Knowledge:Replies to common objections

2353:. Now only the URL, and a few other pages like search results and user contributions, show the initial capital letter. Almost all such articles already included a clear notice demonstrating the correct capitalization of the subject, so the reader is not misled. Our search and linking functionality is not hindered by this limitation; if you type the correct capitalization into the search box or into a link in an article, you will be taken to the correct article. Also, this is not a technical limitation, but a feature of the English Knowledge. Because the vast majority of titles in English should start with a capital letter there is not much need to turn off this feature. We force all titles to start with a capital letter because it forces authors to capitalize correctly in the vast majority of cases. 2038:

paycheck for doing so. Charitable altruism is built into modern capitalization from the local level on up. The vast majority of money for most non-profit enterprises comes from grants from corporations, entrepreneurs, and their charitable foundations, not from pocket-change donations of average people. The public Internet itself, including the protocols and most of the software that runs it, was developed and deployed largely through volunteered labor and donated work, not jealously guarded intellectual property, nor (except in the earliest years) governmental fiat.

1529: 2003:

entirely up to them what kind of articles they wish to edit. Outside projects, including both those sponsored by the Foundation, forks, and independent but similar projects (such as wikitravel.org), are forming to support those who wish to work toward even broader goals. Everyone is allowed to criticize or comment on any portion of the project, and its content is determined in an entirely grass-roots fashion. Thus, if Knowledge is inspired by communism at all, it is inspired by a form of

1011:.) As traffic increases, so will expert help, and as gaps are filled in, the only way remaining for Knowledge to improve will be in quality and depth. This, in turn, is likely to attract more experts, who follow their own very high standards. To make a claim about what standards Knowledge follows is to make a claim about what standards present and future Knowledge contributors follow; the current standard is always changing. To say such people have no standards is baseless. 2110:

also in contrast to a partially finished book under traditional copyright, which will normally not be published, and would certainly not be available for others to finish (so the next effort would have to start from scratch). This increases internal project efficiency, but it also increases general social efficiency by preventing such duplication of effort. (This is not dissimilar from industry consortia that cross-license intellectual property such as patents).

356:. Conversely, we must create a framework and conventions that allow professionals to contribute without being frustrated by having to repeatedly correct errors introduced by tenacious but ill-informed amateurs. Admittedly, Knowledge could do better at this. However, by building a decent text base that can then have its kinks ironed out by serious scholars, and by providing an interface and update protocol tolerable and respectful enough for people to use, we make 736:, where a few words are inserted in a way intended to change the meaning without being noticed, is rarely effective, because we do not scrutinize articles for changes manually – instead we rely on software features which plainly mark for our review the differences between two versions of an article. Our technology, together with certain telltale signs learned from experience, makes such vandalism easy to detect. We also employ 103: 719:"What if somebody tries to delete a section of an article, or add a couple of words to alter its meaning? Does Knowledge back up its articles? Does Knowledge scrutinize its articles for even the smallest changes made to less popular articles? Also, does all this mean the content of articles is subject to constant changes in meaning and detail, and that an article will be completely different over time?" 31: 434:, and has been studied by some researchers for its ability to neutralize the often noxious debates on such topics. Very often it is easy to find a related topic on which many such partisans can work in relative peace and can come to agree on methods and even facts. Also, remember partisans from all sides try to push their views on Knowledge. An example of this is the 582:

effected more rapidly and with less effort than is expended by spammers to deface pages. In an emergency, we can revert all changes made since a certain time. Also, we could disable editing or account creation temporarily. The spam problem on Knowledge has never gotten so bad as to require one of these emergency methods due to our large base of dedicated volunteers.

1965:, but the practice of pushing your own views on an article while reverting other people's is considered abusive and detrimental to Knowledge. The "winner", the best version, is the result of collective effort by all users working on a certain article; it is likely a good article contains bits and pieces of text written by dozens or even hundreds of people. 1088:"Look, all this speculation and 'experimentation' is fine and well, but if there's one thing I've learned in my studies, it's that you must know something about the author and his/her qualifications to speak on the topic – or at least be provided with appropriate references to support his/her claims in order to evaluate the validity of a nonfiction work." 1686:, where now we're more interested in refinement of existing articles, or creating articles on more esoteric subjects. In short, it's not the end of the world when people leave Knowledge, because there are so many other contributors. On the other hand, where there are systematic problems causing many people to leave, that's something we have to address. 1701:, it was once said in particular that "The main page used to receive a lot of vandalism; protecting it is an unfortunate compromise to keep our welcome mat free of random profanity." Today, many pages are protected to varying levels, from no edits by anonymous (non-logged-in) editors, all the way up to editable only by administrators. Most of these 1182:. Such a system would identify a body of experts who would put their official stamp of approval on some articles. Those articles could still be just as easily revised as they were before, but there would also be a version presented as the "approved" version. This way we can "freeze" high-quality content without freezing the process. 1208:. Knowledge articles, on the other hand, are compiled largely by the Internet public, with varying levels of interest and expertise, but leveraged by great economies of scale. Knowledgeable readers who spot errors and shortcomings can fix them right away, thus Knowledge can leverage a principle similar to that known as 1125:?" The answer is, "We have experts in many different fields, and new highly qualified people arrive all the time." All we require is a few experts continuously "raising the bar" from the beginning of the project. It is quite all right if very many or even most experts fail to help, or think poorly of us. 2227:

particularly for educational purposes. There are many great prospects in the use of a really huge, 💕 for educational purposes. While the wiki system isn't necessary to produce such a body of data, convincing people to give away large amounts of their writing for free is difficult without the low bar

2194:

That mechanism can take many forms: personal skepticism, peer opinion, popular opinion or a centralised authority, for instance. Knowledge provides another: that of mass peer review. It is a handy place to store stuff you find out. But if you can't substantiate what you say, others will remove it. An

1979:

Traditional encyclopedias published by for-profit entities create a reasonably high barrier to access for people in developing countries, or even for poor developed-worlders for whom trotting down to the local library is either infeasible or inconvenient. Putting freely available encyclopedic content

1619:

On the other hand, some of us agree with you, and think Knowledge won't scale indefinitely. At some point in the future, we may look back and see that while Knowledge is a good encyclopedia, it was even better a month ago. Well, at that point we can start to take the project forward using a different

1147:

on articles which have already been approved by some similar process of peer review. At the moment it is entirely in the hands of an individual whether he thinks a modification he intends is an improvement, so there comes a point when a modification is as likely to damage the resource. If some system

942:

If the main thing that's stopping you at this point is that some articles in one area of Knowledge are of substandard quality, we'd ask you to come back next year, or the year after. See if the mistakes in those articles haven't been corrected, and a lot more details supplied. Soon enough, we're sure

2405:

At present, the same sorts of self-policing efforts that ensure other quality problems from getting out of hand seem to be functioning to prevent such abuse. As with many other issues regarding anonymity and the Internet the full legal dangers and solutions are still uncertain, however this is not a

2249:

contain all human knowledge. Visit any decent library and consult some of the specialized reference books and you will find information which is not on any website (or at least not freely available), and is unlikely ever to find its way onto the web (except onto Knowledge, of course). For example: a

2091:

Contributions are reviewed, corrected, and expanded by others. The improved content may be of more value to the originator than just their own contributions. (Especially in situations where contributors have uses in mind other than seeking economic reward for publishing a traditionally copyrighted

1813:

intellectual property with the intent of rewarding authors for creating, improving, and distributing content. It accomplishes this by restricting access to content, such that only paying customers may read it. As a result, fewer people have access to information. Therefore, fewer people get a chance

1548:

alone; it used to be just in the thousands). The more traffic search engines send us, the more people become involved and create content and the more people link to our content, which in turn generates more traffic. Many content-rich Knowledge pages are now listed on the first page or two of Google

905:

Knowledge provides free, unlimited server space and well-designed page construction tools for anyone doing something that fits within the Knowledge mission and doesn't care about owning the information: a description that matches the archetypal academic researcher. Academics generally get their jobs

285:

Usenet users pioneered the "FAQ" as a stable document to give answers to questions that had already been thoroughly discussed. These documents, although secondary to the discussion forum, are a useful source of information. Knowledge in effect turns this process on its head: The article (analogous

2045:

Knowledge is no different. It's built by a group effort toward agreed-upon goals by people who have the luxury of some time and attention to donate toward the project, and who do so because they recognize its potential as a good for society. Imagine, instead, a Knowledge – or an Internet for that

2037:

exists for a reason, and is a feature of Western, capitalist-leaning democracies far more so than communist regimes or deeply socialist states. No one orders a successful businessperson to form a local sports league for community children and coach in it, and such a person usually doesn't demand a

1817:

The communist approach of communal ownership of information allows ideas to be distributed far and wide, stimulating intellectual growth and the creation of new ideas. To paraphrase a famous communist motto, Knowledge's slogan could be "from each, according to their knowledge; to each, according to

1681:

It's natural for all volunteer projects to have some turnover of staff. People may find better things to do with their time, or may no longer enjoy Knowledge as much as they used to. Equally, Knowledge has changed over time: in the early days we were focused on creating new and broad articles, like

2109:

Contributors build on each other's work. Partially completed work is stored and available for public use and improvement. This is in contrast to say, a partially completed machine, which cannot be stored publicly or handed off in such a manner (especially because possession is exclusive). It is

2015:

Communism and capitalism (among others) are full-fledged economic systems. They provide a framework within which people earn a living. But no one earns a living on Knowledge. People live their entire lives in economic systems, but no one lives their entire life on Knowledge (at least we hope not).

