have expressed doubts and concerns about the validity of using Wikipedia as an information source for writing papers. The ability of anyone to edit the information posted on Wikipedia and the question of whether the sources cited in these articles are truly valid are two main sticking points. Wikipedia itself has acknowledged “Allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia means that it is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information.” (Wikipedia, 2008) While my team mates acknowledge that Wikipedia has interesting information in general, they view it as more of a current events site. They do not believe that information that can be randomly added to or edited by just any person is a verifiable source. They are against using the information obtained from Wikipedia as a valid reference source. My position is that I believe Wikipedia is a credible source of information when used as part of a research mechanism for the following reasons: 1. Research on the reliability of Wikipedia has consistently shown that the online encyclopedia’s accuracy is similar to traditional Encyclopedia Britannica. (Messner and South, 2011) In a comparison between traditional German encyclopedia Brockhaus and German-language Wikipedia, it was shown that Wikipedia rated higher overall in accuracy, completeness and currency. (Guentheroth and Schoenert,......

Words: 580 - Pages: 3


...Wikipédia est un projet d'encyclopédie universelle, multilingue (287 langues mi-2013) sous licence CC-BY-SA créée par Jimmy Wales et Larry Sanger le 15 janvier 20011 en wiki sous le nom de domaine Le wiki est hébergé sur internet grâce aux serveurs financés par la Wikimedia Foundation, organisation de bienfaisance américaine et dépositaire de la marque Wikipédia. Sommaire [masquer] 1 Historique 2 Autres formes de diffusion 2.1 Distribution papier et CD/DVD 2.2 Consultation de Wikipédia hors connexion 2.3 Consultation sur des assistants personnels 3 Nature 3.1 Objectifs du projet 3.2 Caractéristiques 3.3 Filiations culturelles 3.4 Projets frères 4 Contenu 4.1 Organisation et fonctionnement 4.2 Couverture thématique 4.3 Images 5 Versions linguistiques 6 Rédaction 6.1 Rédacteurs 6.2 Contrôle des modifications des articles 6.3 Conflits d'édition 7 Critiques 8 Aspects techniques 8.1 Logiciel 8.2 Serveurs 9 Wikimedia Foundation et associations locales 10 Influence 10.1 Positionnement 10.2 Récompenses 10.3 Influence culturelle 11 Financement et impact économique du projet 11.1 Financement 11.2 Impact économique 12 Notes et références 12.1 Notes 12.2 Références 13 Annexes 13.1 Bibliographie 13.2 Articles connexes 13.3 Liens externes Historique Articles détaillés : Histoire de Wikipédia et Wikipédia:Historique de Wikipédia en français. Logo de Nupedia. En mars 2000, Jimmy Wales met en ligne sur le Web Nupedia, une......

Words: 5703 - Pages: 23

Ww1 Wikipedia

...Allies, and the Ottoman Empire andBulgaria the Central Powers. Ultimately, more than 70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilised in one of the largest wars in history.[12][13] Although a resurgence of imperialism was an underlying cause, the immediate trigger for war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia,[14][15] and international alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict soon spread around the world. wikipedia...

Words: 344 - Pages: 2

Wikipedia Faces Down Britannica of a button, they thrive of changing stories and methods of adding new information from reliable peers, and they hold leverage upon their accuracy and free databases b. Wikimedia is an entirely virtual company. Their systems of internets and intranets are very well developed and able to handle massive loads of consumer usage at any given moment. This way, at any moment Wikimedia has the ability to link people all over the world. c. Most of Wikimedia meets the criteria of knowledge-creating companies due to its availability of explicit knowledge. d. Given that people can instantaneously find free information within Wikipedia, in order for Encyclopedia Britannica to adapt and deal with the threat is to have some sort of free, consumer developed, information site that can compete and perhaps be more reliable than Wikipedia. e. Wikiversity has the ability of connecting students with other students and teachers, while making available open courseware and material online and distance learning infrastructure so you can become able to get an accredited degree through a select group of universities that will provide credit for open learning materials ascertained through Wikiversity....

Words: 594 - Pages: 3


...integrity of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include insertion of obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also include advertising language, and other types of spam.[48] Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information to an article, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the underlying code of an article, or utilize images disruptively.[49] White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium. John Seigenthaler has described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[50] Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from wiki articles; in practice, the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes.[19][20] However, in one high-profile incident in 2005, false information was introduced into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler and remained undetected for four months.[50] He was falsely accused of being a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy by an anonymous user, but was actually an administrative assistant to President Kennedy.[50] Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called......

