Знакомства Москва, бесплатный сайт знакомств Московской области для дружбы, общения и любви

Поиск по тегам

Например: дружба, отношения

Самое интересное в дневниках

627. Вот такая история..

В небольшом городке все о всех всё знают.. Все живут в счастливых браках в своих отдельных домиках и вроде всё хорошо..

Но, со временем, нескольким дамам стало скучно.. Все мужчины быстро узнали эту новость.. Естественно, мужья не знали про своих жён.

Мораль этого городка стала быстро падать..

Мэр городка решил прекратить еще

В небольшом городке все о всех всё знают.. Все живут в счастливых браках в своих отдельных домиках и вроде всё хорошо..

Но, со временем, нескольким дамам стало скучно.. Все мужчины быстро узнали эту новость.. Естественно, мужья не знали про своих жён.

Мораль этого городка стала быстро падать..

Мэр городка решил прекратить Сдом и Гомору и срочно созвал всех мужчин. Каждый мужчина получил револьвер с одним патроном. Договорились, что когда муж поймёт, что его жена одна из тех дам, ровно в полночь он её застрелит.

Никто ни с кем не общается. Все расходятся по домам. И не выходят, пока проблема не решится..

- Первая полночь.. и тишина.

- Вторая полночь.. и тишина.. 


В Семнадцатую полночь раздались выстрелы. 

Сколько было таких дам в городке?



Иногда удивляют ответы на слово Привет! Самый странный ответ - с нищими не знакомлюсь.

Не понимаю девушек которые пишут 1 слово да еще и без заглавной буквы - привет, да, конечно.

С такими сразу пропадает интерес общения.

Иногда удивляют ответы на слово Привет! Самый странный ответ - с нищими не знакомлюсь.

Не понимаю девушек которые пишут 1 слово да еще и без заглавной буквы - привет, да, конечно.

С такими сразу пропадает интерес общения.



Main article: History of Wikipedia

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger


Main article: Nupedia

Logo reading "Nupedia.com the free encyclopedia" in blue with the large initial "N"

Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project called Nupedia.

Other collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before Wikipedia, but еще


Main article: History of Wikipedia

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger


Main article: Nupedia

Logo reading "Nupedia.com the free encyclopedia" in blue with the large initial "N"

Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project called Nupedia.

Other collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before Wikipedia, but none were as successful.[18] 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.[19] It was founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of Bomis, a web portal company. Its main figures were Bomis CEO Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia.[1][20] Nupedia was initially licensed under its own Nupedia Open Content License, but even before Wikipedia was founded, Nupedia switched to the GNU Free Documentation License at the urging of Richard Stallman.[21] Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[22][23] while Sanger is credited with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[24] On January 10, 2001, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[25]

Launch and growth

The domains wikipedia.com (later redirecting to wikipedia.org) and wikipedia.org were registered on January 12, 2001,[26] and January 13, 2001,[27] respectively, and Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001[19] as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[28] and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[22] Its policy of "neutral point-of-view"[29] was codified in its first few months. Otherwise, there were initially relatively few rules, and it operated independently of Nupedia.[22] Bomis originally intended it as a business for profit.[30]

The Wikipedia home page on December 20, 2001

English Wikipedia editors with >100 edits per month[31]

Number of English Wikipedia articles[32]

Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. Language editions were created beginning in March 2003, with a total of 161 in use by the end of 2004.[33][34] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing the Yongle Encyclopedia made during the Ming Dynasty in 1408, which had held the record for almost 600 years.[35]

Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002.[36] Wales then announced that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and changed Wikipedia's domain from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org.[37][38]

Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of new articles and of editors, appears to have peaked around early 2007.[39] Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800.[40] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center attributed this slowing of growth to the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change.[41] Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because articles that could be called "low-hanging fruit"—topics that clearly merit an article—have already been created and built up extensively.[42][43][44]

In November 2009, 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, it lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.[45][46] The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.[47] Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the study's methodology.[48] Two years later, in 2011, he acknowledged a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, he also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable".[49] A 2013 MIT Technology Review article, "The Decline of Wikipedia", questioned this claim, revealing that since 2007, Wikipedia had lost a third of its volunteer editors, and that those remaining had focused increasingly on minutiae.[50] In July 2012, The Atlantic reported that the number of administrators was also in decline.[51] In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated, "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis."[52]

The number of active English Wikipedia editors has remained steady after a long period of decline.[53][54]


Cartogram showing number of articles in each European language as of January 2019. One square represents 10,000 articles. Languages with fewer than 10,000 articles are represented by one square. Languages are grouped by language family and each language family is presented by a separate color.

In January 2007, Wikipedia first became one of the ten most popular websites in the US, according to Comscore Networks. With 42.9 million unique visitors, it was ranked #9, surpassing The New York Times (#10) and Apple (#11). This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when Wikipedia ranked 33rd, with around 18.3 million unique visitors.[55] As of March 2020, it ranked 13th[4] in popularity according to Alexa Internet. In 2014, it received eight billion page views every month.[56] On February 9, 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month, "according to the ratings firm comScore".[10] Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that have accumulated improvements piecemeal through "stigmergic accumulation".[57][58]

On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the United States Congress—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)—by blacking out its pages for 24 hours.[59] More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced its content.[60][61]

On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for The Economic Times indicated that not only had Wikipedia's growth stalled, it "had lost nearly ten percent of its page views last year. There was a decline of about two billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by twelve percent, those of German version slid by 17 percent and the Japanese version lost nine percent."[62] Varma added, "While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's Knowledge Graphs project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users."[62] When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society said that he suspected much of the page-view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need to click [any further]."[62] By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was ranked the 5th most popular website globally.[63]

In January 2013, 274301 Wikipedia, an asteroid, was named after Wikipedia; in October 2014, Wikipedia was honored with the Wikipedia Monument; and, in July 2015, 106 of the 7,473 700-page volumes of Wikipedia became available as Print Wikipedia. In April 2019, an Israeli lunar lander, Beresheet, crash landed on the surface of the Moon carrying a copy of nearly all of the English Wikipedia engraved on thin nickel plates; experts say the plates likely survived the crash.[64][65] In June 2019, scientists reported that all 16 GB of article text from the English Wikipedia had been encoded into synthetic DNA.[66]

Current state

On January 23, 2020, the English-language Wikipedia, which is the largest language section of the online encyclopedia, published its six millionth article.

