As theeighth most - visitedwebsite in the globe , Wikipediais the source that countless people turn to for information . Surprisingly , the all - volunteer army of writers and editor who write this thing are still going strong more than 20 years in . But there are some golf hole in its coverage that might get bigger over time . Here are some surprising fact about Wikipedia .
1. It Originally Was Supposed to Be Written by Experts
Wikipedia was an offshoot of a project cry Nupedia , an internet encyclopaedia developed by internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger . Nupedia was supposed to be a free encyclopedia of articles written solely by expert . But the dull match - review appendage mean that fewer than 24 articles were ready after a year , according to Sanger . He suggested make a version that anyone could chip in to without this editorial oversight .
" My initial idea was that the wiki would be set up as part of Nupedia ; it was to be a agency for the populace to develop a stream of content that could be feed into the Nupedia process,“recalled Sangerin a memoir published on Slashdot . Launched on Jan. 15 , 2001 , Wikipedia took off like a house on fire . There were 6,000 clause written by July and 13,000 by October . In early 2017 , there were40 million articles in 293 languages .
2. Some People Think Jimmy Wales Writes All of Wikipedia
In 2006 , Jimmy Wales made an appearance on the NPR quiz show " Wait Wait … Do n’t Tell Me ! " He explained he often gets two kind of email . One type asks him to make corrections to various entry . " [ citizenry ] take up I wrote the whole thing myself , " he quipped . The other kind is from folks reckon Wikipedia has something to do with Wicca – " citizenry [ who are ] worried about this pagan thing take over the internet , " he added . Wales ' appearance on the show was memorable for his not answering a single question right , though they were all based on Wikipedia entries .
3. Not Everything Is Covered on the Site
It may seem strong to consider that there could be theme not cover ( or only briefly address ) by Wikipedia , but several exist . Onestudyshowed just 15.6 percent of the life history are about females . Tom Simonite at the MIT review point out in 2013 that Wikipedia ’s " entry on Pokémon and female porn stars are comprehensive , but its pages on female novelist or places in sub - Saharan Africa are unelaborated . " And why is that ? " The free collective running the site today , estimated to be 90 percent male , operates a shell bureaucracy with an often abrasive ambiance that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its insurance coverage , " he wrote . Plus , multitude are more probable to write for free about things they are passionate about . Hence , the Pokémon and porn stars pieces .
4. It’s More Accurate Than You Might Think
For years , college prof and paper editor program have been tell their pupil and staff not to rely on Wikipedia for sources because of its opened policy that anyone can edit or write . But how worried should they be ? One 2014 study showed that the drug data on Wikipedia was99.7 percent accuratecompared to textbook information . However , article completeness was more in the 85 percent range . Another 2005 survey look at several article on different topics and found Wikipediawas about as accurateas Encyclopedia Britannica , whose subject matter is all write by professionals . The survey found 2.92 fault per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia .
5. Mobile Is Hurting Wikipedia
Not in term of numbers of readers but in terms of getting writers and editor in chief to ferment on it . legion reportssay the number of Wikipedia editor in chief has been decline for class . The workplace finish was the problem earlier . Now , it ’s the prevalence of mobile machine like smartphones . It ’s hard to write and edit complex text on a tiny CRT screen . And the redaction user interface for Wikipedia ’s mobile version is very not user - friendly , reportedthe Guardian ’s Andrew Brown . Whether this fall in editors will make Wikipedia less honest remains to be watch .
