Wikipedia सम्पादन (अनुभाग)

== Openness ==
[[File:History Comparison Example (Vector).png|thumb|Differences between versions of an article are highlighted.]]
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the [[procrastination]] principle regarding the security of its content, meaning that it waits until a problem arises to fix it.<ref name="zittrain">{{cite book |last=Zittrain |first=Jonathan |title=The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It&nbsp;– Chapter 6: The Lessons of Wikipedia|author-link = Jonathan Zittrain |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2008 |url=https://archive.org/details/futureofinternet00zitt |isbn=978-0-300-12487-3|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref>

=== Restrictions ===
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.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Why create an account]]</ref> On the English Wikipedia, among others, particularly controversial, sensitive, or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to varying degrees.<ref name="Wikipedia:Protection policy" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Protection policy]]</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Hafner |first1=Katie |date=June 17, 2006 |title=Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=December 5, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221212184025/https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html|archive-date=December 12, 2022}}</ref> A frequently vandalized article can be "semi-protected" or "extended confirmed protected", meaning that only "autoconfirmed" or "extended confirmed" editors can modify it.<ref name="Wikipedia:Protection policy" group="W" /> A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only [[Wikipedia administrators|administrators]] can make changes.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Full protection]]</ref> A 2021 article in the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'' identified Wikipedia's page-protection policies as "perhaps the most important" means at its disposal to "regulate its market of ideas".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harrison |first1=Stephen |last2=Benjakob |first2=Omer |date=January 14, 2021 |title=Wikipedia is twenty. It's time to start covering it better. |url=https://www.cjr.org/opinion/wikipedia-is-twenty-its-time-to-start-covering-it-better.php|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117150508/https://www.cjr.org/opinion/wikipedia-is-twenty-its-time-to-start-covering-it-better.php|archive-date=January 17, 2023|access-date=January 15, 2021 |website=[[Columbia Journalism Review]]}}</ref>

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 which have passed certain reviews.<ref name="WP some sites stable versions 1" group="W">{{cite mailing list |first=P. |last=Birken |url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikide-l/2008-December/021594.html |title=Bericht Gesichtete Versionen|mailing-list=Wikide-l |date=December 14, 2008 |language=de |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|access-date=February 15, 2009|archive-date=June 22, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140622083323/http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikide-l/2008-December/021594.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012.<ref name="BInsider pending changes intro 1">{{cite news |last=Henderson |first=William |date=December 10, 2012 |title=Wikipedia Has Figured Out A New Way To Stop Vandals In Their Tracks |work=[[Insider Inc.|Business Insider]] |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/pending-changes-safeguard-on-wikipedia-2012-12|url-status=live|access-date=January 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221113161520/https://www.businessinsider.com/pending-changes-safeguard-on-wikipedia-2012-12|archive-date=November 13, 2022}}</ref> Under this system, new and unregistered users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are reviewed by established users before they are published.<ref>{{cite news |last=Frewin |first=Jonathan |date=June 15, 2010 |title=Wikipedia unlocks divisive pages for editing |journal=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/10312095|url-status=live|access-date=August 21, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221127041149/https://www.bbc.com/news/10312095|archive-date=November 27, 2022}}</ref> However, restrictions on editing may reduce the editor engagement as well as efforts to diversify the editing community.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ajmani |first1=Leah |last2=Vincent |first2=Nicholas |last3=Chancellor |first3=Stevie |date=September 28, 2023 |title=Peer Produced Friction: How Page Protection on Wikipedia Affects Editor Engagement and Concentration |url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610198 |journal=Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction |language=en |volume=7 |issue=CSCW2 |pages=1–33 |doi=10.1145/3610198 |issn=2573-0142 |archive-date=September 15, 2024 |access-date=September 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240915061444/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610198 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Review of changes ===
[[File:Wikipedia editing interface.png|thumb|Wikipedia's editing interface]]Although changes are not systematically reviewed, Wikipedia's software provides tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. Each article's History page links to each revision.{{efn|Revisions with libelous content, criminal threats, or copyright infringements may be removed completely.}}<ref name="Torsten_Kleinz" /> On most articles, anyone can view the latest changes and undo others' revisions by clicking a link on the article's History page. Registered users may maintain a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of changes.<ref group="W">[[Help:Recent changes]]</ref> "New pages patrol" is a process where newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:New pages patrol]]</ref>