By February 2020, Wikipedia ranked eleventh in the world in terms of Internet traffic.[67] As a key resource for disseminating information related to COVID-19, the World Health Organization has partnered with Wikipedia to help combat the spread of misinformation.[68][69]

Wikipedia accepts cryptocurrency donations and Basic Attention Token.[70][71][72]


Differences between versions of an article are highlighted

Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principle[note 3] regarding the security of its content.[73]


Due to Wikipedia's increasing popularity, some editions, including the English version, have introduced editing restrictions for certain cases. For instance, on the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article.[74] On the English Wikipedia, among others, particularly controversial, sensitive or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to varying degrees.[75][76] A frequently vandalized article can be "semi-protected" or "extended confirmed protected", meaning that only "autoconfirmed" or "extended confirmed" editors can modify it.[77] A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators can make changes.[78] A 2021 article in the Columbia Journalism Review identified Wikipedia's page-protection policies as "erhaps the most important" means at its disposal to "regulate its market of ideas".[79]

In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors, depending on certain conditions. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles[80] which have passed certain reviews. Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012.[81] Under this system, new and unregistered users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are reviewed by established users before they are published.[82]

Wikipedia's editing interface

Review of changes

Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikipedia provides tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. Each article's History page links to each revision.[note 4][83] On most articles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's History page. Anyone can view the latest changes to articles, and anyone registered may maintain a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of changes. "New pages patrol" is a process where newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.[84]

In 2003, economics Ph.D. student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in a wiki created a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favored "creative construction" over "creative destruction".[85]


Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia

Any change or edit that manipulates content in a way that deliberately compromises Wikipedia's integrity is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include additions of obscenities and crude humor; it can also include advertising and other types of spam.[86] Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing content or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the article's underlying code, or use images disruptively.[87]

White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium.

American journalist John Seigenthaler (1927–2014), subject of the Seigenthaler incident.

Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to detect and fix it is a few minutes.[88][89] However, some vandalism takes much longer to detect and repair.[90]

In the Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler in May 2005, falsely presenting him as a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[90] It remained uncorrected for four months.[90] Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales said he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced.[91][92] After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[90] The incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia for tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.[93]

In 2010, Daniel Tosh encouraged viewers of his show, Tosh.0, to visit the show's Wikipedia article and edit it at will. On a later episode, he commented on the edits to the article, most of them offensive, which had been made by the audience and had prompted the article to be locked from editing.[94][95]

Edit warring

Wikipedians often have disputes regarding content, which may result in repeated competing changes to an article, known as "edit warring".[96][97] It is widely seen as a resource-consuming scenario where no useful knowledge is added,[98] and criticized as creating a competitive[99] and conflict-based[100] editing culture associated with traditional masculine gender roles.[101]

Policies and laws

External video

Jimbo at Fosdem cropped.jpg

video icon Wikimania, 60 Minutes, CBS, 20 minutes, April 5, 2015, co-founder Jimmy Wales at Fosdem

Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, copyright laws) of the United States and of the US state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and guidelines intended to appropriately shape content. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.[102] Editors can enforce these rules by deleting or modifying non-compliant material. Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on a translation of the rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent.[80]

Content policies and guidelines

According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-style.[103] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[104] which generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject. Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized.[105] It must not present original research. 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.[106] This can at times lead to the removal of information that, though valid, is not properly sourced.[107] Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[108]


Further information: Wikipedia:Administration

Wikipedia's initial anarchy integrated democratic and hierarchical elements over time.[109][110] An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor, nor by the subject of the article.[111]


Editors in good standing in the community can request extra user rights, granting them the technical ability to perform certain special actions. In particular, editors can choose to run for "adminship",[112][113] which includes the ability to delete pages or prevent them from being changed in cases of severe vandalism or editorial disputes. Administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to implement restrictions intended to prevent disruptive editors from making unproductive edits.[114][115]

By 2012, fewer editors were becoming administrators compared to Wikipedia's earlier years, in part because the process of vetting potential administrators had become more rigorous.[116]

Dispute resolution

Over time, Wikipedia has developed a semiformal dispute resolution process. To determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at appropriate community forums,[note 5] seek outside input through third opinion requests, or initiate a more general community discussion known as a "request for comment".

Arbitration Committee

Main article: Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute resolution process. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how an article should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on the specific view that should be adopted. Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted,[117] functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate. Therefore, the committee does not dictate the content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new content violates Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content is considered biased). Its remedies include cautions and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43%), subject matters (23%), or Wikipedia (16%).[when?] Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of impersonation and anti-social behavior. When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus or in violation of editing policies, remedies tend to be limited to warnings.[118]


Main article: Wikipedia community

File:Wikimania - the Wikimentary.webm

Video of Wikimania 2005—an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, was held in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, August 4–8.

Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated "talk" page. These form the primary communication channel for editors to discuss, coordinate and debate.[119]

File:Editing Hoxne Hoard at the British Museum.ogv

Wikipedians and British Museum curators collaborate on the article Hoxne Hoard in June 2010

Wikipedia's community has been described as cultlike,[120] although not always with entirely negative connotations.[121] Its preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of credentials, has been referred to as "anti-elitism".[122]

Wikipedians sometimes award one another "virtual barnstars" for good work. These personalized tokens of appreciation reveal a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation work.[123]

Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.[124] As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked there.[125] Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization".[126] In 2008, a Slate magazine article reported that: "According to researchers in Palo Alto, one percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits."[127] This method of evaluating contributions was later disputed by Aaron Swartz, who noted that several articles he sampled had large portions of their content (measured by number of characters) contributed by users with low edit counts.[128]

The English Wikipedia has 6,441,630 articles, 42,918,091 registered editors, and 121,778 active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made one or more edits in the past 30 days.

Editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk page comments, may implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to a sometimes convoluted dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references".[129] Editors who do not log in are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,[129] as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation",[130] but the contribution histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their IP addresses cannot be attributed to a particular editor with certainty.


A 2007 study by researchers from Dartmouth College found that "anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia ... are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site".[131] Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "t turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users ... 524 people ... And in fact, the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits."[126] However, Business Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodget showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most Wikipedia content (measured by the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled edit) is created by "outsiders", while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders".[126]

A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others,[132][133] although a later commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness and that the differences with the control group and the samples were small.[134] According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".[135]


Several studies have shown that most Wikipedia contributors are male. Notably, the results of a Wikimedia Foundation survey in 2008 showed that only 13 percent of Wikipedia editors were female.[136] Because of this, universities throughout the United States tried to encourage women to become Wikipedia contributors. Similarly, many of these universities, including Yale and Brown, gave college credit to students who create or edit an article relating to women in science or technology.[137] Andrew Lih, a professor and scientist, wrote in The New York Times that the reason he thought the number of male contributors outnumbered the number of females so greatly was because identifying as a woman may expose oneself to "ugly, intimidating behavior".[138] Data has shown that Africans are underrepresented among Wikipedia editors.[139]

Language editions

Main article: List of Wikipedias

Distribution of the 58,189,929 articles in different language editions (as of January 21, 2022)[140]

  English (11.1%)

  Cebuano (10.5%)

  Swedish (4.7%)

  German (4.6%)

  French (4.1%)

  Dutch (3.6%)

  Russian (3.1%)

  Spanish (3%)

  Italian (3%)

  Egyptian Arabic (2.6%)

  Polish (2.6%)

  Japanese (2.3%)

  Vietnamese (2.2%)

  Waray (2.2%)

  Chinese (2.1%)

  Arabic (2%)

  Ukrainian (1.9%)

  Other (34.4%)

Most popular edition of Wikipedia by country in January 2021.

Most viewed editions of Wikipedia over time.

Most edited editions of Wikipedia over time.

There are currently 325 language editions of Wikipedia (also called language versions, or simply Wikipedias). As of January 2022, the six largest, in order of article count, are the English, Cebuano, Swedish, German, French, and Dutch Wikipedias.[141] The second and third-largest Wikipedias owe their position to the article-creating bot Lsjbot, which as of 2013 had created about half the articles on the Swedish Wikipedia, and most of the articles in the Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias. The latter are both languages of the Philippines.

In addition to the top six, twelve other Wikipedias have more than a million articles each (Russian, Spanish, Italian, Egyptian Arabic, Polish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Waray, Chinese, Arabic, Ukrainian and Portuguese), seven more have over 500,000 articles (Persian, Catalan, Serbian, Indonesian, Norwegian, Korean and Finnish), 44 more have over 100,000, and 82 more have over 10,000.[142][141] The largest, the English Wikipedia, has over 6.4 million articles. As of January 2021, the English Wikipedia receives 48% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages. The top 10 editions represent approximately 85% of the total traffic.[143]

Logarithmic graph of the 20 largest language editions of Wikipedia

(as of 21 January 2022)[144]

(millions of articles)

0.1 0.3 1 3

English 6,441,630

Cebuano 6,110,509

Swedish 2,720,793

German 2,655,529

French 2,390,950

Dutch 2,078,506

Russian 1,787,725

Spanish 1,746,760

Italian 1,736,913

Egyptian Arabic 1,538,513

Polish 1,505,951

Japanese 1,309,982

Vietnamese 1,270,074

Waray 1,265,640

Chinese 1,250,743

Arabic 1,154,695

Ukrainian 1,133,388

Portuguese 1,081,526

Persian 856,775

Catalan 693,646

The unit for the numbers in bars is articles.

A graph for pageviews of Turkish Wikipedia shows a large drop of roughly 80% immediately after the block of Wikipedia in Turkey was imposed in 2017.

Since Wikipedia is based on the Web and therefore worldwide, contributors to the same language edition may use different dialects or may come from different countries (as is the case for the English edition). These differences may lead to some conflicts over spelling differences (e.g. colour versus color)[145] or points of view.[146]

Though the various language editions are held to global policies such as "neutral point of view", they diverge on some points of policy and practice, most notably on whether images that are not licensed freely may be used under a claim of fair use.[147][148][149]

Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".[150] Though each language edition functions more or less independently, some efforts are made to supervise them all. They are coordinated in part by Meta-Wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki devoted to maintaining all its projects (Wikipedia and others).[151] For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia,[152] and it maintains a list of articles every Wikipedia should have.[153] The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, and mathematics. It is not rare for articles strongly related to a particular language not to have counterparts in another edition. For example, articles about small towns in the United States might be available only in English, even when they meet the notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects.

Estimation of contributions shares from different regions in the world to different Wikipedia editions[154]

Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions, in part because those editions do not allow fully automated translation of articles. Articles available in more than one language may offer "interwiki links", which link to the counterpart articles in other editions.[citation needed]

A study published by PLOS One in 2012 also estimated the share of contributions to different editions of Wikipedia from different regions of the world. It reported that the proportion of the edits made from North America was 51% for the English Wikipedia, and 25% for the simple English Wikipedia.[154]

English Wikipedia editor numbers

Number of editors on the English Wikipedia over time.