2002:

principles. It reserves top-down powers to the barest necessary to maintain order and keep the project focused on a particular task. All activity on Knowledge is voluntary and collaborative in nature. People have complete freedom to contribute or not contribute; if they choose to contribute, it is

1925:

In addition, a mechanism of competition between individual contributions to articles works to maintain and usually, over time, raise, quality standards. Each individual edit "competes" with all of the other potential edits or reversions in the minds of all of the readers of that article, including

1660:

If a time came where even donations could not support Knowledge, there are other lucrative methods of support available, such as unobtrusive targeted advertising. Our hope is that this will never become necessary – but we feel confident we will never be forced to turn our readers away or shut down

1638:

However, as the value and promise of Knowledge continues to grow, we believe even more individuals, corporations, and even governments around the world will see it is in their interest to support its continued availability and growth. Already hundreds of companies are mirroring its content online,

1616:

before, or had articles featured on TV, and had huge bursts of traffic, and while there were a few "malicious elements", they soon find out it's just not worth their while. After all, what is the satisfaction from defacing an article submitted to a non-profit organization anyone can contribute to?

916:

A characteristic of most intellectuals is that they have "something to say", some facts or interpretations or syntheses they wish to present. Knowledge is an efficient medium for this process, reaching a far larger audience than any academic publication, and without the delays inherent to the peer

858:

Experts often write for an audience of other experts, whereas Knowledge is read by the general public – people who are unfamiliar with a subject and want a quick introduction to that subject, not an expert treatment. Since students are familiar with problems they are themselves encountering while

581:

technical measures to disallow certain edits, or to revert edits that meet certain criteria. For example, measures are already in place that prohibit links to certain problematic web sites. Since some trusted members of the community have direct access to the page database, these measures can be

503:

products edited that page to an ad for its product. A reader who happens by and sees the spam could copy the advertisement, revert the page to its previous state, and then add information discussing the advertiser's specific methods or claims to the wealth of knowledge on the subject. In effect,

495:

Not being able to measure results may not stop individuals who want to advertise their new multi-level marketing scheme, but unless they're using a bot (see next section), it takes a lot of time and energy to keep reverting the page back to the advertisement, so that the would-be spammer would get

326:

In all honesty, Knowledge has a fair bit of well-meaning, but ill-informed and amateurish work. In fact, we welcome it – the prevailing view is that an amateurish article to be improved later is better than nothing, though there is a substantial minority of participants who think otherwise. In any

281:

lacks abilities absolutely essential to Knowledge's success: We edit other people's work. We do this all the time on Knowledge, which encourages creative and collegial collaboration. Or more strongly, on Knowledge there's no such thing as "other people's work", because no one owns the information.

200:

points of view are silenced or deleted, though. Rather, they should be contextualized by attributing them to named advocates. The more idiosyncratic an entry, the more likely challenges to it will be successful. Because no one owns the information in Knowledge, misinformation can be fixed. In the

2117:

We are not aware of any research directly comparing the time-to-market of Knowledge versus a traditional encyclopedia. Any such comparison would be complex, given considerations of coverage, depth and quality. What we do know is that Knowledge has already become one of the most popular reference

1829:

Knowledge helps fuel the free market economy. Lowering the cost of gathering information means better educated workers, scientists, engineers, and businesspeople. And that means innovation goes faster and reaches farther. Speedy access to basic information may help speed technology transfer and

213:

Generally, partisans of all sorts are kept under control. Wikipedians feel pretty strongly about enforcing our non-bias policy. We've managed to work our way to rough consensus on a number of controversial issues. People who stubbornly insist that an article must reflect their personal biases are

1737:

and limited to a very select group of trusted users, only about a thousand out of many thousands. In this way we make the enforcement of the protection policy feasible. While there are cases where pages are protected without cause, any admin who is alerted to this can undo it, the wiki in effect

1635:

Unfortunately, Knowledge is in a unique position. Unlike other sites experiencing similarly high load, Knowledge has only one source of income: donations. Although it has received more than twenty million U.S. dollars in donations and has an adept technical team, its traffic continues to expand,

1128:

A traditional encyclopedia might hire a specialist on the topic to write an article. But we have a large number of those specialists volunteering their time here, as well as specialists from other fields – doctors, engineers, soldiers, political activists, cooks, comic book fiends, etc. ... this

620:

and so on. People will probably always prefer to write about familiar subjects, but it doesn't mean there isn't considerable and constantly increasing depth to the coverage of many other areas of the world too. As foreign-language Wikipedias gain depth, some of their articles are translated into

363:

Also, it's much more time-efficient for an amateur to write an article because the corrections by a professional will usually be minor. In any field, professionals are few compared to amateurs and are generally busy. Therefore, an extensive collection of knowledge is much better off with amateur

145:

pretty well, and since the then-existing article was short and incomplete, I decided to rewrite it. Since then, several people have chipped in, sometimes rewriting a paragraph, sometimes criticizing an omission, sometimes deleting parts. I didn't agree with all changes, but with most of them. No

971:

Chances are you were reading about something obscure: Knowledge has a stub on many subjects on which some or all traditional encyclopedias lack an entry – it's better to have a small bit of information on a topic, than none at all. Also, even though it's short, a stub for an obscure topic might

743:

It is true that articles change over time, eventually into what may seem to be an entirely new article. This is by design – a brief look at an older paper encyclopedia will show you that, even when the subject is historical, what we know about the subject and our attitude toward it is a rapidly

1562:

It is possible, even likely, Knowledge will eventually become a starting place for researchers in its own right, whether to look up quick facts or subject overviews, or to examine the high-quality sources in our references lists. When search engines first hit the Internet, they had to gain in

932:

or under a pseudonym until you improve things to the point you are happy putting your name on them, but don't actually sign or author them. Many people do that. We're glad they do. The whole concept of authorship is not germane to wikis anyway. Bad articles cannot be credited to you because

1519:

of experts; that seems to be our experience so far. Moreover, as a matter of fact, people usually tend not to touch articles they know nothing about, particularly when the article is well-developed or when they know some resident expert will pounce on their mistakes. (There are exceptions, of

1277:

Knowledge is different because it is very dynamic and so is always under continual improvement. A notable criticism made one day causes the article to be corrected to better quality as a reply very soon after. Trustworthiness and quality of Knowledge articles would appear to be a function of

89:

How do people react to Knowledge? Some people react strongly. Some are nearly instantly hooked, and love the idea; others think the idea is so absurd as not to require any serious consideration. We try to answer a number of common criticisms of the Knowledge project on this page. (See also

1543:

predictions about growth rates. Analysis of the growth indicates rapid new-article creation has slowed since 2006, as older topics have been covered, but is expected to slow further for another 10 years. The 2008 rate, averaging 1437 new articles per day, could become offset by article

274:

is a good thing or not and if it should be abolished or not, because the primary purpose of Knowledge is creating an encyclopedia. Rather, we try to achieve consensus about how to present each viewpoint (of prominent advocates for and against the death penalty) fairly and in proportion.

1512:

First, the more eyes that see our articles, the more transparent the errors will be (over the long haul). While we might have one or two philosophers on board during one month, a year later we might have ten or twenty – and then mistakes in their work will be caught much more quickly.

1203:

Traditional encyclopedias are based on the reputation of certain authors. These authors, though small in number, are highly interested and ostensibly qualified to find good sources for their information, and are therefore expected to produce good quality articles – however, they are

832:

Knowledge is both a product and a process. Even where the product is not perfect, the process ensures that, at the end of every day, the encyclopedia is higher quality than it was at the beginning of the day. We will likely never attain perfection, but we aim for the highest quality

457:

This kind of thing has already happened. There are basically three forms: adding excessive external links to one's company, outright replacing of legitimate articles with advertising, and writing glowing articles on one's own company. The first and second forms are treated as pure

2402:"What about Knowledge hosting copyrighted images, texts, or works that would be against the law of many countries? The statement of such: 'Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable', won't necessarily be followed by an anonymous and easily accessed community." 394:

This is very unlikely to ever happen on Knowledge since it is being monitored and being used every day. If this were ever to happen, it would at some point be corrected. There is always an article being edited on Knowledge every day whether it is sincere or purposefully being

269:

Discussion on talk pages centres on article improvement, rather than merits of various competing views. We have an informal but widely respected policy against using talk pages for partisan wrangling independent of article improvement; i.e. we're not going to discuss if the

1065:

been tested, and to the benefit of the hypothesis: articles that have been worked on by many different people in the context of Knowledge are now comparable to articles that can be found in some excellent encyclopedias. If, however, you insist on considering the hypothesis

1251:

Due to occasional vandalism, incompetency and lack of effort, articles and professional encyclopedias alike should always be taken with a grain of salt. When one researches on a topic, he or she would reference many sources rather than rely only on one as good practice.