In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low [[transaction cost]]s 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".<ref name="FMonday collaborative effort 1">{{cite journal |last1=Ciffolilli |first1=Andrea |title=Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia |journal=First Monday |date=December 2003 |volume=8 |issue=12 |doi=10.5210/fm.v8i12.1108 |doi-access= free}}</ref>

=== Vandalism ===
{{Main|Vandalism on Wikipedia}}
Any change 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.<ref name="upenn link spamming 1">{{cite conference |last1=West |first1=Andrew G. |last2=Chang |first2=Jian |last3=Venkatasubramanian |first3=Krishna |last4=Sokolsky |first4=Oleg |last5=Lee |first5=Insup |title=Proceedings of the 8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference on – CEAS '11 |chapter=Link Spamming Wikipedia for Profit |conference=8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse, and Spam Conference |pages=152–161 |date=2011|chapter-url = https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=cis_papers |doi=10.1145/2030376.2030394 |isbn=978-1-4503-0788-8 |citeseerx=10.1.1.222.7963|access-date = March 26, 2021|archive-date = April 14, 2021|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210414015701/https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=cis_papers|url-status = live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="WP vandalism manipulation 1" group="W" />

[[File:John Seigenthaler Sr. speaking.jpg|thumb|alt=White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium.|American journalist [[John Seigenthaler]] (1927–2014), subject of the [[Seigenthaler biography incident]]|left]]
Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to detect and fix it is a few minutes.<ref name="MIT_IBM_study" /><ref name="CreatingDestroyingAndRestoringValue" /> However, some vandalism takes much longer to detect and repair.<ref name="Seigenthaler" />

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]].<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> It remained uncorrected for four months.<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> 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.<ref name="book The World is Flat 1">{{cite book |last=Friedman |first=Thomas L. |title=The World is Flat |year=2007 |publisher=[[Farrar, Straus & Giroux]] |isbn=978-0-374-29278-2 |page=124}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Buchanan |first=Brian |date=November 17, 2006 |title=Founder shares cautionary tale of libel in cyberspace |url=https://archive.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17798|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121221140311/https://archive.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17798|archive-date=December 21, 2012|access-date=November 17, 2012 |publisher=[[First Amendment Center]]}}</ref> After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".<ref name="Seigenthaler" /> The incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia for tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.<ref>{{cite news |last=Helm |first=Burt |title=Wikipedia: "A Work in Progress" |url=https://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress |newspaper=[[BusinessWeek]] |date=December 13, 2005|access-date = July 26, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120708062333/https://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress|archive-date = July 8, 2012}}</ref>