On March 1, 2014, The Economist, in an article titled "The Future of Wikipedia", cited a trend analysis concerning data published by the Wikimedia Foundation stating that "[t]he number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years."[155] The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was cited by The Economist as substantially in contrast to statistics for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia). The Economist reported that the number of contributors with an average of five or more edits per month was relatively constant since 2008 for Wikipedia in other languages at approximately 42,000 editors within narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. The number of active editors in English Wikipedia, by sharp comparison, was cited as peaking in 2007 at approximately 50,000 and dropping to 30,000 by the start of 2014.

In contrast, the trend analysis published in The Economist presents Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) as successful in retaining their active editors on a renewable and sustained basis, with their numbers remaining relatively constant at approximately 42,000.[155] No comment was made concerning which of the differentiated edit policy standards from Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) would provide a possible alternative to English Wikipedia for effectively ameliorating substantial editor attrition rates on the English-language Wikipedia.[156]


See also: Academic studies about Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia

Ambox current red.svg

This section needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 201

Various Wikipedians have criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation, which includes more than fifty policies and nearly 150,000 words as of 2014.[157][158]

Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias. In 2010, columnist and journalist Edwin Black described Wikipedia as being a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".[159] Articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized Wikipedia's "Undue Weight" policy, concluding that the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather focus on all the major viewpoints on the subject, give less attention to minor ones, and creates omissions that can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[160][161][162]

Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black alleged (in 2010 and 2011 respectively) that articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic.[159][163] A 2008 article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is subject to manipulation and spin.[164]

In 2020, Omer Benjakob and Stephen Harrison noted that "Media coverage of Wikipedia has radically shifted over the past two decades: once cast as an intellectual frivolity, it is now lauded as the 'last bastion of shared reality' online."[165]

In 2006, the Wikipedia Watch criticism website listed dozens of examples of plagiarism in the English Wikipedia.[166]

Accuracy of content

Main article: Reliability of Wikipedia

External audio

audio icon The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1, Ideas with Paul Kennedy, CBC, January 15, 2014

Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica are written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy.[167] However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica by the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."[168] Joseph Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."[169] Others raised similar critiques.[170] The findings by Nature were disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[171][172] and in response, Nature gave a rebuttal of the points raised by Britannica.[173] In addition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others have examined the sample size and selection method used in the Nature effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in Nature's manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported confidence intervals), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small sample size, 42 or 4 × 101 articles compared, vs >105 and >106 set sizes for Britannica and the English Wikipedia, respectively).[174]

As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.[175] Concerns have been raised by PC World in 2009 regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[176] the insertion of false information,[177] vandalism, and similar problems.

Economist Tyler Cowen wrote: "If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the median refereed journal article on economics was more likely to be true after a not so long think I would opt for Wikipedia." He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases, and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal articles as well as relevant information being omitted from news reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found on Internet sites and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them.[178] Amy Bruckman has argued that, due to the number of reviewers, "the content of a popular Wikipedia page is actually the most reliable form of information ever created".[179]

Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.[180] Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.[181] Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.[182] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has claimed that Wikipedia has largely avoided the problem of "fake news" because the Wikipedia community regularly debates the quality of sources in articles.[183]

External video

video icon Inside Wikipedia – Attack of the PR Industry, Deutsche Welle, 7:13 mins[184]

Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, and various forms of paid advocacy seen as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable online encyclopedia.[83][185] In response to paid advocacy editing and undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article in The Wall Street Journal, to have strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.[186] The article stated that: "Beginning Monday [from the date of the article, June 16, 2014], changes in Wikipedia's terms of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement. Katherine Maher, the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's chief communications officer, said the changes address a sentiment among volunteer editors that, 'we're not an advertising service; we're an encyclopedia.'"[186][187][188][189][190] These issues, among others, had been parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.[191]

A Harvard law textbook, Legal Research in a Nutshell (2011), cites Wikipedia as a "general source" that "can be a real boon" in "coming up to speed in the law governing a situation" and, "while not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more in-depth resources".[192]

Discouragement in education

Ambox current red.svg

This section needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (December 2020)

Most university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[193] some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.[194][195] Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.[196] Wales once (2006 or earlier) said he receives about ten emails weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia; he told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia," he said.[197]

In February 2007, an article in The Harvard Crimson newspaper reported that a few of the professors at Harvard University were including Wikipedia articles in their syllabi, although without realizing the articles might change.[198] In June 2007, former president of the American Library Association Michael Gorman condemned Wikipedia, along with Google,[199] stating that academics who endorse the use of Wikipedia are "the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything".

In contrast, academic writing[clarification needed] in Wikipedia has evolved in recent years and has been found to increase student interest, personal connection to the product, creativity in material processing, and international collaboration in the learning process.[200]

Medical information

See also: Health information on Wikipedia

On March 5, 2014, Julie Beck writing for The Atlantic magazine in an article titled "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia", stated that "Fifty percent of physicians look up conditions on the (Wikipedia) site, and some are editing articles themselves to improve the quality of available information."[201] Beck continued to detail in this article new programs of Amin Azzam at the University of San Francisco to offer medical school courses to medical students for learning to edit and improve Wikipedia articles on health-related issues, as well as internal quality control programs within Wikipedia organized by James Heilman to improve a group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance up to Wikipedia's highest standard of articles using its Featured Article and Good Article peer-review evaluation process.[201] In a May 7, 2014, follow-up article in The Atlantic titled "Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?", Julie Beck quotes WikiProject Medicine's James Heilman as stating: "Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality reference."[202] Beck added that: "Wikipedia has its own peer review process before articles can be classified as 'good' or 'featured'. Heilman, who has participated in that process before, says 'less than one percent' of Wikipedia's medical articles have passed."[202]