2380:). Depending on the importance of the term, it might eventually get a Knowledge article of its own. Uses of the term in other articles can then be linked to the term's own article, and in that article it is generally explained with more commonly known terms. However, 310:

There are probably always a few trolls and flamers trying to stir up trouble on Knowledge. While these folks can be noisy, the great majority of contribution to Knowledge continues, paying little attention to them. And after all, when things get out of hand, they can

1520:

course.) So, the greater the number of participating experts, the higher the overall quality of the content produced under their general guidance. It is not mere hype to say Knowledge caters to the highest common denominator – it's actually an observation we've made!

1151:

As a community, almost all of us are opposed to what has been called the policy of completely "freezing" particular pages – so they can be edited only by a select group of people (e.g., only the author and an "editor"). We feel our own collective monitoring of

1058:"Good quality requires peer review and expertise. Why should we care about articles written by an arbitrary group of people whose knowledge and ability could range from expertise to hopeless ignorance? Ignorance mixed with knowledge does not benefit knowledge." 2041:

Within any business enterprise, from a local restaurant to an international mega-corporation, collaborative team-work is required. No one's job title is "collaborator"; everyone works together toward team and enterprise goals or soon finds themselves out of

1563:

popularity and were simply linked from other pages, but, after achieving critical mass, they were then viewed as an authority in their own right and were made the first place someone looked, not in addition to a particular viewer's current favorite choice.

403:"There are plenty of partisans who are all too eager to leave out information that is important to presenting a balanced view. They'll be delighted to post to Knowledge, and that's going to create huge gaps in your coverage, which will ruin the project." 366:

Perhaps most importantly, amateurs or experts should not be themselves conceiving or discovering the information that appears in Knowledge, though they are encouraged to create and edit pages with information from other sources. Knowledge does not allow

825:

Equally, we have articles that are stubs, are inaccurate, are biased, are poorly written or proofread, or are just plain rubbish. That comes with our ambitious goals and the way we work. And on many of these articles, such as stubs, we do actually have

880:

one could also call into question the value of "upstanding" and "highly qualified" by pointing out that they often fail to take into account theories and ideas outside the scope of their respective spheres, such as academia, government, or an activist

1611:

Many of us believe Knowledge will scale almost indefinitely. The more people there are to abuse it, the more people there are to ward off the abuse. As traffic increases, so does the number of people who work on and care about the project. We've been

344:

Ideally, amateurs will recognize when they're dealing with an expert, and start contributing differently – by asking questions, saying which bits of an article are unclear, and doing some research "grunt work". Knowledge benefits from having amateurs

2140:"Why is there a need for an encyclopedia at all? Why not just go to your favorite search engine and search for whatever topic on which you're looking for information? You're more likely to find it, and it'll be more interesting and more current." 955:

within a matter of days. His only recourse was to write to the editor, meaning the errors may be corrected in print in a few years, as opposed to minutes on Knowledge, where any changes are visible to readers almost immediately since it runs on the

352:"Professionals" can and do come in to correct errors later. But we must create a framework, terminology and conventions that make sense to amateurs. By making it easy for amateurs, we increase the amount of content, and enable easy achievement of 744:

moving target. This problem is exacerbated with modern topics like software and current events. By allowing gradual changes to be made over time, we continuously adapt to new information and new perspectives in a way static encyclopedias cannot.

2265:

There are some ways in which Knowledge is less than ideal in these respects. We are working to improve some of these issues, though: for example, the largest concerns have been in the mathematical section of the site. Knowledge began supporting

387:

the work of experts. You don't need to be an expert to read and cite the work of experts; though experts in their fields have greater access to published works, in theory anyone could cite these published works, whether a certified "expert" or

593:

This seems to be a perfectly legitimate concern. Certainly, Knowledge coverage is patchy. It's easy to find examples of a really long article on one subject, whereas another, equally important subject, has a very short article (there's even a

518:"You still haven't addressed the real bane of Usenet: massive automated spamming. It would be trivial to write a script to post weight-loss ads to all Knowledge pages, and once spammers or vandals start to use wikibots, you're sitting ducks." 1572:

Another part of the argument is that the overall quality of Knowledge has been increasing, and this in turn increases the number of people likely to take notice of the project, link to it, use its contents (properly sourcing Knowledge), etc.

1544:

deletions/merges in future years. However, new articles will be created for future inventions, events, films, products, etc. plus people who become notable. Search engines have been sending us lots of traffic (millions of visitors a day from

450:"What about advertisers? Will those with a product or service to hawk see the opportunity to hit a targeted market and write new articles for their product or worse, edit the article that corresponds to their generic product class (e.g., 566:

attack, which major websites occasionally fall victim to. Knowledge has suffered some such attacks, and so far it's been much easier to block the attacks than for the vandal to devise new attacks. If someone launches an extensive attack,

1738:

again at a smaller scale. Also, users may leave comments on the talk sections of protected pages. This allows a user to make comments about the page or ask an administrator to make changes or make a case to unprotect the page.

1218:

A simple editable webpage on the Internet would indeed be subjected to recklessness. The difference provided in Knowledge is the infrastructure that helps direct those raw public contributions to the level of standard required.

2250:

search engine may find hundreds of pictures of a particular butterfly but no detail regarding its taxonomic status, breeding biology, range or even its size (all of which are details you would expect of a decent encyclopedia).

1300: 1121:, and of the fact that it includes experts in many fields, may be better than knowing a particular (alleged) expert has written a particular article. Perhaps the relevant question is: "How expert is the Knowledge contributor 1049:

were written by the many Ph.D.s and other highly credentialed people who contribute to Knowledge. We are selective with what we keep, however. If an article or an edit isn't up to our standards, we will improve it or remove

1073:

A widely circulated article, subject to scrutiny, correction, and potentially constant improvement over a period of months or years, by vast numbers of experts and enthusiasts, possibly updated mere minutes before you read

1926:

the material it replaces; the winner is the best version (as judged according to the views of all contributors, duly channeled by deference to scholarship and argument on the talk pages)... until a better one comes along.

1116:

experts worked on an article, if you know an article existed for many months and some experts in that topic contribute, it's fairly likely those experts have already reviewed the article. In other words, knowledge of the

2310:

is in beta test, and can be enabled by logged-in users. It's not finished yet, but it is good enough to use for many day to day tasks. As of 2020 or earlier it is the default editor with wikitext as a parallel option.

1617:

And then someone undoes it after five minutes so no one ever sees your brilliant joke! Not much satisfaction there. Bear in mind people have been telling us Knowledge won't scale, since back in 2001, and so far it has.

1602:"You say Knowledge is growing rapidly. Suppose it gets really big. Then you'll start to attract the attention of more malicious elements. All the noise will eventually be larger than any group of editors can handle." 1077:

An article written by a nonspecialist professional writer or scholar (as many encyclopedia articles are), mostly shielded from public review and improvement, likely years ago, possibly a year or more before it was even

2340:

introduced a special function to allow proper capitalization of titles. The majority of articles have already been moved to their properly titled pages. Pages can now be linked with properly capitalized names, such as

1956:

Contrary to POV 5, the reason for Knowledge's ever-improving quality is cooperation, not competition. Articles on Knowledge are written by collaborations of contributors, and the editing process does not involve users

656:

Also, while the percentages of people working on less popular topics might remain low, the absolute numbers of such people have increased since the early years of Knowledge, growing the content in those areas. Because

2242:

Finally, it is possible that in the fullness of time Knowledge will contain more relevant, reliable information on any given topic than can be easily found via a search engine. That's certainly our plan for it.

529:, but there are several things that keep this from being too much of a problem. It's easy to revert spam, and anyone can do so. We can already block IP addresses, which serves as a basic form of spam filtering. 201:

best case, cranks who are unable to accept critical editing of their writing will find they have no platform and leave; those willing to present their interests in less-biased ways become valuable contributors.

1986:

Knowledge does not make money through advertising, and the Wikimedia Foundation has maintained a non-profit status, because doing otherwise would discourage some donors and thus interfere with the charitable

1814:

to use that information to come up with new ideas. So the end result of a capitalist approach to intellectual property is that fewer ideas get created, and people have restricted access to existing ideas.{cn}

819:). In addition, many Knowledge articles on more popular subjects, though lacking multimedia extravaganzas, are extremely informative one-stop sources for information about their subjects. See, for example, 909:

It can be fun for intellectually serious people if we know we're creating something of quality. It's part of the volunteer ethic – the joy of helping others. And, as explained above, many people believe we

138:

single-handedly, but it becomes easier when working together (hence the saying "many hands make light work"). That, in fact, has been our repeated experience on Knowledge. Consider the following example:

2032:

are adamant that the public good is and must be served by the charitable actions of those who can afford to devote some time, energy, and other resources toward them, or society doesn't function well.

331:

straightened out. Really egregious errors tend to be fixed quickly by the thousands of people who read Knowledge every day. In general, the worse the error, the faster it will be noticed and fixed. As

978:, Knowledge improves. Equally, stubs are created on subjects where we used to have no article at all! Stubs are a consequence of Knowledge's "continual improvement", and we're not ashamed of that. 2054:

Arguing over whether Knowledge, or certain aspects of it, are more "communist" or more "capitalist" is a waste of time. The important thing is not what ideology inspires it, but whether or not it

1748:"I am afraid you have some similarity with the communists. You should promote the values of capitalism and the free market; such as competition, individual property and intellectual property." 2313:

In the meantime, while we can agree that the current software is not fully polished, it is certainly not inadequate; everything we do now can be carried over as we slowly improve the software.