=== Disputes and edit warring ===
{{Main|Disputes on Wikipedia}}
Wikipedia editors often have disagreements regarding content, which can be discussed on article Talk pages. Disputes may result in repeated competing changes to an article, known as "edit warring".<ref name="Wikipedia:Dispute resolution – Wikipedia" group="W">[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]</ref><ref name="NBC WP editorial warzone 12">{{cite news |last=Coldewey |first=Devin |date=June 21, 2012|archive-url=https://archive.today/20140822010030/http://sys03-public.nbcnews.com/technology/wikipedia-editorial-warzone-says-study-838793 |title=Wikipedia is editorial warzone, says study |department=Technology |work=[[NBC News]] |url=https://sys03-public.nbcnews.com/technology/wikipedia-editorial-warzone-says-study-838793|archive-date=August 22, 2014}}</ref> It is widely seen as a resource-consuming scenario where no useful knowledge is added,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kalyanasundaram |first1=Arun |last2=Wei |first2=Wei |last3=Carley |first3=Kathleen M. |last4=Herbsleb |first4=James D. |title=2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) |chapter=An agent-based model of edit wars in Wikipedia: How and when is consensus reached |date=December 2015 |location=Huntington Beach, CA |publisher=IEEE |pages=276–287 |doi=10.1109/WSC.2015.7408171 |isbn=978-1-4673-9743-8 |s2cid=9353425 |citeseerx=10.1.1.715.2758}}</ref> and criticized as creating a competitive<ref>{{cite book |last1=Suh |first1=Bongwon |last2=Convertino |first2=Gregorio |last3=Chi |first3=Ed H. |last4=Pirolli |first4=Peter |title=Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration |chapter=The singularity is not near |date=2009 |pages=1–10 |location=Orlando, FL |publisher=ACM Press |doi=10.1145/1641309.1641322 |isbn=978-1-60558-730-1|doi-access=free}}</ref> and conflict-based editing culture associated with traditional masculine [[gender role]]s.<ref>{{cite news |last=Torres |first=Nicole |date=June 2, 2016 |title=Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia? |work=Harvard Business Review |url=https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia|access-date=August 20, 2019 |issn=0017-8012|archive-date=June 17, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617014645/https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bear |first1=Julia B. |last2=Collier |first2=Benjamin |date=March 2016 |title=Where are the Women in Wikipedia? Understanding the Different Psychological Experiences of Men and Women in Wikipedia |journal=Sex Roles |volume=74 |issue=5–6 |pages=254–265 |doi=10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y |s2cid=146452625}}</ref> Research has focused on, for example, impoliteness of disputes,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Khazraie |first1=Marzieh |last2=Talebzadeh |first2=Hossein |date=February 7, 2020 |title="Wikipedia does NOT tolerate your babbling!": Impoliteness-induced conflict (resolution) in a polylogal collaborative online community of practice |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378216620300771 |journal=Journal of Pragmatics |language=en |volume=163 |pages=46–65 |doi=10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.009}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Smirnov |first1=Ivan |last2=Oprea |first2=Camelia |last3=Strohmaier |first3=Markus |date=December 1, 2023 |editor-last=Ognyanova |editor-first=Katherine |title=Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia |url=https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/doi/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad385/7457939 |journal=PNAS Nexus |language=en |volume=2 |issue=12 |pages=pgad385 |doi=10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad385 |issn=2752-6542 |pmc=10697426 |pmid=38059265 |archive-date=October 7, 2024 |access-date=September 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241007101400/https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/doi/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad385/7457939 |url-status=live }}</ref> the influence of rival editing camps,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lerner |first1=Jürgen |last2=Lomi |first2=Alessandro |date=December 21, 2020 |title=The free encyclopedia that anyone can dispute: An analysis of the micro-structural dynamics of positive and negative relations in the production of contentious Wikipedia articles |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378873318300467 |journal=Social Networks |language=en |volume=60 |pages=11–25 |doi=10.1016/j.socnet.2018.12.003 |archive-date=November 26, 2024 |access-date=September 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241126001010/https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378873318300467 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Morris-O'Connor |first1=Danielle A. |last2=Strotmann |first2=Andreas |last3=Zhao |first3=Dangzhi |date=April 4, 2023 |title=The colonization of Wikipedia: evidence from characteristic editing behaviors of warring camps |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-04-2022-0090/full/html |journal=Journal of Documentation |language=en |volume=79 |issue=3 |pages=784–810 |doi=10.1108/JD-04-2022-0090 |issn=0022-0418 |archive-date=October 20, 2023 |access-date=November 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231020151300/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-04-2022-0090/full/html |url-status=live }}</ref> the conversational structure,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ziembowicz |first1=Karolina |last2=Roszczyńska-Kurasińska |first2=Magdalena |last3=Rychwalska |first3=Agnieszka |last4=Nowak |first4=Andrzej |date=October 3, 2022 |title=Predicting conflict-prone disputes using the structure of turn-taking: the case of Wikipedia |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1924224 |journal=Information, Communication & Society |language=en |volume=25 |issue=13 |pages=1987–2005 |doi=10.1080/1369118X.2021.1924224 |issn=1369-118X |archive-date=October 7, 2024 |access-date=September 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241007091334/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1924224 |url-status=live }}</ref> and the shift in conflicts to a focus on sources.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Chhabra |first1=Anamika |last2=Kaur |first2=Rishemjit |last3=Iyengar |first3=S. R.S. |chapter=Dynamics of Edit War Sequences in Wikipedia |date=August 25, 2020 |title=Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Open Collaboration |chapter-url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3412569.3412585 |language=en |publisher=ACM |pages=1–10 |doi=10.1145/3412569.3412585 |isbn=978-1-4503-8779-8 |archive-date=September 15, 2024 |access-date=September 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240915052238/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3412569.3412585 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ruprechter |first1=Thorsten |last2=Santos |first2=Tiago |last3=Helic |first3=Denis |date=September 9, 2020 |title=Relating Wikipedia article quality to edit behavior and link structure |journal=Applied Network Science |language=en |volume=5 |issue=1 |doi=10.1007/s41109-020-00305-y |issn=2364-8228|doi-access=free }}</ref>