Quality of writing

Screenshot of English Wikipedia's article on Earth, a featured-class article

In a 2006 mention of Jimmy Wales, Time magazine stated that the policy of allowing anyone to edit had made Wikipedia the "biggest (and perhaps best) encyclopedia in the world".[203]

In 2008, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that the quality of a Wikipedia article would suffer rather than gain from adding more writers when the article lacked appropriate explicit or implicit coordination.[204] For instance, when contributors rewrite small portions of an entry rather than making full-length revisions, high- and low-quality content may be intermingled within an entry. Roy Rosenzweig, a history professor, stated that American National Biography Online outperformed Wikipedia in terms of its "clear and engaging prose", which, he said, was an important aspect of good historical writing.[205] Contrasting Wikipedia's treatment of Abraham Lincoln to that of Civil War historian James McPherson in American National Biography Online, he said that both were essentially accurate and covered the major episodes in Lincoln's life, but praised "McPherson's richer contextualization ... his artful use of quotations to capture Lincoln's voice ... and ... his ability to convey a profound message in a handful of words." By contrast, he gives an example of Wikipedia's prose that he finds "both verbose and dull". Rosenzweig also criticized the "waffling—encouraged by the NPOV policy—[which] means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history". While generally praising the article on William Clarke Quantrill, he quoted its conclusion as an example of such "waffling", which then stated: "Some historians ... remember him as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while others continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero."[205]

Other critics have made similar charges that, even if Wikipedia articles are factually accurate, they are often written in a poor, almost unreadable style. Frequent Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski commented, "Even when a Wikipedia entry is 100 percent factually correct, and those facts have been carefully chosen, it all too often reads as if it has been translated from one language to another then into a third, passing an illiterate translator at each stage."[206] A study of Wikipedia articles on cancer was conducted in 2010 by Yaacov Lawrence of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University. The study was limited to those articles that could be found in the Physician Data Query and excluded those written at the "start" class or "stub" class level. Lawrence found the articles accurate but not very readable, and thought that "Wikipedia's lack of readability (to non-college readers) may reflect its varied origins and haphazard editing".[207] The Economist argued that better-written articles tend to be more reliable: "inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete information".[208]

Coverage of topics and systemic bias

See also: Notability in the English Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia § Systemic bias in coverage

Ambox current red.svg

Parts of this article (those related to d:Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia) need to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2017)

Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has terabytes of disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed encyclopedia.[209] The exact degree and manner of coverage on Wikipedia is under constant review by its editors, and disagreements are not uncommon (see deletionism and inclusionism).[210][211] Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic. The "Wikipedia is not censored" policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of images of Muhammad in the English edition of its Muhammad article, citing this policy. The presence of politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in Wikipedia has led to the censorship of Wikipedia by national authorities in China[212] and Pakistan,[213] amongst other countries.

Pie chart of Wikipedia content by subject as of January 2008[214]

A 2008 study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and Palo Alto Research Center gave a distribution of topics as well as growth (from July 2006 to January 200 in each field:[214]

Culture and Arts: 30% (210%)

Biographies and persons: 15% (97%)

Geography and places: 14% (52%)

Society and social sciences: 12% (83%)

History and events: 11% (143%)

Natural and Physical Sciences: 9% (213%)

Technology and Applied Science: 4% (−6%)

Religions and belief systems: 2% (38%)

Health: 2% (42%)

Mathematics and logic: 1% (146%)

Thought and Philosophy: 1% (160%)

These numbers refer only to the number of articles: it is possible for one topic to contain a large number of short articles and another to contain a small number of large ones. Through its "Wikipedia Loves Libraries" program, Wikipedia has partnered with major public libraries such as the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts to expand its coverage of underrepresented subjects and articles.[215]

A 2011 study conducted by researchers at the University of Minnesota indicated that male and female editors focus on different coverage topics. There was a greater concentration of females in the "people and arts" category, while males focus more on "geography and science".[216]

Coverage of topics and selection bias

Research conducted by Mark Graham of the Oxford Internet Institute in 2009 indicated that the geographic distribution of article topics is highly uneven. Africa is the most underrepresented.[217] Across 30 language editions of Wikipedia, historical articles and sections are generally Eurocentric and focused on recent events.[218]

An editorial in The Guardian in 2014 claimed that more effort went into providing references for a list of female porn actors than a list of women writers.[219] Data has also shown that Africa-related material often faces omission; a knowledge gap that a July 2018 Wikimedia conference in Cape Town sought to address.[139]

Systemic biases

When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, systemic bias may arise, due to the demographic backgrounds of the editors. In 2011, Wales claimed that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, citing for example "biographies of famous women through history and issues surrounding early childcare".[49] The October 22, 2013, essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's Technology Review titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and policy creep on the downward trend in the number of editors.[50]

Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally,[vague] for example favoring certain nationalities, ethnicities or majority religions.[220] It may more specifically follow the biases of Internet culture, inclining to be young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases, intrinsically, may include an overemphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events.[220]

Taha Yasseri of the University of Oxford, in 2013, studied the statistical trends of systemic bias at Wikipedia introduced by editing conflicts and their resolution.[221][222] His research examined the counterproductive work behavior of edit warring. Yasseri contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of counterproductive behavior at Wikipedia and relied instead on the statistical measurement of detecting "reverting/reverted pairs" or "mutually reverting edit pairs". Such a "mutually reverting edit pair" is defined where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to revert the first editor in the "mutually reverting edit pairs". The results were tabulated for several language versions of Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia's three largest conflict rates belonged to the articles George W. Bush, anarchism, and Muhammad.[222] By comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the Oxford study were for the articles covering Croatia, Scientology, and 9/11 conspiracy theories.[222]

Researchers from Washington University developed a statistical model to measure systematic bias in the behavior of Wikipedia's users regarding controversial topics. The authors focused on behavioral changes of the encyclopedia's administrators after assuming the post, writing that systematic bias occurred after the fact.[223][224]

Explicit content

See also: Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia and Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons

"Wikipedia censorship" redirects here. For the government censorship of Wikipedia, see Censorship of Wikipedia.

For Wikipedia's policy concerning censorship, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored

Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information about graphic content. Articles depicting what some critics have called objectionable content (such as feces, cadaver, human penis, vulva, and nudity) contain graphic pictures and detailed information easily available to anyone with access to the internet, including children.

The site also includes sexual content such as images and videos of masturbation and ejaculation, illustrations of zoophilia, and photos from hardcore pornographic films in its articles. It also has non-sexual photographs of nude children.

The Wikipedia article about Virgin Killer—a 1976 album from the German rock band Scorpions—features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl. The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer was blocked for four days by most Internet service providers in the United Kingdom after the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) decided the album cover was a potentially illegal indecent image and added the article's URL to a "blacklist" it supplies to British internet service providers.[225]

In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on Wikimedia Commons contained child pornography, and were in violation of US federal obscenity law.[226][227] Sanger later clarified that the images, which were related to pedophilia and one about lolicon, were not of real children, but said that they constituted "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", under the PROTECT Act of 2003.[228] That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are obscene under American law.[228] Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.[229] Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation,[230] saying that Wikipedia did not have "material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it."[230] Following the complaint by Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete had been made hastily, Wales voluntarily gave up some of the powers he had held up to that time as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing-list that this action was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted".[231] Critics, including Wikipediocracy, noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.[232]


One privacy concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure" in the eyes of the law.[233][note 6] It is a battle between the right to be anonymous in cyberspace and the right to be anonymous in real life ("meatspace"). A particular problem occurs in the case of a relatively unimportant individual and for whom there exists a Wikipedia page against her or his wishes.

In January 2006, a German court ordered the German Wikipedia shut down within Germany because it stated the full name of Boris Floricic, aka "Tron", a deceased hacker. On February 9, 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned, with the court rejecting the notion that Tron's right to privacy or that of his parents was being violated.[234]

Wikipedia has a "Volunteer Response Team" that uses Znuny, a free and open-source software fork of OTRS[235] to handle queries without having to reveal the identities of the involved parties. This is used, for example, in confirming the permission for using individual images and other media in the project.[236]


Main article: Gender bias on Wikipedia

Wikipedia was described in 2015 as harboring a battleground culture of sexism and harassment.[237][238]

The perceived toxic attitudes and tolerance of violent and abusive language were reasons put forth in 2013 for the gender gap in Wikipedia editorship.[239]

Edit-a-thons have been held to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.[240]

A comprehensive 2008 survey, published in 2016, found significant gender differences in: confidence in expertise, discomfort with editing, and response to critical feedback. "Women reported less confidence in their expertise, expressed greater discomfort with editing (which typically involves conflict), and reported more negative responses to critical feedback compared to men."[241]


Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia movement affiliates

Main article: Wikimedia Foundation

Katherine Maher in 2016. She is seen with light skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. She is seen wearing a black shirt.

Katherine Maher became the third executive director of Wikimedia in 2016, succeeding Lila Tretikov, who had taken over from Sue Gardner in 2014.

Wikipedia is hosted and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related projects such as Wiktionary and Wikibooks. The foundation relies on public contributions and grants to fund its mission.[242] The foundation's 2013 IRS Form 990 shows revenue of $39.7 million and expenses of almost $29 million, with assets of $37.2 million and liabilities of about $2.3 million.[243]

In May 2014, Wikimedia Foundation named Lila Tretikov as its second executive director, taking over for Sue Gardner.[244] The Wall Street Journal reported on May 1, 2014, that Tretikov's information technology background from her years at University of California offers Wikipedia an opportunity to develop in more concentrated directions guided by her often repeated position statement that, "Information, like air, wants to be free."[245][246] The same Wall Street Journal article reported these directions of development according to an interview with spokesman Jay Walsh of Wikimedia, who "said Tretikov would address that issue (paid advocacy) as a priority. 'We are really pushing toward more transparency ... We are reinforcing that paid advocacy is not welcome.' Initiatives to involve greater diversity of contributors, better mobile support of Wikipedia, new geo-location tools to find local content more easily, and more tools for users in the second and third world are also priorities," Walsh said.[245]

Following the departure of Tretikov from Wikipedia due to issues concerning the use of the "superprotection" feature which some language versions of Wikipedia have adopted, Katherine Maher became the third executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation in June 2016.[247] Maher has stated that one of her priorities would be the issue of editor harassment endemic to Wikipedia as identified by the Wikipedia board in December. Maher stated regarding the harassment issue that: "It establishes a sense within the community that this is a priority ... (and that correction requires that) it has to be more than words."[248]

Wikipedia is also supported by many organizations and groups that are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation but independently-run, called Wikimedia movement affiliates. These include Wikimedia chapters (which are national or sub-national organizations, such as Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimédia France), thematic organizations (such as Amical Wikimedia for the Catalan language community), and user groups. These affiliates participate in the promotion, development, and funding of Wikipedia.

Software operations and support

See also: MediaWiki

The operation of Wikipedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free and open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database system.[249] The software incorporates programming features such as a macro language, variables, a transclusion system for templates, and URL redirection. MediaWiki is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and it is used by all Wikimedia projects, as well as many other wiki projects. Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker.

Several MediaWiki extensions are installed[250] to extend the functionality of the MediaWiki software.

