Greenbrier Classic - Weekly Pass - Practice Rounds Tickets in Charleston, West Virginia For Sale

Greenbrier Classic - Weekly Pass - Practice Rounds Tickets
The Greenbrier Resort
White Sulphur Springs, WV
Monday 6/30/xxxx
Use Discount Code: BPDC5 For Additional Savings At Checkout.
View Greenbrier Classic - Weekly Pass - Practice Rounds Tickets
Wikipedia does not require that its editors provide identification.[75] However, as Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked on the project, often with a reference to other Web 2.0 projects such as Digg.[76] 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". Wales performed a study finding that over 50% of all the edits were done by just 0.7% of the users (at the time: 524 people).[77] 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.[78]A study performed in xxxx Wikipedia had about 80,000 active users with about 30,000 being the top 2%-10%.[79] Up to 60% of Wikipedia's registered users never make another edit after their first 24 hours.[when?] Possible explanations are that such users register for only a single purpose, or are scared away by their experiences.[80] Goldman writes that editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk pages, implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders will target their contributions as a threat. Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to build a user page, learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to an arcane dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references". Non-logged-in users are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,[81] 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",[82] but the contribution histories of IP addresses cannot necessarily with any certainty be credited to, or blamed upon, a particular user.A xxxx 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".[83] A xxxx study by Business Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodget[84] showed that in a random sample of articles most content in Wikipedia (measured by the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled edit) is created by "outsiders" (users with low edit counts), while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders" (a select group of established users). A xxxx study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others.[85][86] A xxxx study suggested there was "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".[87]One study found that the contributor base to Wikipedia "was barely 13% women; the average age of a contributor was in the mid-20s".[88] A xxxx study by researchers from the University of Minnesota found that females comprised 16.1% of the 38,497 editors who started editing Wikipedia during xxxx.[89] In a January xxxx New York Times article, Noam Cohen observed that just 13% of Wikipedia's contributors are female according to a xxxx Wikimedia Foundation survey.[90] Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, hopes to see female contributions increase to twenty-five percent by xxxx.[91] Linda Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women, noted the contrast in these Wikipedia editor statistics with the percentage of women currently completing bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and PhD programs in the United States (all at rates of 50 percent or greater).[92]In response, various universities have hosted edit-a-thons to encourage more woman to participate in the Wikipedia community. In fall xxxx, 15 colleges and universities, including Yale, Brown, and Pennsylvania State, offered college credit for students to "write feminist thinking" into Wikipedia about technology. However, few women continued as active members of Wikipedia after the edit-a-thons were over. When asked why, the most common response was that they were, "too busy".[93]In xxxx, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in wiki software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that such features as easy access to past versions of a page favor "creative construction" over "creative destruction".[94] In his xxxx book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, Zittrain cites Wikipedia's success as a case study in how open collaboration has fostered innovation on the web.[95]At OOPSLA xxxx, Wikimedia chief technology officer and senior software architect Brion Vibber gave a presentation entitled "Community Performance Optimization: Making Your People Run as Smoothly as Your Site"[96] in which he discussed the challenges of handling the contributions from a large community and compared the process to that of software development.Wikipedians sometimes award one another barnstars for good work in order to appreciate a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation work. The barnstar phenomenon has been analyzed to determine what implications it might have for other communities engaged in large-scale collaborations.[100]There are currently 287 language editions (or language versions) of Wikipedia; of these, nine have over one million articles each (English, Dutch, German, French, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Russian and Swedish), six more have over 700,000 articles (Cebuano, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Vietnamese, and Waray-Waray), 36 more have over 100,000 articles, and 74 more have over 10,000 articles.[102][103] The largest, the English Wikipedia, has over 4.5 million articles. As of June xxxx, according to Alexa, the English subdomain (en.wikipedia.org; English Wikipedia) receives approximately 56% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages (Spanish: 9%; Japanese: 8%; Russian: 6%; German: 5%; French: 4%; Italian: 3%).[5] As of December xxxx, the six largest language editions are (in order of article count) the English, Dutch, German, Swedish, French, and Italian Wikipedias.[104] The coexistence of multilingual content on Wikipedia is made possible by Unicode, whose support was first introduced into Wikipedia in January xxxx by Brion Vibber after he had similarly implemented the alphabet of Esperanto.[105][106]Since Wikipedia is based on the Web and therefore worldwide, contributors of a 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)[107] or points of view.[108]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.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".[112] 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 of its projects (Wikipedia and others).[113] For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia,[114] and it maintains a list of articles every Wikipedia should have.[115] The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, and mathematics. As for the rest, 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 only be available in English, even when they meet notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects.Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions, in part because fully automated translation of articles is disallowed.[116] Articles available in more than one language may offer "interwiki links", which link to the counterpart articles in other editions.A research article published in PLoS ONE in xxxx, using the circadian patterns of editorial activities of the community, estimated the share of contributions to different editions of Wikipedia from different regions of the world. For instance, it has been reported that edits from North America are limited to almost 50% in the English Wikipedia and this value decreases to twenty-five percent in simple English Wikipedia. The article also covers some other editions in different languages.[117] The Wikimedia Foundation hopes to increase the number of editors in the Global South to thirty-seven percent by xxxx.[118]On 1 March xxxx, The Economist in an article titled "The Future of Wikipedia" cited a trend analysis concerning data published by Wikimedia stating that: "The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years."[119] 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 of more edits per month was relatively constant since xxxx for Wikipedia in other languages at approximately 42,000 editors within narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. The attrition rates for editors in English Wikipedia, by sharp comparison, were cited as peaking in xxxx at approximately 50,000 editors which has dropped to 30,000 editors as of the start of xxxx. At the quoted trend rate, the number of active editors in English Wikipedia has lost approximately 20,000 editors to attrition since xxxx, and the documented trend rate indicates the loss of another 20,000 editors by xxxx, down to 10,000 active editors on English Wikipedia by xxxx if left unabated.[119] Given that the trend analysis published in The Economist presents the number of active editors for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) as remaining relatively constant and successful in sustaining its numbers at approximately 42,000 active editors, the contrast has pointed to the effectiveness of Wikipedia in other languages to retain its active editors on a renewable and sustained basis.[119] 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.[120]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. Nupedia was founded on March 9, xxxx, under the ownership of Bomis, a web portal company. Its main figures were the Bomis CEO Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was licensed initially under its own Nupedia Open Content License, switching to the GNU Free Documentation License before Wikipedia's founding at the urging of Richard Stallman.[122] Sanger and Wales founded Wikipedia.[123][124] While Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[125][126] Sanger is credited with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[127] On January 10, xxxx, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[128]Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, xxxx, as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[129] and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[125] Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view"[130] was codified in its first months. Otherwise, there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated independently of Nupedia.[125] Originally, Bomis intended to make Wikipedia a business for profit.[131]Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. On August 8, xxxx, Wikipedia had over 8,000 articles.[132] On September 25, xxxx, Wikipedia had over 13,000 articles.[133] And by the end of xxxx it had grown to approximately 20,000 articles and 18 language editions. It had reached 26 language editions by late xxxx, 46 by the end of xxxx, and 161 by the final days of xxxx.[134] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in xxxx, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. English Wikipedia passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, xxxx, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing even the xxxx Yongle Encyclopedia, which had held the record for 600 years.[135]Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February xxxx.[136] These moves encouraged Wales to announce that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and to change Wikipedia's domain from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org.[137]Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August xxxx, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of articles and of contributors, appears to have peaked around early xxxx.[138] Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in xxxx; by xxxx that average was roughly 800.[139] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center attributed this slowing of growth to the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change.[140] 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.[141][142][143]In November xxxx, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid (Spain) found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of xxxx; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in xxxx.[144][145] The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.[146] Wales disputed these claims in xxxx, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study.[147] Two years later, Wales acknowledged the presence of a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June xxxx to 35,800 in June xxxx.[148] In the same interview, Wales also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable," a claim which was questioned by MIT's Technology Review in a xxxx article titled "The Decline of Wikipedia."[149] In July xxxx, the Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also in decline.[150] In the 25 November xxxx issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis. In xxxx, MIT's Technology Review revealed that since xxxx, the site has lost a third of the volunteer editors who update and correct the online encyclopedia's millions of pages and those still there have focused increasingly on minutiae."[151]In January xxxx, Wikipedia entered for the first time the top-ten list of the most popular websites in the United States, according to comScore Networks. With 42.9 million unique visitors, Wikipedia was ranked number 9, surpassing the New York Times (#10) and Apple (#11). This marked a significant increase over January xxxx, when the rank was number 33, with Wikipedia receiving around 18.3 million unique visitors.[152] As of the start of February xxxx, Wikipedia was the sixth most popular website worldwide according to Alexa Internet,[5] receiving more than 2.7 billion US pageviews every month,[153] out of a global monthly total of over 12 billion pageviews.[154] On 9 February xxxx, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites, "according to the ratings firm comScore."[155]On January 18, xxxx, 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.[156] More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced Wikipedia content.[157][158]Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that accumulated improvements piecemeal through "stigmergic accumulation".[159][160]On 20 January xxxx, Subodh Varma reporting for The Economic Times indicated that not only had Wikipedia growth flattened but that it has "lost nearly 10 per cent of its page-views last year. That's a decline of about 2 billion between December xxxx and December xxxx. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by 12 per cent, those of German version slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per cent."[161] Varma added that, "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."[161] When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for internet and Security indicated 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]."[161]Although poorly written articles are flagged for improvement,[162] critics note that the style and quality of individual articles may vary greatly. Others argue that inherent biases (willful or not) arise in the presentation of facts, especially controversial topics and public or historical figures. Although Wikipedia's stated mission is to provide information and not argue value judgements, articles often contain overly specialized, trivial, or objectionable material.[163]Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica are carefully and deliberately written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy. Conversely, Wikipedia is often cited for factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. As Reagle has reported, "On December 14, xxxx, the prestigious science journal Nature reported the findings of a commissioned study in which subject experts reviewed forty-two articles in Wikipedia and Britannica; it concluded 'the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.'[22] Of course, this catered to the interests of Nature readers and a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."[165] These claims were disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica.[23][166] Nature gave a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's argument.[167]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.[168] Concerns have been raised by PC World in xxxx regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[169] the insertion of false information,[170] 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 and relevant information is 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.[171]Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.[172] Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.[173] Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.[174]Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, and those with an agenda to push.[30][175] The addition of political spin to articles by organizations including members of the US House of Representatives and special interest groups[21] has been noted,[176] and organizations such as Microsoft have offered financial incentives to work on certain articles.[177] For example, in August xxxx, the website WikiScanner began to trace the sources of changes made to Wikipedia by anonymous editors without Wikipedia accounts. The program revealed that many such edits were made by corporations or government agencies changing the content of articles related to them, their personnel or their work.[178] These issues have been parodied, notably by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.[179]