211:

article shows that crank opinions' weaknesses are exposed in a neutral point of view. After all, it is far better to understand and challenge inaccurate claims than simply try to ignore them.

1569:(some old contributors don't write so much anymore), but this is offset by an overall increase in the active population. There are many more active Wikipedians now than there were years ago. 2239:) "mailto:" tags. With Knowledge, all readers can be editors. Interested parties can keep articles up-to-date and current long after the original author has lost interest or has less time. 1168:

system for high-risk articles, so we do have an approval process to protect certain articles. Moreover, it is quite obvious that Knowledge has achieved what success it has so far precisely

974:

There are many "stub" entries, and we share your opinion of their ridiculousness. Yet mighty articles can grow from little stubs. Remember, all articles need to start somewhere! As people

852:(when he was living). In addition, this may offer an "entry level" researcher a more mundane explanation based on the creativity of previous contributors to deeply complex concepts, e.g. 2384:

and will not have simplistic "dictionary definition" articles on random words; when we have articles on terminology, they are written from an encyclopedic perspective; see, for example,

925:"I looked at an area I know something about, and found all sorts of errors and omissions. I was surprised and amused. I don't want to be associated with something of this low quality." 1559:) have been downgraded, due to higher standards or numerous problems introduced in later edits. So, growth is not a simple increase, but rather also offset by the ongoing reductions. 1041:

writes about what the best way to reach and maintain high standards? Perhaps a more open way is better. Knowledge is a good test of that proposition. We have, after all, produced

2303:

browser. The development of this and similar projects are excellent examples of the serious interest shown by the members of the community to make Knowledge more user friendly.

1197: 1821:

Besides, this is actually the way things have been done traditionally and up until fairly recent times. The "capitalist" notion of intellectual property is a modern invention.

194:. It is impossible to correct those websites, no matter how wrong they are, because their authors demand complete control over their work. They fail miserably on Knowledge. 1983:

Knowledge welcomes private donations (of both money and content), whether they are given because people find the service useful for themselves, or simply out of compassion.

1775:

to the ideal of creating a neutral encyclopedia, and is firmly rejected by the project. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to disseminate knowledge, not to push an agenda.

2361:"Many entries in highly specialized fields use jargon that will not be familiar to anyone not already knowledgeable in those fields. How can this problem be alleviated?" 2106:

Contributors may join and leave the project without negotiating an employment contract, and without giving up the ability to re-use their contributions for other projects.

1507:"Many of your replies seem to assume quality will improve as the website grows, but quantity doesn't always beget quality. Perhaps it will get worse as it gets bigger?" 1226:

tends to highlight isolated examples, and among 6,889,070 articles such examples are likely to exist just from the size of this number alone. On the other hand, the few

264: 379:. While not everyone can be an expert in all fields, just about anyone can read and reliably report on the work of others. When a Knowledge article is written to the 1910:

content is served, with money made through advertising. Some of Knowledge's mirrors do this. Loss leaders can also boost sales of complementary products. For example,

2187:

useful is a point worth noting. There is a lot of dross on the web; it's easy to get side-tracked by rubbish. Also many of the points above directed at the Knowledge

410:. In many cases, but not all, this is fixed quickly by the many people reading Knowledge every day. For example, Knowledge has fairly decent, balanced articles about 1895:, and of all competitors within it. That Knowledge has served more customers than all its competitors combined is some indication it does compete, and does it well. 1000:

has extremely high standards for what they put into their publications, both online and offline. Knowledge has no such standards, so it's bound to be low quality."

157:, and that collectively they can eventually arrive at a reasonable conclusion, despite the worst efforts of a very small number of wreckers. It's something akin to 97: 1317:

found that "Knowledge comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries" (Britannica has since disputed the results of the article, and

1230:

which have been done so far have found the average factual accuracy of Knowledge to be similar or sometimes even higher than that of traditional encyclopedias.

1101:

In fact, many of the well-developed articles seem to have more diverse and numerous references than most traditional encyclopedias. Do you recall ever seeing a

2421:

Knowledge is unusually responsive to copyright violation in one respect: copyright issues can be reported by any editor, not just the copyright holder. (See

2322: 2095:

The possibility to earn money by publishing print versions of Knowledge content. The higher the quality of that content, the greater the resulting revenue.

1605:

Knowledge is the largest wiki there is, and it's an open question as to whether it will scale up if it becomes even larger. Indeed, many folks believe that

1536:"You may have grown fast in the past, but it's surely wrong to suppose the growth rate in the past is a good indication of what will happen in the future." 2176:

The Internet, armed with good search engines, functions not unlike a giant, and often useful, encyclopedia. But does it follow that there is no need for a

1135:

will be installed if we find it beneficial. Alternately, because the content is free, someone may start a project that "approves" Knowledge content itself.

935:

We, too, deplore bad work: we just go ahead and fix the problems we see. It would be great if you would help us by doing the same. We also think there's

2118:

sites on the planet, with over 20 million page views a day. We have millions of articles, gigabytes of raw text and tens of thousands of contributors.

677:

areas, we hope and believe the latter topics will gradually receive increased and deepening coverage. For example, in 2006, no operas or operettas were

555:"What do you do if people start running scripts to repost their own bit of vandalism or spam, and from different locations so you can't just block their 759: 1237:

in Knowledge are the ones most likely to be a collection of trustworthy articles and the number will grow in time. There are also efforts to create a

621:

English for the English Knowledge, which can help to mitigate this bias. Also, many of our early contributors were 'nerds' of various descriptions —

364:

contributions, as long as readers recognize this, and have a way to discern an article's history. Whether readers truly recognize this is not clear.

688:

Another solution we actively engage in is to target the weak areas by recruiting contributors for those areas in various ways, for example by using

466:. Most Wikipedians loathe spam, and spammers are dealt with especially severely. The third form is normally dealt with by editing the article for a 1428: 1174:

That said, perhaps someone who has the above suggestion will be pleased by the approval system mentioned above and which can be found discussed at

889:"Why would highly qualified people get involved with Knowledge? Why should any researcher care about it, since it's not a serious reference work?" 535:

for good purposes. Bots run by Knowledge volunteers detect and revert spam. These bots must be approved and are then supervised by contributors.

2419:

forces copyright holders to inform Knowledge and give them an opportunity to remove the offending material, and such requests are always honored.

504:

advertisers' claims, when tempered and weighed against other knowledge associated with the subject, can yield a more robust article than before.

134:(what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to write 1007:– the ones followed by each contributor, and in some cases, these are very high standards indeed. (For example, we require all contributors to 2407: 714: 2103:

Low transaction costs. The "ownership barrier" – the need to negotiate copyright licensing arrangements for each contributor – is eliminated.

1551:

Along with adding new articles, many older articles are also merged or deleted because they no longer pass the tests for quality. Because the

604:

The English Knowledge's largest bias is in favour of Western topics, and particularly topics relevant to English-speaking nations such as the

2512: 1112:

Second, as the number of participants increase, so does the number of experts bringing weak articles up to par – while you may be unaware of

844:

It's fair to say the majority of our contributors are at college or undergraduate level in the subjects they write about. So, the article on

476:

Corporate advertisers would likely not find Knowledge to be an attractive advertising medium. In traditional web-based advertising, such as

1583:

we already have. Even if we reach a point at which we cannot grow significantly in breadth, we will still be able to grow significantly in

2480:

can be used to set a title independent of the article name used for storage and searching (and shown in the page URL). It is documented at

1929:

So for those who believe competition is generally a good thing because it raises quality standards, Knowledge is an excellent case example.

231: 1053: 2170:

encyclopedia at all? Why not just go to your favorite library and search for whatever topic on which you're looking for information?"

1148:

could be installed, then you would protect against crank attacks as well as misjudgment, and ensure a continually improving resource."

1658:, is being continuously improved. As time goes on, we will be able to serve more and more requests using the same amount of hardware. 2258:"Knowledge software is inadequate to the task of collaboratively writing an encyclopedia. It is hard to collaboratively edit images, 2202:

Also, even if Knowledge only displayed existing knowledge, it has four important functions (as do all encyclopedias) that add value:

1359: 841:"Knowledge lacks upstanding intellectuals and highly qualified contributors. After all, Knowledge will take anything from anybody!" 658: 289:

Furthermore, Usenet is a debate forum. Knowledge is, very self-consciously, an encyclopedia project! This provides some agreement on

46:

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of

2215:

Cross-referencing: Internal links to related ideas, and external links to references and other helpful primary and secondary sources

1980:

on the web is a form of economic assistance. There's also a social benefit to having better informed leaders, citizens, and voters.

2411:

The live web version of Knowledge is also protected from being the target of crippling legal action by the same law that protects

1083: 2502: 2422: 2381: 2068:

Is the rate at which the system produces content that fills the needs of consumers and society competitive with the alternatives?

585: 1399: 972:

provide you with a link or ten to useful resources elsewhere on the Internet. A traditional encyclopedia won't do that for you.

836: 1702: 431: 308:

often do. There is room for almost anyone to work on Knowledge, without encountering those who have a truly incompatible view.

1732: 1555:

require time to process, the number of deletions later offsets some new additions. Also, many high-quality articles (noted at

1281: 884: 653:

and her staff at Wikimedia stated in 2010 that one of their priorities is to increase diversity among Knowledge contributors.

445: 1740:

Some protection levels allow non-admins with a good track record to also make requested edits on behalf of users who cannot.

1694:"Some articles end up being protected for very long periods of time, in direct conflict with the stated goal of Knowledge." 1632:"Knowledge's current loading speed already ranges from extremely slow to glacial. As it grows, will it keep getting worse?" 859:

learning about a given subject, they are more adept at drafting treatments of that subject suitable for the general public.

598:

dedicated to this effect). Sometimes this is just the result of a single enthusiastic contributor. Other times it is due to

2231:

Additionally, it's important to note that both personal and organizational pages on the Web become out of date (so-called '

1487: 866:

section, for example, benefits greatly from the dedication of several mathematicians who are very active on Knowledge; our

187: 544:

Knowledge is also an unattractive spam target for well-established legal reasons. Most countries do not have laws against

349:

experts work together. Think of the great way "Amateurs" or newcomers to writing can learn how to be better at the skill.

2497: 1475: 1268: 398: 746:

Many of the criticisms leveled at Knowledge are not unique to it, but are the result of Knowledge being, at its core, a

142: 1355: 1227: 327:

case, when new hands (particularly, experts on the subjects in question) arrive and go to work, the amateurish work is

318: 204:"Some persistent cranks could write up a crankish page on the Holocaust, and keep reverting it back to their version." 110: 2441:

Ending 2008, total article count was 2,679,000 as an annual increase of 526,000 / 366 ~ 1437.16 new articles per day.

2406:

problem specific to the wiki project. Copyright problems are resolved quickly when they appear. Copyright owners see:

968:"Currently Knowledge is stupid. I looked up a topic I know something about and found a few words. That's ridiculous!" 920: 496:

their message viewed (in an uneditable form!) more often and more reliably by using a traditional advertising medium.

1255:

Note that the leading competing online encyclopedias have disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy –

1161: 1091:

That certainly seems reasonable, but here are some counter-points: First, an increasing number of Knowledge articles

1004: 47: 661:, it's more important that each area eventually get the coverage it deserves, than that it be balanced. Even if the 2291:

Furthermore, the ever increasing popularity of Knowledge has encouraged a number of dedicated developers to create

1711:

Knowledge is not "pure" open, but it is close to it. We try to make sure the only limitations made on editing are:

1644: 164: 2235:'). Errors of fact can remain in place for years with the only feedback mechanism being increasingly rare (due to 1289:

The following links and stories illustrate why a "trust, but verify" approach is often necessary with any source.

787: 2507: 2369: 707: 467: 290: 123: 2364:

An earlier, imperfect solution was to offer entries on all specialized terms in Knowledge's sister project, the

1451: 960:. Also, using the versioning system, users can determine when and what changes were made to a specific article. 753: 726:, as it was at each point in time, and each of these versions can be individually viewed. Even deleted articles 2356: 1233:

There are varying levels of quality and trustworthiness for each article that needs to be discerned carefully.

697: 513: 963: 282:

This results in enforcement of community-agreed-upon standards, which is very difficult to achieve in Usenet.

2377: 2373: 1675: 1347: 563: 353: 135: 51: 1510:

There are two reasons to think increasing numbers of articles and participants will lead to higher quality.

1271:, which also includes examples from reputed news organisations). Sometimes the staff of those encyclopedias 1191: 1138: 784:

proposals are to introduce an anti-wiki concept of fixed versions that have been vetted to be high quality.

251:

This problem is a bit larger, but it is dealt with fairly handily by the Knowledge's social mores, known as

2212:

Organization: A standardized format for all articles and facilities for locating relevant knowledge quickly

1580: 975: 492:

or server logs. If a company used Knowledge to peddle its goods, the response rate could not be measured.

17: 2020:; something people do in their spare time. You can't compare it with a full economy, because it isn't one. 1647:. The more technical problems we experience, the more concerned supporters take action to alleviate them. 1597: 1437: 2397: 1888: 1728: 1556: 1242: 1234: 1179: 1042: 936: 929: 781: 678: 323:"Many ignorant people who think they know stuff will riddle articles with errors and serious omissions." 154: 2113:

Setting up a free entertainment and education service that produces encyclopedic content as a byproduct.

1576:

The number of potential encyclopedia topics is not infinite, but it is very large, much larger than the

2557: 2271: 1566: 1129:

means you get a much wider range of perspectives, and thus a more complete understanding of the topic.

877: 723: 1292: 1272: 1037:

articles is very important. Certainly it was achieved through high standards. However, is restricting

951: 2547: 2481: 2284:. The Knowledge software is open source, so if you'd like to work on other extensions, then join the 2253: 1552: 1172:

being as open as it has been. So, again, we don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

1165: 777: 773: 471: 312: 260: 221: 177: 1624:

system, or we can hand on the baton to someone else. But at the moment, Knowledge is scaling nicely.

1308: 1014: 228:

people as a last resort and use technical means to stop them from making further edits to Knowledge.

2459: 1698: 1470:

Misinformation is commonplace, and has been in existence long before the Internet publishing. From

1238: 1223: 1153: 572: 225: 191: 150:

a few changes back. Overall, the article is now much better than I could ever have written alone."

2552: 2316: 2285: 2196: 1859: 1341: 1175: 1132: 499:

Ironically, advertising spam can actually be beneficial to Knowledge. Suppose an advertiser for

991: 2527: 2307: 2259: 1962: 1899: 1706: 1689: 1096: 689: 649:

coverage. That may still be true to some extent, but it is becoming less and less clear cut.

1502: 1958: 1871: 1420: 1332: 1185: 808: 776:). However, providing provenance could help address many of the issues discussed below. The 693: 2075:

Some partial answers are presented as food for thought. Incentives for contribution include:

2025:

POV 10: Volunteerism is implicit in capitalism, and all large projects require collaboration

1898:

Merely making content publicly available at no cost to the public does not forsake profit.

590:"Knowledge coverage is heavily biased by the sorts of people who want to contribute to it." 2517: 2444: 2121: 1887:. It competes for similar "customers" (readers, paying or not), and is subject to the same 1606: 1590: 1491: 853: 812: 769: 727: 532: 91: 442:

have over time been worked into what is a largely acceptable form of words to all parties.

8: 2522: 2004: 1386: 1374: 1353: 830:

signs! Our system is to gradually improve articles that are incomplete or need editing.

549: 548:

or email spam, but most have laws against unauthorised website defacement – what we call

459: 252: 181: 146:

material is ever lost since Knowledge stores all previous versions of all articles. So I

1324: 595: 2127: 1577: 1483: 1471: 1464: 1369: 874:

physics professor. (Who knows, maybe Stephen Hawking was a Knowledge contributor too!)

871: 76: 69: 61: 2333:

respectively, and there seems to be no progress in fixing this technical limitation."

1664: 1351: 1164:

to monitor a set of pages, and thus retrospectively review any changes. We also use a

1027:. Knowledge isn't selective about its authors; hence it will never be authoritative." 207:

However, a better way is to challenge cranks using Knowledge itself. For example, the

197: 119:

golden prose edited by any passer-by. It's mine, so why would I let others touch it?"

2150:: Isn't it interesting that, in fact, over 60,000 people per day arrive at Knowledge 2135: 1995: 1941: 1669: 1379: 1157: 804: 526: 722:

These are problems handled by Knowledge's version system. We effectively retain all

438:

page in which the difficulties over Cornwall's legal status and its relationship to

263:) or to a new article page presenting the arguments within a neutral context (e.g., 54:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. 2277: 2220: 2209:

Summarization: Summarizes existing knowledge in a condensed form for easier reading

2177: 1999: 1976:

Knowledge is more than just an economic entity; it is also a charitable enterprise.

1892: 1854: 1743: 1312: 946: 485: 208: 169:"Knowledge will be ruined by cranks who post ridiculous theories on the Internet." 39: 2046:

matter – entirely created and controlled by a government (yours or anyone else's).

1523: 1256: 730:. This allows any change to be reversed or partially reversed with little effort. 2300: 1945: 1613: 1446: 1416: 849: 816: 407: 1907: 1337: 2029: 1460: 1424: 1008: 985: 737: 609: 507: 463: 384: 286:

to the FAQ) is now the focus of the activity, and the discussion is secondary.

271: 173: 147: 2281: 1528: 1515:

Second, statistically, the more people who are participating, the greater the

1432: 848:

is more likely to be written by someone taking a degree in physics than, say,

2541: 2191:

apply to the Web at large. A filtering mechanism of some kind is required.

1915: 1883: 1412: 1328: 1205: 867: 605: 599: 500: 215: 2232: 2158: 2034: 1479: 1442: 1364: 1213: 1209: 981: 427: 380: 376: 368: 338: 332: 301: 2166:: For that matter, you might just as well say: "Why is there a need for a 391:"What if an article never gets corrected and over time, just gets worse?" 2391: 2236: 1877: 1683: 1621: 863: 682: 666: 650: 423: 372: 1260: 2372:), or link the jargon to a page, or heading of section in a page (e.g. 2206:

Consolidation: Collecting of information from many sources in one place

1806: 1456: 1404: 792:"A giant 'under construction' sign should be on almost every article." 765: 674: 646: 638: 556: 477: 415: 357: 2368:. The current, improved solution is to offer a glossary article (e.g. 1837:

relying on government funding, unlike most basic research enterprises.