In April 2005, a Lucene extension[251][252] was added to MediaWiki's built-in search and Wikipedia switched from MySQL to Lucene for searching. Lucene was later replaced by CirrusSearch which is based on Elasticsearch.[253]

In July 2013, after extensive beta testing, a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) extension, VisualEditor, was opened to public use.[254][255][256][257] It was met with much rejection and criticism, and was described as "slow and buggy".[258] The feature was changed from opt-out to opt-in afterward.

Automated editing

Main article: Wikipedia bots

Computer programs called bots have often been used to perform simple and repetitive tasks, such as correcting common misspellings and stylistic issues, or to start articles such as geography entries in a standard format from statistical data.[259][260][261] One controversial contributor, Sverker Johansson, creating articles with his bot was reported to create up to 10,000 articles on the Swedish Wikipedia on certain days.[262] Additionally, there are bots designed to automatically notify editors when they make common editing errors (such as unmatched quotes or unmatched parentheses).[263] Edits falsely identified by bots as the work of a banned editor can be restored by other editors. An anti-vandal bot is programmed to detect and revert vandalism quickly.[260] Bots are able to indicate edits from particular accounts or IP address ranges, as occurred at the time of the shooting down of the MH17 jet incident in July 2014 when it was reported that edits were made via IPs controlled by the Russian government.[264] Bots on Wikipedia must be approved before activation.[265]

According to Andrew Lih, the current expansion of Wikipedia to millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the use of such bots.[266]





628. Израильско-американский "Сокол пустыни"

Израильские ВВС завершили совместные учения с ВВС США. Учения под названием «Сокол пустыни» проходили в Израиле. Совместные группы вместе тренировались выполнять ряд сценариев.

Представитель ЦАХАЛа заявил, что воздушные учения с США предназначены для борьбы с любой угрозой. Обучение еще больше укрепит наше сотрудничество и готовность еще

Израильские ВВС завершили совместные учения с ВВС США. Учения под названием «Сокол пустыни» проходили в Израиле. Совместные группы вместе тренировались выполнять ряд сценариев.

Представитель ЦАХАЛа заявил, что воздушные учения с США предназначены для борьбы с любой угрозой. Обучение еще больше укрепит наше сотрудничество и готовность противостоять любой угрозе.


Не волнуйтесь, рашшен ваттен пипл.

Мы не именно вас, агрессоров-ордынцев, имеем в виду.

Это послание скорее для режима паскудных аятолл Ирана, который в своей секретной военной ядерной программе стремится получить ядерное оружие.. для реализации своих угроз против Америки и Израиля.


Израиль готов к атаке на иранские ядерные объекты без США и без поддержки от кого либо.

В прошлый вторник министр иностранных дел Израиля Яир Лапид заявил, что Израиль не нуждается ни в ком для защиты своей безопасности и что никакие договоренности в переговорах Вены с Ираном по его ядерной программе не связывают его. Израиль поддерживает хороший диалог с Соединенными Штатами и Великобританией, и нам даже удалось повлиять на ход ядерных переговоров.


Какую мноходовочку приготовил Израиль и может ли в ней быть ошибка?


Более 1 года на сайте

Мне кажется, что если человек долго ищет, то он переходит в такое состояние в котором просто ищет. 

Девушки выбирая остаются без выбора. Так и я поступаю...

Надеюсь найти такую которая будет соответсвовать сложившемуся образу. 15 лет брака это скорей вред чем помощь в поисках.

Раньше ведь как было?

Выпивает? Да еще

Мне кажется, что если человек долго ищет, то он переходит в такое состояние в котором просто ищет. 

Девушки выбирая остаются без выбора. Так и я поступаю...

Надеюсь найти такую которая будет соответсвовать сложившемуся образу. 15 лет брака это скорей вред чем помощь в поисках.

Раньше ведь как было?

Выпивает? Да ладно и я тоже! Курит? Бросит! Работа мало оплачиваемая? Найдет другую!

А сейчас уже нет этого потом исправим...

Сейчас уже то что есть то и выбираем. Фото удачно вышло, ура красавицу нашел! Переписка, звонки, встреча... Жаль времени потраченого. 

По началу кафе, цветы - от этого разачарование еще больше. Теперь 5 минут в авто и никаких сожелений кроме потраченого времени в пробках и на бензин.

Район далеко? Да ну не поеду...

Вот что делает долгий поиск с людьми. Не ищите само найдется.


629. Ты - самый лучший!

Признайтесь мужчины, какая фраза нравится вам больше:

1. Ты - самый лучший

2. Ты - мой единственный

ПСы: Изменится ли ваш ответ соответственно вашего возраста: 20, 33, 45, 60?

ПСы-сы: Естественно и неоспоримо, что милые дамы всегда говорят нам только истину!


Признайтесь мужчины, какая фраза нравится вам больше:

1. Ты - самый лучший

2. Ты - мой единственный

ПСы: Изменится ли ваш ответ соответственно вашего возраста: 20, 33, 45, 60?

ПСы-сы: Естественно и неоспоримо, что милые дамы всегда говорят нам только истину!


630. Хец-3 — гуд лак

Очередной эксперимент израильского комплекса ПВО «Хец-3» (Стрела-3) для перехвата баллистических ракет завершился успешно.

Радиолокационная система комплекса идентифицировала цели за пределами атмосферы, передала их в центр планирования перехватов. По целям были запущены две ракеты-перехватчики. Цели были поражены в космосе.

В эксперименте участвовали: израильские ВВС и еще

Очередной эксперимент израильского комплекса ПВО «Хец-3» (Стрела-3) для перехвата баллистических ракет завершился успешно.

Радиолокационная система комплекса идентифицировала цели за пределами атмосферы, передала их в центр планирования перехватов. По целям были запущены две ракеты-перехватчики. Цели были поражены в космосе.

В эксперименте участвовали: израильские ВВС и компании участвующие в разработке системы: IAI, Малам, Эльта, Эльбит, Боинг, Tomer, Rafael...


Система вооружения «Стрела» считается ключевым компонентом многоуровневой системы обороны Израиля, которая включает систему "Железный купол" и систему "Волшебной палочки".


В Минобороны отметили, что эксперимент является частью многолетнего плана развития оборонной системы. Успех сегодняшнего эксперимента является важной вехой в оперативной способности Государства Израиль защищаться от существующих и будущих угроз.


Министр обороны Бени Ганц заявил: «Я приветствую успешный и беспрецедентный эксперимент, который указывает на технологическое превосходство Израиля, во главе с оборонной промышленностью. Шаг за шагом, развитие за развитием, мы сохраняем способность Израиля защищаться от возникающих угроз. Предоставляя Израилю наступательную свободу действий против наших врагов в космосе.».

Начальник штаба генерал-майор Авив Кохави добавил: «ЦАХАЛ и оборонные ведомства придают большое значение постоянной модернизации и совершенствованию возможностей противовоздушной обороны.»

Глава Агентства противоракетной обороны США адмирал Джон Хилл выразил удовлетворение результатами эксперимента: «Эксперимент был исполнен превосходно. Информация, собранная в ходе эксперимента, поможет в  будущих разработках системы».

Система Arrow, разработанная IAI в тесном сотрудничестве с Министерством обороны, MDA США и ВВС, сегодня еще раз доказала, что Государство Израиль обладает самыми передовыми технологиями для защиты от баллистических ракет.



Интимные отношения не могут быть смыслом жизни, но, чтобы жизнь имела хоть какой-то смысл,

в ней должны присутствовать интимные отношения.

Интимные отношения не могут быть смыслом жизни, но, чтобы жизнь имела хоть какой-то смысл,

в ней должны присутствовать интимные отношения.

631. Зрелая любовь - как найти и не терять..

Сегодня я написал несколько комментов в дневнике у Алёны из Твери, в её посте «Противоположнoсти притягиваются». Поделился своим опытом.. так сказать. А сейчас я подумал, что может мой опыт и моё мировоззрение смогут помочь и другим. Понять друг-друга, найти друг-друга.. не терять друг-друга.


Начну с самого еще

Сегодня я написал несколько комментов в дневнике у Алёны из Твери, в её посте «Противоположнoсти притягиваются». Поделился своим опытом.. так сказать. А сейчас я подумал, что может мой опыт и моё мировоззрение смогут помочь и другим. Понять друг-друга, найти друг-друга.. не терять друг-друга.


Начну с самого поста Алёны:

Херня всё это! Лyчшие союзы – это сoюзы единомышлeнников, когда любишь oдно и то же и не нaдо мотивирoвать, мaнипулировать, ориентирoвать..

А противоположности прихoдят для того, чтобы oтпинать ещё раз тyда, куда мы сами себя пинaем.

И ненaвидим потом за это..

И мстим в oтвет..

Ищитe своих, рeбята.

Любите пoхожих.)

Замечательный пост. Я с ним совершенно согласен!


Некоторые нюансы в комментах:

- Модель инь и янь работает.. когда молодые)).

- Для отношений - нужны общие цели, общие интересы, единомышленники.. похожие.. свои!

- Дело в том, что не всегда всё работает так как мы планируем. И необходимо понять, что мужчины за 40 не ищут именно отношений и ответственности. Мы хотим любви.. и тела. Сначала было тело.. Биохимия.. и всё такое. Позже появляется желание быть вместе. Ещё позже появляется желание не расставаться и не терять друг-друга. С этого момента начинаются отношения и ответственность. Для отношений необходимо понять что у М и Ж - общие цели.. интересы, мировоззрение. Но когда мы знакомимся, мы совсем не думаем об отношениях. Это я о себе.. и наверное о других М))

- Не забывайте.. В этом возрасте, люди обычно после развода / отношений.. И конечно же не спешат входить в новые отношения.


Давайте добавим дополнительные уравнения с дополнительными неизвестными. Например:

- Люди меняются.. со временем, в связи с обстоятельствами, с опытом.. иногда радикально.

- В 21-ом веке у Мужчин и у Женщин те же шансы "добыть мамонта"

- В 21-ом веке в мире принято равноправие М и Ж

- Неразумно искать партнёра, который будет обеспечивать хотелки Ж, ради доступа к женскому телу. Такие отношения не будут качественными достойными, долгими..

- Мужчины за 40 тянутся к молодому женскому телу.


Может они помогут нам найти правильные решения в этой сложной  гендерной системе линейной алгебры?

А может всё-таки решение гендерных проблем скрываются в двух волшебных словах.. Зрелая Любовь?

Кстати, а вы знаете что такое Зрелая Любовь? 


Поиск не доступен потому что вы отключили «участие анкеты в поиске». Чтобы снять ограничение необходимо


Сайт знакомств Москвы, бесплатные знакомства Московской области

Московские знакомства для брака, любви и серьёзных отношений онлайн, на сайте знакомств Московской области и Москвы - он ищет её и находит! Друзья, любовь, тёплое общение и другие приятные моменты ожидают здесь женщин и мужчин: девушки, парни. Быстрое и удобное знакомство без свах: "ищу девушку, жену, любимую и нахожу её здесь!" - об этом говорят многие мужики. А если есть желание взять в жёны американку или австралийку, запишитесь на курсы английского языка online.

Поиск, Рейтинг, Прямые трансляции, Дневники, Истории любви, Вопросы и ответы, Приложения.

Оплата услуги совершена

Услуга будет оказана в ближайшие несколько минут.

Произошла ошибка

Перезагрузите страницу и повторите операцию через 5 минут