Think And Grow Rich Marathi Pdf - Spheresignal

Wales, 3 years) Active 3 years. (2001-01-15) Current Status of Active Content LicenseCC Attribution/ShareAlike 3.0 Most content is also dual licensed under the GFDL; media license varies Author: LAMP[2]OCLC number52075003 Wikipedia[3. footnote] is a multilingual free online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers using a wiki-based open collaborative editing system. Its editors are known as Wikipedians. Wikipedia is the largest and most widely read reference book in history.[3] It consistently ranks in the top 10 sites by Likeweb and before that by Alexa; In 2022, Wikipedia was the fifth most visited website in the world. [4] It is administered by the Wikimedia Foundation, an American non-profit organization funded primarily by donations. Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001 by Jimmy Wells and Larry Sanger. Sanger came up with his name as a combination of a wiki and an encyclopedia. Wales hit by 'spontaneous order'associated with Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics after being introduced to these ideas by libertarian economist Mark Thornton. Initially available only in English, other language versions quickly developed. As of November 2020, his total posts contain over 60 million articles, which attracts approximately 2 billion unique device visits per month and over 17 million edits per month (1.9 edits per second) [update].[8][9] Time magazine stated in 2006 that the policy of allowing anyone to edit made Wikipedia "the largest (and arguably the best) encyclopedia in the world." Wikipedia has been praised for its ability to democratize knowledge, reach, unique structure, culture, and reduce commercial bias; but a critique of systemic bias, especially gender bias against women and possible ideological biases. Wikipedia's reliability was often criticized in the 2000s, but has improved over time, with Wikipedia generally being praised in late 2010 and early 2020. The media attention focused on the website's content on controversial topics such as US politics and important events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It has been censored by governments around the world, from individual pages to the entire site. In April 2018, Facebook and YouTube announced that they would help users spot fake news by recommending fact-checking links to relevant Wikipedia articles. Breaking news is often used as a source of frequently updated information on these events[17]. History Main article: History of Wikipedia on Nupedia Main article: Wikipedia founders on Nupedia, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger Prior to the creation of Wikipedia, attempts were made to create various online encyclopedias with limited success. Wikipedia was created as a spin-off of Nupedia, a free online encyclopedia of the English language.whose articles were written by experts and reviewed in an official capacity.[19] It was founded on March 9, 2000 owned by the internet portal company Bomis. Its key figures were Jimmy Wales, CEO of Bomis, and Larry Sanger, Editor-in-Chief of Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was originally licensed under the Nupedia Open Content License, but before Wikipedia was founded, at the urging of Richard Stillman, Nupedia switched to the GNU Free Documentation License. Wells identified the goal of creating a publicly available, editable encyclopedia[22][23] while Sanger is credited with the strategy of using wikis to achieve this goal.[24] On January 10, 2001, Sanger proposed to the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeding" Nupedia project. Launch and development The domains wikipedia.com (later wikipedia.org) and wikipedia.org were registered on January 12, 2001.[26] and January 13, 2001[27] and Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001[19]. ] announced as the only English release on www.wikipedia.com[28] and Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[22] His holistic policy of "neutral opinion"[29] was codified in the first few months. Otherwise, it initially had relatively few rules and operated independently of Nupedia. Bomis originally planned it as a for-profit business. Wikipedia Home Page December 20, 2001 English Wikipedia editors with 100 edits per month[31] Number of articles in English Wikipedia[32] Wikipedia attracted early contributors from Nupedia, slashdot posts, and web search engine indexing. Language editions have been produced since March 2001 and at the end of 2004 161 editions were in use. Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until Nupedia's servers were finally shut down in 2003 and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. On September 9, 2007, the English Wikipedia passed the two million mark, making it the largest encyclopedia.collected, surpassing the Yongle encyclopedia, created during the Ming dynasty in 1408, which kept the record for nearly 600 years. Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control, Spanish Wikipedia users broke away from Wikipedia to create Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002. Wells then announced that Wikipedia would not run ads and changed Wikipedia's domain from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org. Although the English Wikipedia contained three million articles in August 2009, publication growth in terms of new articles and editors appears to have peaked in early 2007. [39] In 2006, approximately 1,800 articles were added to the encyclopedia daily; by 2013, this average number was around 800. The Palo Alto Research Center team attributed the slowdown to the design's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change. Others suggest that the growth naturally evens out because what might be called "low-hanging fruit" - topics that definitely deserve an article - has already been established and widely disseminated. In November 2009, a researcher at Madrid's Rey Juan Carlos University found that the English Wikipedia lost 49,000 editors in the first three months of 2009; By comparison, it lost only 4,900 editors over the same period in 2008. The Wall Street Journal cited multiple editing policies and controversies surrounding such content as reasons for this trend. Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study. Two years later, in 2011, he admitted a slight decline, noting a drop from "just over 36,000 authors" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, he also stated that the number of editors is "constant and stable.” A 2013 MIT Technology Review article, "Wikipedia's Decline", disputes this claim, showing that as of 2007,it lost a third of its volunteer editors, and the rest showed increasing attention to detail. In July 2012, The Atlantic reported that the number of administrators was also declining. In the November 25, 2013 issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated, "Wikipedia, the sixth most visited website, is in internal crisis." a long period of decline.[53][54] Milestone cartogram showing the number of articles in each European language in January 2019 [updated] One square represents 10,000 articles. Languages with fewer than 10,000 items are represented by a single box. Languages are grouped by language families, with each language family represented by a different color. According to Comscore Networks, Wikipedia entered the top 10 most popular websites in the United States for the first time in January 2007. With 42.9 million unique visitors, it ranked 9th, ahead of The New York Times (10th) and Apple (11th). This is a significant increase from January 2006, when Wikipedia ranked 33rd with 18.3 million unique visitors.[55] As of March 2020 [update], the Internet was ranked 13th[56] in popularity by Alexa. In 2014, eight billion pages were viewed each month.[57] On February 9, 2014, The New York Times reported that "Wikipedia" has 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors per month, "according to comScore." In this process, Loveland and Rigle argue, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that gradually accumulated improvements through "stigmergic accumulation". On January 18, 2012, the English-language Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests against two laws proposed by the US Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Intellectual Property Protection Act (PIPA), by blacking out its pages. . 24 hours. [60] More than 162 million people watched the eclipse.A page that has temporarily replaced its content.[61][62] On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma stated in a report for The Economic Times that not only had growth stalled, but Wikipedia had “lost almost 10 percent of its pageviews over the past year. Between December 2012 and December 2013, approximately two billion. The most popular versions led to declines, with Wikipedia page views down 12 percent in English, 17 percent in German, and nine percent in Japanese.” other experts say that the Google Knowledge Graphs project, launched last year, may be due to counting errors, which could overwhelm Wikipedia users.” "If you can answer your question on the search page, you don't need to click [Next]" [6]. 3] By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was the fifth most popular website in the world.[64] 2013 January 274301 Wikipedia, an asteroid named after Wikipedia; In October 2014, Wikipedia was honored with a Wikipedia monument; and in July 2015, 106 of the 7,473,700 Wikipedia volumes became available on the printed Wikipedia. In April 2019, the Israeli Bereshit lunar module landed on the lunar surface with a copy of almost the entire English Wikipedia engraved on thin nickel plates; Experts say the panels likely survived the crash. In June 2019, scientists reported that the entire text of a 16 GB article from the English Wikipedia was encoded in synthetic DNA.[67] As of November 2022, 55,800 articles from the English-language Wikipedia[68] have been cited 92,300 times in academic journals, with cloud computing[69] being the most cited page. differences in openness betweenfrom the article are highlighted. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the principle of deferral[4. note] regarding the security of its content.[70][Further clarification needed] Restrictions Due to the growing popularity of Wikipedia, some editions, including the English language, have implemented editing restrictions in certain cases. . For example, only registered users can create a new article on the English Wikipedia and some other language editions.[71] On the English Wikipedia, particularly controversial, sensitive or intentionally damaged pages are protected to varying degrees.[72][73] A frequently destroyed article may be "semi-protected" or "extended-approved protection", meaning that only "auto-approved" or "extendedapproved" editors can change it.[74] A particularly controversial article may be locked so that only administrators can make changes.[75] A 2021 Columbia Journalism Review article noted that Wikipedia's page protection policy is "perhaps the most important" tool it has to "regulate its marketplace of ideas"[76]. In some cases, all editors can submit changes, but some editors must be reviewed under certain conditions. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles[77] that have undergone some revisions. After extensive testing and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced an "Approved Change System" in December 2012.[78] Under this system, changes made by new and unregistered users to certain controversial or destroyed articles are reviewed by expert users before publication.[79] Wikipedia's Editing Interface Reviewing Changes Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikipedia provides tools that allow anyone to review changes made by others. Each article's history page contains links to each revision.[5. Note.][80] In most articles, anyone can undo changes made by others by clicking on a linkhistory page. Anyone can view the latest changes to articles, and any registered user can create a "watch list" of articles of interest to receive notifications of changes. New Page Patrol is the process of checking newly created articles for obvious problems.