While most Wikipedia editors are volunteers, some are employed by Wikipedia. The Science History Institute's Mary Mark Ockerbloom offers insight into the "Wikipedian in residence" program.
Olivia Colman has a funny story to tell on Wikipedia about the age displayed in her biography in the online encyclopedia. The opportunity for a Wikipedia fact-checking.
The late sociologist looked at existing 'utopias' that could herald a world after capitalism.
Are online trolls as bad as we think? New research reveals that most online news comments contribute positively to the conversation.
The technology behind blockchain remains a mystery to many, but the it shares many common features with the popular online encyclopedia with which most web users are very familiar.
Wikipedia's coverage on women is less comprehensive, and its volunteer editor base is mostly male. What can be done to change the numbers?
New, extreme levels of censorship in Turkey could lead to waves of digital activism by tech-savvy generations.
If access to information online becomes more difficult, then it will be the communities on the fringes that lose out.
Digital and animal cultures pose a profound challenge to the law’s recognition of human uniqueness.
Social media is a huge channel for false information. News organisations need to wean themselves off it.
Current events can boost our collective memory of past events in predictable ways, finds study.
Wikipedia has earned our trust. Now its founder proposes an innovative assault on fake news with Wikitribune.
Researchers have found that today's students, despite being 'digital natives,' have a hard time distinguishing what is real and what is fake online. Metaliteracy might provide the answers.
Medical entries on Wikipedia are widely consulted across the world. Doctors and medical researchers need to make efforts to ensure the content on the online collaborative encyclopedia is accurate.
Economics struggles to explain the explosion of gift models at the heart of our online economy.
The academic medical community largely views Wikipedia with suspicion. But some traditional journals are starting to take the site more seriously – and some journals work very closely with it.
But is it a good thing?
Wikipedia is celebrating its 15th birthday, but it's eight years since contributor numbers peaked. What does this tell us about its future?
What does it take to teach an AI how to read natural human languages?
That Wikipedia is used for less-than scrupulously neutral purposes shouldn't surprise us - our lack of critical eye that's the real problem.