1627: 1184:

Until then, people dissatisfied without a form of peer review can try

2532: 2337: 2082:

Educational value of researching and presenting information to others

1919: 1798: 1394: 626: 613: 481: 256: 245: 241: 16:"WP:REPLY" redirects here. For replies to talk page discussions, see 2145: 1286:"Knowledge cannot be trusted, unlike other more scholarly sources." 906:

because they like learning and/or teaching others. We do both here.

795:

Well, some pages are better than others. Some Knowledge articles on

2386: 1802: 1787:

Knowledge has a neutral content policy, but that does not mean the

1771: 1408: 1248:

Knowledge may also delegate trust to other sources by referencing.

957: 796: 662: 630: 522: 451: 435: 430:. Knowledge is actually notable as a means of coming to agreements 419: 158: 571:

offending IP addresses can be blocked from further editing by the

521:

There are scripts to deface wikis, primarily aiming for increased

2412: 2292: 1911: 1865: 1674:"Some excellent contributors have left Knowledge altogether: see 845: 634: 539: 489: 439: 406:

Frequently the initial author omits crucial information, whether

255:. Arguments on article pages are moved either to a corresponding 102: 2276:

In addition, a simplified image syntax has been introduced (see

2085:

Emotional satisfaction at producing something others find useful

1497: 1095:

have references, which we encourage through an official policy:

760:

Knowledge:Why Knowledge is not so great § Article content issues

155:

assume the population is primarily composed of reasonable people

2416: 2296: 2153: 1968:

Furthermore, Wikipedians get no material reward for their work.

1903: 1640: 1545: 1494:

skills have always been needed to evaluate information sources.

1264: 939:, so look at the best bits of Knowledge, as well as the worst. 862:

Still, plenty of "intellectuals" participate in Knowledge. Our

820: 622: 617: 577: 545: 305: 297: 278: 237: 1532:

English-language Knowledge Article Count – Jan 2001 – Jul 2006

1143:"Indeed, then, I should like to see some means of peer review 1061:

The hypothesis that openness is to the benefit of quality has

984:

and edit the article and add your knowledge. (Don't forget to

943:

the project will be something you want to be associated with.

701: 2071:

Is the Knowledge system more efficient than the alternatives?

2017: 1721:

The weakest possible such limitations that are this effective

670: 488:, the response rate can be directly measured, either through 2365: 2270:

in January 2003 and this is no longer a problem. Similarly,

1243:

specific versions of an article to be flagged as trustworthy

750:. Many of the same objections have been made to other wikis. 98:

Letting any Internet user edit any article at will is absurd

2350: 2342: 2326: 2325:. For example, the articles about eBay and pH are found at 2295:

tools for editing Knowledge articles. One such tool is the

2160: 1922:

complements its operating system with a gratis web browser.

1792: 1650:

Moreover, the open-source technology underlying Knowledge,

1070:, please ask yourself: which is more likely to be correct? 747: 642: 2491: 2306:

And as of June 2014 a WYSIWYG editor for Knowledge called

2012:

POV 9: You can't compare Knowledge with an economic system

1651: 1156:

is an adequate safeguard against cranks – see above. The

2267: 411: 176:

do contribute material to Knowledge, it's easy to delete

2061:

The following economic questions are more useful to ask:

1655: 892:

First of all, what does serious mean? Serious can mean:

2346: 2330: 1467:, and Tim Ryan (a journalist who plagiarized Knowledge) 898:

Open to change all the time, with no unalterable dogmas

641:

coverage was initially far deeper and broader than our

296:

The Wiki way focuses on agreement, not disagreement as

2195:

encyclopedia is not the place for things that are not

2219:

Another important value Knowledge adds is that it is

1795:) aren't characteristic of a particular value system. 1212:

in software development ("given enough eyeballs, all

2428: 2223:. This means anyone will be able to use the content 1752:(Multiple points of view are presented in response.) 1705:

are temporary, to address flare-ups of vandalism or

542:

and other spam-blocking methods if the need exists.

1023:is so partly because it is authoritative, by being 945:Also, all encyclopedias have errors. A 12-year-old 126:the additions we make to Knowledge. We are working 2065:What incentives exist for the creation of content? 1953:POV 6: Knowledge engages in altruistic cooperation 2180:, community-built encyclopedia? Not necessarily. 1998:, and it is fundamentally opposed to any and all 2539: 2280:). There is also simplifying table markup – see 2262:, and anything complex requires reams of HTML." 2183:Indeed, the fact that search engines are merely 772:). Such proposals are quite controversial (see 2457: 2099:Aspects of Knowledge which increase efficiency: 1438:Randomly Generated Paper Accepted to Conference 1241:and to add a software feature which will allow 681:. By 2009, there were over a dozen opera- and 2408:Knowledge:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright 1875:, and other encyclopedia online projects like 1452:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 933:Knowledge articles aren't credited to anyone! 2513:Knowledge:Knowledge may or may not be failing 186:Some websites say the first moon landing was 1853:competition all the time. It is in the same 1643:has contributed a number of servers in Asia 1620:approach, perhaps involving a more rigorous 94:for exact quotations of prominent critics.) 1944:is the diametric opposite of a centralised 1639:effectively load-balancing the readership. 2245:And remember, the Internet certainly does 1429:Publishers Say Fact-Checking Is Too Costly 1109:article with hundreds of footnotes in it? 870:articles have recently been expanded by a 538:Knowledge also has the ability to install 1959:competing to censor each other's material 1849:organization of Knowledge, it engages in 1725:Protecting pages is actively discouraged 1360:Bush administration payment of columnists 669:areas, for example, grow faster than the 1527: 901:Immune to political or economic pressure 214:rare, and then they generally receive a 101: 2503:Knowledge:Why Knowledge is not so great 2423:Knowledge:Text copyright violations 101 2051:POV 11: Who cares, as long as it works? 1842:POV 4: Knowledge engages in competition 1784:like communism, and that's a good thing 1346:Government misinformation, such as the 1309:Internet encyclopaedias go head to head 1198:One great source – if you can trust it. 2540: 2120:(For more and up-to-date numbers, see 1961:and promote their own. True, there is 1826:POV 3: Knowledge fuels the free market 1636:making the race to keep up difficult. 768:have been proposed for Knowledge (see 1891:that determine the viability of this 1539:We agree it's very risky to make any 122:We (on Knowledge) do not each try to 18:Help:Using talk pages § Talk page use 1733:m:Protected pages considered harmful 1488:Category:Communication of falsehoods 1273:seem to forget about the disclaimers 937:much on Knowledge we can be proud of 914:creating something of quality here. 803:resource you will find online (See 25: 2498:Knowledge:Why Knowledge is so great 2378:List of Google services#Book Search 1996:Knowledge has very little hierarchy 1963:plenty of friction and disagreement 1942:relative absence of central control 1476:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 1400:Porn Added to Library's Video Tapes 1325:Science takes stock after clone row 1269:Knowledge:Non-Knowledge disclaimers 754:Knowledge can never be high quality 659:Knowledge doesn't have a time limit 13: 2482:Help:Magic words#Behavior switches 2460:"The sultan and the glamour model" 1992:POV 8: Knowledge is like anarchism 1758:POV 1: Knowledge does not endorse 724:previous versions of every article 52:thoroughly vetted by the community 48:Knowledge's policies or guidelines 14: 2569: 1715:Clearly and immediately justified 1338:Blondes 'to die out in 200 years' 371:and instead tries to only report 1914:complements its services with a 1656:MySQL database management system 1607:online communities may not scale 1294:Dictionary of National Biography 740:to detect and remove vandalism. 29: 2508:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not 2370:Glossary of partner dance terms 1340:, a BBC News story reporting a 708:meta:Systemic bias of Knowledge 454:) to an ad for their product?" 143:Gödel's incompleteness theorems 2470: 2451: 2435: 1054:Mixing ignorance and knowledge 633:and so on — and, as such, our 1: 2382:Knowledge is not a dictionary 2126:It has experienced literally 1973:POV 7: Knowledge is a charity 1918:and gratis operating system. 1609:, whether wiki-based or not. 1433:Quotations from library books 1348:Office of Strategic Influence 1321:has reaffirmed their stance). 564:distributed denial of service 375:information as it appears in 180:as soon as it appears on the 2464:Open Democracy News Analysis 1769:particular set of values is 696:. More and more people are 685:-related featured articles. 337:"Given enough eyeballs, all 236:"Knowledge will end up like 7: 2528:Critical views of Knowledge 2442: 2260:there is no WYSIWYG editing 2119: 1729:Knowledge:Protection policy 1726: 1390:Taken Seriously, Film at 11 1180:Knowledge:Flagged revisions 947:schoolboy found five errors 562:This would be similar to a 106:Anyone can edit an article. 10: 2574: 2274:have also been supported. 2164:Here's another glib answer 1598:Handling increased attacks 1588: 1084:Attribution and references 878:arguing in the alternative 757: 705: 506:For more information, see 408:due to ignorance or malice 59: 23:Essay on editing Knowledge 15: 2321:"Many article titles are 2288:and offer your services. 2228:the wiki system creates. 1830:research and development. 1206:not immune to human error 1145:before edits are accepted 837:Shortage of intellectuals 774:Knowledge talk:Provenance 265:operating system advocacy 261:Talk:Theory of relativity 220:In serious cases, we can 192:perpetual motion machines 2415:: in the United States, 2286:MediaWiki-L mailing list 1902:and search engines like 1699:Knowledge:Administrators 1645:with no strings attached 1367:, a former reporter for 1302:Encyclopædia Britannica 1282:Quality of other sources 1239:version 1.0 of Knowledge 1224:reliability of Knowledge 885:Motives of intellectuals 188:staged in a movie studio 141:"I thought I understood 115:"I can't imagine having 2357:Excessive use of jargon 2323:incorrectly capitalized 2174:Here's a longer answer. 2028:Even the most die-hard 1860:Encyclopedia Britannica 1805:ownership of property. 1567:There is some attrition 1474:to other hoaxes (e.g., 1176:meta:Article validation 1045:– and, by the way, not 980:You can help us, too. 952:Encyclopædia Britannica 710:for further discussion. 190:, or describe supposed 1900:Terrestrial television 1765:The idea of promoting 1665:Miscellaneous concerns 1533: 1166:pending changes review 930:contribute anonymously 107: 2476:The special function 2458:David Shariatmadari. 1906:, are examples where 1872:Columbia Encyclopedia 1791:it uses (such as the 1593:for more information. 1531: 1421:Michael A. Bellesiles 1333:scientific misconduct 1267:is now defunct) (see 1186:Knowledge:Peer review 895:Timely and up to date 809:execution by elephant 738:technological methods 468:neutral point of view 462:and the articles are 291:what Knowledge is not 105: 50:, as it has not been 2518:Knowledge:Criticisms 2478:{{DISPLAYTITLE:...}} 2445:Knowledge:Statistics 2398:Copyright violations 2122:Knowledge:Statistics 1934:POV 5: Knowledge is 1833:Knowledge does this 1591:Knowledge:Statistics 1557:WP:Featured articles 1503:Quantity and quality 1492:information literacy 1030:The high quality of 1003:Knowledge does have 921:Errors and omissions 854:Quantum entanglement 770:Knowledge:Provenance 715:Deletion and changes 702:Knowledge Statistics 531:Knowledge also uses 244:) – just a bunch of 2523:meta:modest replies 2297:Knowledge Extension 2088:Charitable altruism 2079:Entertainment value 2005:anarchist communism 1801:is associated with 1676:Missing Wikipedians 1375:journalism scandals 1228:comparative studies 813:Rupert D'Oyly Carte 700:of Knowledge. See 196:This does not mean 136:the perfect article 2299:available for the 2254:Markup and display 2128:exponential growth 2092:finished version.) 1889:competitive forces 1845:Regardless of the 1652:MediaWiki software 1534: 1484:The Hitler Diaries 1472:quiz show scandals 1465:Kaavya Viswanathan 1395:File-drawer effect 1383:and the real world 1370:The New York Times 1133:approval mechanism 1043:excellent articles 1019:"When it is good, 1009:cite their sources 828:under construction 788:Under construction 232:Trolls and flamers 108: 2558:Knowledge culture 1818:their curiosity". 1780:POV 2: Knowledge 1235:Featured articles 1222:Criticism of the 1097:cite your sources 976:find or fix stubs 805:Nafaanra language 799:subjects are the 782:flagged revisions 764:Various forms of 679:featured articles 575:. We can develop 486:email advertising 383:, it extensively 381:highest standards 369:original research 130:on statements of 87: 86: 2565: 2548:Knowledge essays 2485: 2479: 2474: 2468: 2467: 2455: 2449: 2448: 2439: 2317:Incorrect titles 2278:meta:image pages 2225:for any purpose, 2178:free information 2125: 1893:line of business 1855:line of business 1736: 1718:Mostly effective 1703:page protections 1553:deletion reviews 1160:feature allows 1036: 964:Stubs are stupid 734:sneaky vandalism 728:can be undeleted 377:reliable sources 209:Holocaust denial 79: 72: 33: 32: 26: 2573: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2538: 2537: 2494: 2489: 2488: 2477: 2475: 2471: 2456: 2452: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2426: 2400: 2395: 2359: 2354: 2319: 2314: 2256: 2251: 2138: 2016:Knowledge is a 1946:communist state 1857:as rivals like 1754: 1746: 1741: 1692: 1690:Page protection 1687: 1672: 1667: 1662: 1630: 1625: 1600: 1595: 1594: 1526: 1521: 1505: 1500: 1495: 1447:Bogdanov Affair 1417:Clifford Irving 1284: 1279: 1216:are shallow"). 1194: 1192:Trustworthiness 1189: 1162:logged-in users 1141: 1139:Accepting edits 1136: 1086: 1081: 1056: 1051: 1034: 1017: 1012: 994: 989: 966: 961: 923: 918: 917:review process. 887: 882: 850:Stephen Hawking 839: 834: 817:exploding whale 790: 778:stable versions 762: 756: 751: 717: 712: 711: 588: 583: 553: 516: 511: 448: 443: 401: 396: 389: 321: 316: 234: 229: 202: 178:patent nonsense 167: 162: 139: 113: 100: 83: 82: 75: 68: 64: 56: 55: 30: 24: 21: 12: 11: 5: 2571: 2561: 2560: 2555: 2553:Knowledge FAQs 2550: 2536: 2535: 2530: 2525: 2520: 2515: 2510: 2505: 2500: 2493: 2490: 2487: 2486: 2469: 2450: 2433: 2432: 2430: 2427: 2404: 2399: 2396: 2363: 2358: 2355: 2335: 2318: 2315: 2264: 2255: 2252: 2217: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2197:certainly true 2142: 2137: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2115: 2114: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2097: 2096: 2093: 2089: 2086: 2083: 2080: 2073: 2072: 2069: 2066: 2048: 2022: 2009: 1989: 1970: 1950: 1931: 1852: 1848: 1839: 1836: 1823: 1777: 1750: 1745: 1742: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1696: 1691: 1688: 1680: 1671: 1668: 1666: 1663: 1634: 1629: 1626: 1604: 1599: 1596: 1538: 1525: 1524:Rate of growth 1522: 1509: 1504: 1501: 1499: 1496: 1469: 1468: 1461:Vladimir Putin 1459:cases such as 1454: 1449: 1440: 1435: 1425:James Hatfield 1402: 1397: 1392: 1377: 1362: 1357: 1344: 1335: 1327:, a report on 1322: 1306: 1298: 1288: 1283: 1280: 1202: 1193: 1190: 1154:Recent Changes 1150: 1140: 1137: 1124: 1120: 1115: 1090: 1085: 1082: 1080: 1079: 1075: 1064: 1060: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1040: 1029: 1026: 1016: 1013: 1002: 993: 990: 988:your sources!) 