Words: 424 - Pages: 2

Wikipedia and Its Credibility

...Wikipedia and its Credibility Wikipedia and its Credibility The Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia that lets every individual with Internet connection write and edits its articles. Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched their creation in 2001 giving an opportunity to all willing people to work together to develop a common resource of knowledge. Many people have different believes and ideas about Wikipedia, therefore, some tend to think of it as a credible and valid source of information, others strongly disagree. “Since all the books and articles have been chosen for publication, each one has presumably undergone some form of selection and review” (Spatt, 2011, “p.”339-340). Unfortunately, this statement is simply not enough to say that one can trust Wikipedia just because it exists. Issues with “Vandalism” In 2003 IBM researches conducted a study to find how rapidly the editors remove the false information in the articles of Wikipedia and discovered that “vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly-so quickly that most users will never see its affects” and that Wikipedia had “surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities” (IBM, 2003, para. 3). This statement is not always true. Waldman (2004) tells the following story to disprove the above point: one blogger who goes under the name of Frozen North, made a point of deliberately making a number of minor errors on a number of entries at the start of September. He made five changes and it took at least 20......

Words: 1136 - Pages: 5


...Citation in APA style, as recommended by the American Psychological Association: [1] Plagiarism. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved August 10, 2004, from[3] Note that in APA 5th Edition style, the following rules apply for the reference: For reference books, which includes encyclopedias, dictionaries, and glossaries, the book title is preceded by the word In. It is not italicized, but the book title following it is. The book title appears in sentence case. You capitalize the first word, the first word after a colon, and proper nouns. The URL must go to the exact page that you reference. No punctuation follows the URL. The term or article title appears in the author position. Use sentence case for multiple-word terms or titles, where you capitalize the first word, the first word after a colon, and proper nouns. The proper in-text citation is ("Plagiarism," 2004) for a paraphrased passage or ("Plagiarism," 2004, para. #) if you directly quote the material. Note that para. # represents the paragraph number in the page where the information appears. If there are multiple headings on the page, it is also acceptable to place the subheading and then a paragraph number within that heading. For example, proper in-text citation for a direct quote of fewer than 40 words is: "Plagiarism is the use of another person’s work (this could be his or her words, products or ideas) for personal advantage, without proper acknowledgment of the......

Words: 290 - Pages: 2

Wikipedia Case Study

...1. Who is the founder of Wikipedia? When was it found? Where is the company located? How many servers store the information? Who owns Wikipedia? Define Wikipedia. The founder of Wikipedia are two internet entrepreneurs named Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Wikipedia was launched on January 15th, 2001. The Wikipedia company headquarters is located in San Francisco, California. As of 2012, Wikipedia has 339 servers. There is no one person that owns Wikipedia. It is a crowd sourced encyclopedia with over 75,000 active registered editors from around the world, plus an uncountable number of unregistered editors who are all working together to try to make sure the information on Wikipedia is truthful and accurate. Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia created through the collaborative effort of a community of users known as “Wikipedians.” Anyone registered on the site can create an article for publication; registration is not required to edit articles. 2. Describe the criticisms regarding Wikipedia. Why does the site generate controversy? The most prominent criticism of Wikipedia is that it is not a primary source. For that reason, much of the information that is provided on the site often cannot be trusted. Because the website is an open content encyclopedia, any person in the world can log in to the site and edit any topic within the encyclopedia. This can, and often does, lead to incorrect postings containing faulty information. For instance, some......

Words: 900 - Pages: 4


...Lawrence ENGL 102 November 2, 2015 Yay or Nay             The mission of Wikipedia was to design it to be used as a free encyclopedia and research tool in which readers could obtain verifiable information.  Wikipedia has been questioned by many individuals concerning its creditability. It is open to a large contributor base allowing anyone to edit and write anything.  Many use information from Wikipedia to do research without second guessing or even thinking that the information being obtained may actually be false.  “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start; they may contain false or debatable information” (Wikipedia: Using Wikipedia as a research tool).   Determining whether Wikipedia is good or bad as far as being able to be used as a source of credit worthy information is kind of hard to figure out. Believing that the pros of Wikipedia outweighs the cons, it is still hard to find a balance. When you search for something on the internet, the first link to direct your search is a link involving Wikipedia which some would consider a good sign.  Wikipedia is a good source to read when you absolutely have no knowledge about what you are researching. Since entries can be made by anyone, the diversity of different subjects could be beneficial. You could learn how one subject could become many due to the differences in cultural and personal opinions.   “Wikipedia takes information from other reliable websites and puts it onto one......

Words: 833 - Pages: 4


...Mass media From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The mass media is a diversified collection of media technologies that reach a large audience via mass communication. The technologies through which this communication takes place include a variety of outlets. Broadcast media transmit information electronically, via such media as film, radio, recorded music, or television. Digital media comprises both Internet and mobile mass communication. Internet media comprise such services as email, social media sites, websites, and Internet­based radio and television. Many other mass media outlets have an additional presence on the web, by such means as linking to or running TV ads online, or distributing QR Codes in outdoor or print media to direct mobile users to a website. In this way, they can utilise the easy accessibility and outreach capabilities the Internet affords, as thereby easily broadcast information throughout many different regions of the world simultaneously and cost­efficiently. Outdoor media transmit information via such media as AR advertising; billboards; blimps; flying billboards (signs in tow of airplanes); placards or kiosks placed inside and outside of buses, commercial buildings, shops, sports stadiums, subway cars, or trains; signs; or skywriting.[1] Print media transmit information via physical objects, such as books, comics, magazines, newspapers, or pamphlets.[2] Event organizing and public speaking can also be considered forms of mass media.[3] The organizat......

Words: 8163 - Pages: 33

Wikipedia Birth

...The pros and cons of Wikipedia This month Wikipedia celebrated its sixth birthday. Earlier this month the number of articles in English on Wikipedia crossed 1.5 million (the number stands at 1,587,588 as of this writing). This number grows by almost 2000 every single day. Compared to this the number of articles in Encyclopedia Britannica (over 122,264) is a far cry. More than a million people visit Wikipedia every day (more than half of whom visit the English language pages). 5 out of every 100 internet users visit Wikipedia daily. Only 11 other sites are visited by more people. Wikipedia is very often at the top of Google search results (almost always in the top 10 results) for things ranging from ideologies (communism - 1, capitalism - 1); sports (cricket - 2, football - 3); sciences (economics - 1, literature - 3); places (India - 1, France - 1, Budapest - 2); people (Sachin Tendulkar - 1, Einstein - 2); objects (water - 2, chair - 1). Many things are taking place here. On the one hand, articles are being created at a rate, depth, and detail, which are utterly unprecedented. For instance, Wikipedia has detailed and easily accessible articles about "Triskaidekaphobia" and "Perfidious Albion" while a careful search did not reveal any relevant articles in Britannica. On the other hand, more and more people are consulting, quoting, referring to Wikipedia on any number of issues. It is rare to see a blog post these days which does not link to Wikipedia for the background info...

Words: 1185 - Pages: 5

Is Wikipedia a Credible and Valid Source

...Is Wikipedia a Credible and Valid Source of Information? Management 521 July 25, 2011 Is Wikipedia a Credible and Valid Source of Information? Abstract Team A debated on whether Wikipedia is a credible and valid source of information. The team was divided into two groups, one side for and one side against. Among the five team members only one (the author) sided for Wikipedia as a credible and valid source. The debate lasted for seven days. Great points were raised by each team members to prove what they sided for. Is Wikipedia a credible and valid source of information? Wikipedia is an online source of information; it is the counterpart of Britannica in the modern computer world. “Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us,” according to the study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica by Daniel Terdiman. The modern computer world brought major changes around us; it introduced a modern way of doing research through the evolution of Wikipedia. “If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain” (Stevenson Jr., 1900-1965). “Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, but it is not helpful in many ways. It is uncomfortable to use as source of information for both academic and professional writing because of the fact that anybody with access to the internet...

Words: 1083 - Pages: 5

Wikipedia Digest

...find Wikipedia’s two main advantages: • Neutral, balanced and encyclopedic: Open to a large contributor vase, drawing a large number of editors from diverse backgrounds, Wikipedia significantly reduce regional and cultural bias and provides access and breadth on subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented. Bias that would be unchallenged in a traditional reference work is likely to be ultimately challenged or considered on Wikipedia. • Updated: Allowing anyone to edit, Wikipedia is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information, which requires removal. Hence, Wikipedia is more subject to subtle viewpoint promotion than a typical reference work. Wikipedia’s open approach tremendously increases the chances that any particular factual error or misleading statement will be relatively promptly corrected. In an ideal world, Wikipedia will run perfectly with all his advantages over traditional encyclopedias. Yet in reality (actual process), we notice some of Wikipedia’s disadvantages: • Significant omissions and uneven of articles’ quality: Unlike the traditional way of making the encyclopedia, there is no systematic process to make sure that “obviously important” topics are written about, so Wikipedia may contain unexpected oversights and omissions. Also, though Wikipedia has a large diversified contributor base, yet most of its articles are written by certain demographic (younger rather than older, male rather than female, rich enough to......

Words: 390 - Pages: 2

Swot Analysis

...A h Tools esearc to R Guide SWOT Analysis Eva Chen Paul Bruneski SWOT Analysis Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats History of SWOT In the 1960’s and 70’s, Albert Humphrey is said to have developed this strategic planning tool using data from the top companies in America at the time. A SWOT Analysis looks at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that are relevant to an organization in a new venture. A SWOT Analysis is a tool which allows users to look at the direction a company or organization may wish to move towards in the future. A SWOT Analysis is a useful tool, which in conjunction with others can help make informed decisions. Table of Contents History of SWOT Definition of SWOT 1 1 Internal and 2 External Factors Guides for using SWOT 2 Potential Uses of 3 SWOT Strengths & Weaknesses of the method 3 Example: SWOT 4 of British Airway Definition of SWOT By specifying clear objectives and identifying internal and external factors that are either helpful or not, a short and simple SWOT analysis is a useful resource which may be incorporated into an organizations strategic planning model. Strengths- Internal attributes that are helpful to the organization to achieving its objective Weaknesses – Internal attributes that are harmful to the organization to achieving its objective Opportunities – External factors that help the organization achieve its objective Threats - External factors that are harmful to the......

Words: 962 - Pages: 4

#3 - Chapter 3 01-19-2016 | Peter Kawasaki | Yamaha Street Fighter