[[Taha Yasseri]] of the [[University of Oxford]] examined editing conflicts and their resolution in a 2013 study.<ref>{{cite magazine |date=July 17, 2013 |title=Edit Wars Reveal The 10 Most Controversial Topics on Wikipedia |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/07/17/177320/edit-wars-reveal-the-10-most-controversial-topics-on-wikipedia/ |magazine=[[MIT Technology Review]] |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]|access-date=June 25, 2021|archive-date=June 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210616191250/https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/07/17/177320/edit-wars-reveal-the-10-most-controversial-topics-on-wikipedia/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="autogenerated3">{{cite book |last1=Yasseri |first1=Taha |title=The Most Controversial Topics in Wikipedia: A Multilingual and Geographical Analysis |last2=Spoerri |first2=Anselm |last3=Graham |first3=Mark |last4=Kertész |first4=János |publisher=Scarecrow Press |year=2014 |editor1=Fichman, P. |doi=10.2139/SSRN.2269392 |ssrn=2269392|author1-link=Taha Yasseri|author4-link=János Kertész |editor2=Hara, N. |arxiv=1305.5566 |s2cid=12133330}}</ref> Yasseri contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of [[counterproductive work behavior]] at Wikipedia. He relied instead on "mutually reverting edit pairs", where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to revert the first editor. 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]].<ref name="autogenerated3" /> By comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the study were for the articles covering [[Croatia]], [[Scientology]], and [[9/11 conspiracy theories]].<ref name="autogenerated3" /> In 2020, researchers identified other measures of editor behaviors, beyond mutual reverts, to identify editing conflicts across Wikipedia.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ruprechter |first1=Thorsten |last2=Santos |first2=Tiago |last3=Helic |first3=Denis |date=2020 |title=Relating Wikipedia article quality to edit behavior and link structure |journal=Applied Network Science |language=en |volume=5 |issue=1 |doi=10.1007/s41109-020-00305-y |issn=2364-8228|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Editors also debate the [[deletion of articles on Wikipedia]], with roughly 500,000 such debates since Wikipedia's inception. Once an article is nominated for deletion, the dispute is typically determined by initial votes (to keep or delete) and by reference to topic-specific notability policies.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mayfield |first1=Elijah |last2=Black |first2=Alan W. |date=November 7, 2019 |title=Analyzing Wikipedia Deletion Debates with a Group Decision-Making Forecast Model |url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359308 |journal=Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction |language=en |volume=3 |issue=CSCW |pages=1–26 |doi=10.1145/3359308 |issn=2573-0142 |archive-date=September 15, 2024 |access-date=September 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240915025504/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359308 |url-status=live }}</ref>