[81] 2003 Candidate of Economic Sciences. Student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs associated with wiki membership were a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as easy access to previous versions of a page favored "creative construction" over "creative destruction." Vandalism Main article: Wikipedia vandalism Any change or editing that manipulates content in a way that intentionally compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious forms of vandalism include profanity and crude humor; it may also contain advertisements and other types of spam.[83] Sometimes editors commit acts of vandalism by removing content or closing a particular page completely. Less common forms of vandalism, such as the intentional posting of credible but incorrect information, may be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce inappropriate formatting, change page semantics such as the title or page classification, manipulate the base code of an article, or use images inappropriately.[84] American journalist John Siegenthaler (1927–2014), involved in the Siegenthaler incident Obvious vandalism is usually easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; The average time for detection and correction is a few minutes.[85][86] However, some acts of vandalism take much longer to detect and prevent.[87] In the May 2005 Siegenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor inserted false information into the biography of American politician John Siegenthaler, mistakenly identifying him as a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It remained uncorrected for four months. Seigenthaler, editor-in-chief of USA Today and founder of LibertyThe first corrections center at Vanderbilt University called Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked if there was any way he could find out who the source of the misinformation was. Wells said he didn't, though the culprit was eventually hunted down. After the incident, Seigenthaler called Wikipedia "an incomplete and irresponsible research tool". This incident led to a change in Wikipedia's policy to strengthen the verification of biographical entries of living people. In 2010, Daniel Tosh encouraged viewers of his show Tosh.0 to visit the show's Wikipedia article and edit it as they see fit. In a later episode, he commented on the publication's changes to the article, most of which were offensive, resulting in the article being blocked from being edited. Editing disputes Wikipedians often have disagreements, which can lead to repeated competing changes to an article, called "editing disputes". It is considered by many to be a resource-intensive scenario that adds no useful knowledge[95] and has been criticized for creating a culture of competition[96] and conflict[97] editing associated with traditional male gender roles.[98] Policy and Law "The Five Pillars of Wikipedia" redirects here. For Wikipedia policies, see Wikipedia: The Five Pillars. External Video Wikimania, 60 Minutes, CBS, 20 Minutes, April 5, 2015 CoFounder Jimmy Wells of Fos. The content of Wikipedia is governed by the laws (especially copyright laws) of the United States and the state of Virginia, where most of Wikipedia's servers are located. In addition to legal issues, Wikipedia's editorial principles are embodied in the Five Pillars and numerous guidelines and guidelines for proper content creation.[99] Even these rules are stored as a wiki, and Wikipedia editors write and review the site's policies and guidelines. Editors may enforce these policies by removing or editing inappropriate material. Initially, the rulesWikipedia edits were based on translating the rules of the English Wikipedia. Since then, they have parted ways to some extent. Content Policy and Guidelines According to the rules of the English Wikipedia, each Wikipedia entry must relate to an encyclopedic topic, not an entry or dictionary style.[101] The topic must also meet Wikipedia's standards for "prominence"[102], which usually means the topic must be featured in mainstream media or major academic journals that are independent of the article's topic. Furthermore, Wikipedia only intends to convey knowledge that is already established and recognized.[103] It cannot represent original research. A claim that can be challenged requires citing a credible source, as do all quotes. Among Wikipedia editors, this is often referred to as "verifiability rather than truth" to convey the idea that readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the validity of articles and forming their own interpretations. This can sometimes result in the deletion of important information, but not from the right sources.[105] Finally, Wikipedia should not take sides[106]. Administration More information: Wikipedia: Administration The initial anarchy Wikipedia eventually combined democratic and hierarchical elements. The article is not considered to belong to its creator or other editor, nor to the subject of the article.[109] Administrators Editors with a good reputation in the community may request additional user rights that give them the technical ability to perform certain special actions. In particular, editors may seek "administration"[110][111] which includes the ability to remove pages or prevent them from being changed in the event of severe vandalism or an editorial dispute. Administrators should not have special decision-making powers; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making the adjustments they have.Effects and thus forbidden for normal editors, as well as the introduction of restrictions intended to prevent unproductive editing by non-productive editors. By 2012, fewer editors had become administrators compared to Wikipedia's previous years, partly because the selection process for potential administrators had become more rigorous. In 2022, there was a particularly controversial request to manage a candidate's