Veropedia was a free, advertising-supported Internet encyclopedia project launched late October 2007. It was taken down in January 2009, pending creation of a new version. As of this date, when? ] There has been no report of a new version. Citation needed ] original research? ]

Veropedia editors thing Wikipedia articles that put the site’s reliability standards; Information was then scraped , or chosen by an automatic process, and thereafter a stable version of the article was posted on Veropedia.

Any improvements required for articles to reach a standard suitable for Veropedia had to be done on Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search [1] [2] [3]

As of October 2008 the site, still in beta , had checked and imported more than 5,800 articles [4] from the Wikipedia into its public database. [5] Although Veropedia intended to eventually support itself completely through advertising, the project was mainly financed by those involved in the project, [6] and in January 2009. The “Beta2” never arrived and the articles were not restored.

History

Wikipedia editors, including founder Daniel Wool, who had prior experience editing a variety of reference works including the Encyclopedia of the Peoples of the World [7] and was an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation until spring 2007. [ 8] By November 2007, roughly 100 Wikipedia editors were involved in the project. The help of academics who had worked on Wikipedia was also being sought. [1] [7]

An explanatory page on the site stated that similar projects in languages ​​other than English could be launched; It distinguished Veropedia from “expert-driven” wikis such as Citizendium .

In January 2009, the VeroMedical Society of the United States of America and the United States of America, Improved interface. ”

Management and legal status

Veropedia was operated by Veropedia, Inc., a for-profit corporation registered in Florida , [3] [9] and founded by Wool, [10] [11] to form a co-ordinator at the Wikimedia Foundation , the parent organization of Wikipedia . [8]

As required by its use of the Wikipedia material, all of the contents are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License . [4]

Contrast with Wikipedia

The Veropedia editorial community was far less than Wikipedia’s, and was intended to be geared towards quality article writing, seeing involvement in Veropedia as a means of returning to the roots of knowledge building by focusing on articles rather than editorial difficulties. [12] Other notable differences included:

  • Articles were uploaded when they met Veropedia’s criteria. Articles were not edited once uploaded.
  • Veropedia used only experienced article editors, and also operated an automated system for uploading which checked out articles for a wide range of issues, and refused to accept them if any were present. Independent human expert review of articles was planned for the final site, but was not implemented. In Veropedia’s own words: “Each article will be given to recognized academics and experts to review.” These experts can either provide their stamp of approval or make suggestions as to how the article can be improved further. Article is linked by Wikipedia contributors The role of experts and academics will be checked and their ideas will be better. .
  • In contrast to Wikipedia, which permits almost anyone to edit, contributed to Veropedia was by approval. [2]
  • Veropedia’s Wikipedia article: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 3 million for Wikipedia. The focus was explicitly on articles that are likely to be widely useful, [2] and are improved to a high standard. [2] As of December 2007 , Veropedia’s growth rate was around 300 articles per month. [13]
  • Another difference from the English Wikipedia Was a number of Tighter restrictions, for example, exclusion of fair use pictures and other happy. The Veropedia FAQ stated: “We have decided to go back to the core principles of the project by focusing on free content. To the public. ” [2]
  • In contrast with Wikipedia’s donation-based model, Veropedia’s business model used paid advertising. [3] Daniel Wool commented: “I was in charge of fundraising for Wikipedia, and I feel a lot more comfortable taking ads from Amazon than the donations of high school students.” [7]

Evaluation

Veropedia, founded in 2007, was still in its beta stage. In August 2008, it had an Alexa traffic rank of over 1.5 million [14] – indicating it was less popular than Wikipedia , [15] (Traffic rank 6) Citizendium , [16] (Traffic rank of 273,939) and Scholarpedia . [17] (Traffic rank of 171,753)

Nicholas Carr , a critic of Web 2.0 in general and Wikipedia in particular, criticized Veropedia as “scrape” the “cream” of Wikipedia. [1] Carr has also stated that Veropedia had an unclear interface with clicks bouncing back and forth between Wikipedia and Veropedia. [1]