970: 965: 962: 927: 922: 919: 903: 902: 899: 896: 891: 886: 883: 843: 838: 835: 794: 789: 786: 755: 752: 721: 716: 713: 698:becoming aware 610:United Kingdom 592: 587: 584: 561: 527:search engines 520: 515: 512: 508:Knowledge:Spam 456: 447: 444: 432:on controversy 405: 400: 397: 393: 325: 320: 317: 272:death sentence 250: 233: 230: 206: 182:Recent Changes 171: 166: 163: 152: 121: 112: 109: 99: 96: 85: 84: 81: 80: 73: 65: 60: 57: 45: 44: 36: 34: 22: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2570: 2559: 2556: 2554: 2551: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2543: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2526: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2516: 2514: 2511: 2509: 2506: 2504: 2501: 2499: 2496: 2495: 2483: 2473: 2465: 2461: 2454: 2446: 2438: 2434: 2424: 2420: 2418: 2414: 2409: 2403: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2362: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2339: 2334: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2312: 2309: 2308:Visual Editor 2304: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2289: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2273: 2272:image uploads 2269: 2263: 2261: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2238: 2234: 2229: 2226: 2222: 2214: 2211: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2200: 2198: 2192: 2190: 2186: 2181: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2159: 2156: 2155: 2149: 2147: 2141: 2131: 2129: 2123: 2112: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2094: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2070: 2067: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2059: 2057: 2052: 2049: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2036: 2031: 2026: 2023: 2021: 2019: 2013: 2010: 2008: 2006: 2001: 2000:authoritarian 1997: 1993: 1990: 1988: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1969: 1966: 1964: 1960: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1947: 1943: 1938: 1937: 1936:laissez-faire 1932: 1930: 1927: 1923: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1884:Conservapedia 1880: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1868: 1867: 1862: 1861: 1856: 1850: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1838: 1834: 1831: 1827: 1824: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1783: 1778: 1776: 1774: 1773: 1768: 1763: 1761: 1756: 1755: 1753: 1749: 1739: 1734: 1730: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1695: 1685: 1679: 1677: 1659: 1657: 1654:based on the 1653: 1648: 1646: 1642: 1633: 1623: 1618: 1615: 1608: 1603: 1592: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1579: 1574: 1570: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1558: 1554: 1547: 1542: 1537: 1530: 1518: 1517:sheer numbers 1514: 1508: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1455: 1453: 1450: 1448: 1444: 1441: 1439: 1436: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1413:Edmund Morris 1410: 1406: 1403: 1401: 1398: 1396: 1393: 1391: 1389: 1384: 1382: 1378: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1366: 1363: 1361: 1358: 1356: 1354: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1334: 1330: 1329:Hwang Woo-Suk 1326: 1323: 1320: 1316: 1315: 1310: 1307: 1305: 1303: 1299: 1297: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1287: 1276: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1246: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1229: 1225: 1220: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1201: 1199: 1187: 1183: 1181: 1177: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1149: 1146: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1110: 1108: 1104: 1098: 1094: 1089: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1069: 1062: 1059: 1046: 1044: 1038: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1022: 1010: 1006: 1001: 999: 987: 983: 979: 977: 969: 959: 954: 953: 948: 944: 940: 938: 931: 926: 915: 913: 907: 900: 897: 894: 893: 890: 879: 875: 873: 869: 868:string theory 865: 860: 855: 851: 847: 842: 831: 829: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 793: 785: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 761: 749: 745: 741: 739: 735: 729: 725: 720: 709: 704: 703: 699: 695: 691: 686: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 654: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 619: 615: 611: 607: 606:United States 601: 600:systemic bias 597: 591: 586:Systemic bias 580: 579: 574: 570: 565: 560: 558: 551: 547: 543: 541: 536: 534: 528: 524: 519: 509: 505: 502: 501:body building 497: 493: 491: 487: 483: 479: 474:the article. 473: 469: 465: 461: 455: 453: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 404: 392: 386: 382: 378: 374: 370: 365: 361: 359: 355: 354:critical mass 350: 348: 342: 341:are shallow." 340: 334: 330: 324: 314: 309: 307: 303: 302:mailing lists 299: 294: 292: 287: 283: 280: 276: 273: 266: 262: 258: 254: 249: 247: 243: 239: 227: 223: 219: 217: 210: 205: 199: 198:idiosyncratic 195: 193: 189: 183: 179: 175: 170: 160: 156: 151: 149: 144: 137: 133: 132:what is known 129: 125: 120: 118: 104: 95: 93: 92:WP:Criticisms 78: 74: 71: 67: 66: 63: 58: 53: 49: 43: 41: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2472: 2463: 2453: 2437: 2410: 2401: 2385: 2374:Google Print 2360: 2320: 2305: 2290: 2275: 2257: 2246: 2241: 2230: 2224: 2218: 2201: 2193: 2188: 2184: 2182: 2173: 2172: 2167: 2163: 2162: 2151: 2143: 2139: 2116: 2098: 2074: 2060: 2055: 2053: 2050: 2044: 2040: 2035:Philanthropy 2030:libertarians 2027: 2024: 2014: 2011: 1994: 1991: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1967: 1955: 1952: 1939: 1935: 1933: 1928: 1924: 1897: 1882: 1876: 1870: 1864: 1858: 1844: 1841: 1832: 1828: 1825: 1820: 1816: 1810: 1797: 1788: 1786: 1781: 1779: 1770: 1766: 1764: 1762:value system 1759: 1757: 1751: 1747: 1724: 1710: 1707:edit warring 1697:On the page 1693: 1673: 1661:the project. 1649: 1637: 1631: 1610: 1601: 1584: 1575: 1571: 1565: 1561: 1550: 1540: 1535: 1516: 1511: 1506: 1480:Piltdown Man 1443:Sokal Affair 1387: 1380: 1368: 1365:Jayson Blair 1318: 1313: 1301: 1293: 1285: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1232: 1221: 1217: 1195: 1173: 1169: 1144: 1142: 1127: 1111: 1106: 1102: 1100: 1092: 1087: 1067: 1057: 1031: 1020: 1018: 997: 995: 973: 967: 950: 941: 934: 924: 911: 908: 904: 888: 861: 857: 840: 827: 824: 800: 791: 763: 742: 733: 731: 718: 694:edit-a-thons 690:Wikiprojects 687: 655: 603: 589: 576: 568: 554: 537: 530: 517: 498: 494: 475: 449: 428:prostitution 402: 390: 362: 351: 346: 343: 336: 328: 322: 295: 288: 284: 277: 268: 235: 212: 203: 185: 168: 140: 131: 127: 116: 114: 88: 37: 2392:decussation 1878:Citizendium 1684:mathematics 1622:peer review 1614:Slashdotted 1498:Scalability 1490:for more), 1427:, see also 1385:, see also 1373:, see also 1350:and others 1331:, see also 1311:A study by 1210:Linus's law 1015:Selectivity 876:Of course, 864:mathematics 683:Savoy opera 667:mathematics 651:Sue Gardner 446:Advertisers 424:Scientology 395:vandalized. 333:Linus's law 38:This is an 2542:Categories 2366:Wiktionary 2282:Help:Table 2268:TeX Markup 2136:Redundancy 1869:, and the 1807:Capitalism 1670:Departures 1457:Plagiarism 1405:James Frey 1257:Britannica 1131:Third, an 1103:Britannica 1078:published. 1032:Britannica 1021:Britannica 998:Britannica 996:"It seems 766:provenance 758:See also: 732:So-called 675:literature 647:humanities 639:technology 627:scientists 557:IP address 478:banner ads 416:propaganda 373:verifiable 358:stone soup 313:be blocked 253:Wikiquette 246:flame wars 242:newsgroups 2533:Straw man 2376:links to 2338:MediaWiki 2336:In 2007, 2144:Here's a 1920:Microsoft 1799:Communism 1744:Communism 1578:6,889,070 1549:results. 1381:The Onion 1158:watchlist 1123:community 1025:selective 1005:standards 992:Standards 881:movement. 631:academics 614:Australia 550:vandalism 482:popup ads 460:vandalism 399:Partisans 257:talk page 172:Although 62:Shortcuts 2492:See also 2387:mens rea 1987:mission. 1851:external 1847:internal 1809:creates 1803:communal 1772:anathema 1628:Slowness 1581:articles 1541:specific 1409:JT LeRoy 1261:Bartleby 1068:a priori 958:Internet 833:project. 797:esoteric 663:computer 533:wikibots 523:PageRank 490:web bugs 472:deleting 464:reverted 452:computer 436:Cornwall 420:abortion 335:states, 319:Amateurs 216:drubbing 159:optimism 148:reverted 128:together 111:My prose 2413:YouTube 2301:Firefox 2293:WYSIWYG 2233:bit rot 1912:Red Hat 1866:Encarta 1835:without 1811:private 1789:methods 1265:Encarta 1263:(note: 1119:process 1107:Encarta 1063:already 982:Be bold 949:in the 872:Harvard 846:Physics 635:science 623:hackers 596:website 540:CAPTCHA 440:England 329:usually 298:weblogs 259:(e.g., 2417:OCILLA 2349:, and 2154:Google 2148:answer 1908:gratis 1904:Google 1641:Yahoo! 1585:depth. 1546:Google 1486:– see 1482:, and 1423:, and 1319:Nature 1314:Nature 1304:errors 1296:errors 1178:, and 821:Hamlet 618:Canada 608:, the 578:ad hoc 573:admins 546:USENET 484:, and 470:or by 426:, and 306:Usenet 304:, and 279:Usenet 238:Usenet 184:page. 174:cranks 165:Cranks 77:WP:RCO 70:WP:REP 2429:Notes 2185:often 2168:paper 2056:works 2042:work. 2018:hobby 1727:(see 1388:Onion 1278:time. 1114:which 928:Then 671:dance 385:cites 222:block 40:essay 2443:See 2390:and 2351:iPod 2343:eBay 2329:and 2327:EBay 2237:spam 2221:free 2152:via 2146:glib 1940:The 1916:free 1881:and 1793:GFDL 1731:and 1589:See 1445:and 1431:and 1342:hoax 1259:and 1214:bugs 986:cite 801:best 780:and 748:wiki 706:See 692:and 673:and 665:and 645:and 643:arts 637:and 514:Bots 388:not. 339:bugs 2247:not 2199:. 1767:any 1760:any 1678:." 1105:or 1074:it. 1050:it. 1047:all 1039:who 912:are 815:or 569:all 559:?" 525:in 412:war 347:and 267:). 248:." 226:ban 224:or 153:We 124:own 2544:: 2462:. 2425:.) 2347:pH 2345:, 2331:PH 2189:do 2157:? 2124:.) 1863:, 1782:is 1709:. 1478:, 1463:, 1419:, 1415:, 1411:, 1407:, 1275:. 1245:. 1200:" 1170:by 1099:. 1093:do 1035:'s 856:. 823:. 811:, 807:, 625:, 616:, 612:, 602:. 480:, 422:, 418:, 414:, 360:. 300:, 293:. 218:. 117:my 2484:. 2466:. 2447:. 2394:. 2130:. 2058:. 2007:. 1948:. 1735:) 1196:" 1188:. 629:/ 552:. 510:. 315:. 240:( 161:. 42:. 20:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Replies to common objections - Knowledge

Index