anti-Trump views; They eventually got administrative control. Dispute Resolution Over time, Wikipedia has developed a semi-formal dispute resolution process. To build community consensus, editors may post questions in the appropriate community forums, solicit external contributions through third-party requests, or initiate a more general community discussion known as a "comment request." Wikipedia encourages local conflict resolution, which Emelniak says is quite unique in organizational research, although there has recently been an interest in consensus building in this area. Joseph Rigle and Sue Gardner argue that consensus-based approaches resemble those of Quakers. Secretary at Quaker meetings. [116]: "83" Arbitration Committee Main article: Arbitration Committee The Arbitration Committee administers the final dispute resolution process. While disputes usually arise from disagreements between two opposing views on how to read an article, the Disputes Committee expressly refuses to make a direct decision on which view to take. Statistical analysis shows that the committee ignores the content of disputes and focuses more on how disputes are resolved,[117] not so much on resolving disputes and reconciling conflicting editors as on eliminating baffled editors and helping potentially productive editors return to allow. participate.The committee does not dictate the content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes if it believes the new content violates Wikipedia policy (for example, if the new content is considered biased). Remedial measures include a warning and probation (used in 63% of cases) and a ban on editors of articles (43%), topics (23%) or Wikipedia (16%). and antisocial behavior. If the behavior is not identity theft or antisocial behavior, but rather contrary to consensus or moderation violations, remedial action is usually limited to warnings.[118] Community Main article: Wikipedia Community Video Wikimania 2005, an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects organized by the Wikimedia Foundation, took place August 4-8 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Every article and every Wikipedia user has an associated and dedicated "Speakers" page. They form the main channel of communication for editors to discuss, coordinate, and debate. [119] Wikipedians and British Museum curators collaborating on a Hoxne-Hoard article in June 2010. The Wikipedia community has been described as cultish,[120] though not always with entirely negative overtones.[121] Their preference for consistency, even when it requires a compromise that includes ignoring credentials, has been called "antielitist". Wikipedians sometimes reward each other with "virtual barnstars" for good work. These personalized acknowledgments reveal a wide range of valuable work that goes far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative tasks, and types of articulation work.[123] Wikipedia does not require its editors and contributors to identify themselves.[124] As Wikipedia grows, the question "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the frequently asked questions there[125]. Jimmy Wales once stated that mostper Wikipedia, and thus the project is "just like any traditional organization". In 2008, Slate magazine reported that: "One percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's changes, according to Palo Alto researchers." noticed that most of the content (measured by character count) of some of the articles he selected was submitted by users with few changes. The English Wikipedia has 6,582,495 articles, 44,589,049 registered editors, and 122,400 active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made at least one edit in the last 30 days. Editors who do not follow Wikipedia's cultural rituals, such as not signing comments on the talk page, may indirectly signal that they are outside Wikipedia, making it more likely that Wikipedians will target or dismiss their contributions. Becoming a member of Wikipedia comes with a small cost: a member must learn Wikipedia-specific technology codes, go through a sometimes confusing dispute resolution process, and learn "an obscure culture rich with jokes and insider references." Non-member editors are, in a sense, second-class citizens of Wikipedia[129] because "authors are accredited by members of the wiki community who have an interest in maintaining the quality of the work product based on their continued participation,"[130] but the historical record of anonymous unregistered editors publications that can only be identified by their IP addresses cannot be reliably attributed to a specific editor. A 2007 study by researchers at Dartmouth College found that "Wikipedia's anonymous and infrequent contributors.are as reliable a source of knowledge as the site's contributors." Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "over 50% of all changes are made by just 0.7% of users.524And indeed the most active 2%, or 1,400 people, made 73.4% of all edits.”[126] However, Business Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodgett showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most Wikipedia content (as measured by the amount of approximately embedded text , which survives to the last editing sample) is done by "outsiders", while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders".[126] A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less polite, open, and conscientious than others,[132][133] although later commentary pointed to serious flaws, including that the data showed greater levels of openness and differences from a control group and small for samples.[134] According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistanc

Rich Dad Poor Dad pdf â Introduction â czech This is a book written by Robert Kiyosaki back in the old days, almost 25 years ago when he started his investment journey. In this book, Robert tells how his father and a friend's father managed to multiply their money in life and at the same time become financially strong. He discussed various .