Tim Blackmore, an associate professor at the Faculty of Information and Media Studies of the University of Western Ontario , expressed skepticism towards the project, since it is already encyclopedias in existence. According to the Internet, according to him, is “free information” and Wikipedia has already emerged as a pioneer in open content information resources. [18]

A different evaluation in The Australian said Veropedia “is more likely to succeed” than Citizendium, because “it is less directly competitive” with Wikipedia. The Story of Veropedia and Citizendium “,” The Story of the Veropedia and Citizendium “. Corporations and their actions. ” [19]

A story in Wired News as Veropedia (and Citizendium ) Wikipedia has supposedly encountered: “Though office politics and internalcine bickering abound at the Wikimedia Foundation – The World Turns’ for Geeks’ – both Wool and Sanger ‘s squabbles were for their own encyclopedias. . ” [8]

In a review of various Wikipedia alternatives, TechNewsWorld argued that Veropedia’s estimate of 5000 articles was not credible, as “many of these articles are small and insignificant almanac-type entries that serve mainly as filler”. It has argued that like Citizendium, Veropedia avoided “the tough challenge of handling controversial and time-sensitive subjects” that Wikipedia had taken on. The article also stated that most Wikipedia counterpart. [20]

In January 2008, the St. Petersburg Times , a well-known Florida newspaper based in the town of which Daniel Wool operated Veropedia, listed Wool and Terry Foote, a Veropedia investor, as “people to watch in 2008”. [6]

See also

  • List of online encyclopedias

References

  1. ^ Jump up to:d Nicholas Carr (2007-10-29). “Veropedia and the Wikipedia mine” . Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  2. ^ Jump up to:f “FAQ” . Veropedia . Retrieved 2008-03-08 . Dead link ]
  3. ^ Jump up to:c Matthew Sparkes (2007-11-06). “Wikipedia spins-off another rival” . PC Pro . Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  4. ^ Jump up to:b “Veropedia main page” . Retrieved 2008-03-09 .
  5. Jump up^ “All Articles” . Veropedia . Retrieved 2008-03-09 .
  6. ^ Jump up to:b “10 people to watch in 2008” . St. Petersburg Times . 2008-01-06 . Retrieved 2008-01-06 .
  7. ^ Jump up to:c Leslie Scrivener (November 4, 2007). “It’s called Veropedia. Its goal: To create something that students and teachers can rely on” . The Toronto Star . Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  8. ^ Jump up to:c Dan Tynan (2007-06-11). “Wikipedia’s Inner Circle Keeps Producing Competitors” . Wired . Retrieved 2008-02-07 .
  9. Jump up^ “Filing information for Veropedia with Florida” . Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  10. Jump up^ Wool is referred to as the founder and sole officerNewser.com
  11. Jump up^ Blog.edu-cyberpg.com [ dead link ] with Veropedia described as “his startup”
  12. Jump up^ For example, Terry Foote, a long-standing Wikipedian who is also part of the Veropedia community, has been quoted as saying, “When we first signed on with Wikipedia, our goal was to build a city of knowledge. Rome, and the Visigoths and the Vandals are coming over the walls. “
  13. Jump up^ based on a total of 90 articles uploaded during the ten days 9-18 December 2007,Veropedia.comArchivedApril 20, 2008, at theWayback Machine.
  14. Jump up^ “Veropedia.com – Traffic Details from Alexa” . Alexa Internet . Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  15. Jump up^ “Wikipedia.org – Traffic Details from Alexa” . Alexa Internet . Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  16. Jump up^ “Citizendium.org – Traffic Details from Alexa” . Alexa Internet . Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  17. Jump up^ “Scholarpedia.org – Traffic Details from Alexa” . Alexa Internet . Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  18. Jump up^ Mike Hayes (2007-11-07). “Veropedia aims to be a legit wiki” . The Gazette , University of Western Ontario . Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  19. Jump up^ Stephen Ellis (2007-11-20). “Slowing down spin in wikis world” . The Australian . Retrieved 2008-08-01 .
  20. Jump up^ Mick O’Leary (2008-02-20). “Would-Be Wikipedia Replacements Stumble” . TechNewsWorld. Archived from the original on 2008-04-15 . Retrieved 2008-02-23 .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *