The Wikipedia "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fulfilled its seventh anniversary with full rights in erecting the flagship of the so-called Web 2.0. The statistics are impressive drive. Specifically, the online encyclopedia edited collaboratively by volunteers, allowing the vast majority of articles to be changed by anyone with access via a Web browser was founded on 15 January 2001 and reached its Article 10 million last March. The hotel has 253 different editions in different languages, although only 137 are active, corresponding only to the English version of text 2 million. His success in participation and consultation has been such that has led to the development of other projects siblings and, interestingly, creating projects for editing Wikipedia stable versions of the DVD and even a proposal for a paper edition. His popularity has been established as one of the most visited Internet sources and the ubiquitous Google has a predilection for placing their articles on the top of the results compared to a search. In fact, the Mountain View search engine is already preparing his Wikipedia particular under the name Knol. Although unlike Wikipedia, Knol gives back to his publishers as the definitive break altruistic and collaborative nature of the first.

This is an explicit recognition of the power of Google Wikipedia as a source of reliable information. However, the development and management of the Wikipedia has dark parts and many difficulties, both economic, content and human. Like any project with a certain popularity and scope, the focus of public opinion has placed on it, being monitored on how it develops, what is published, how it is published, its internal functioning, personal relationships Jimmy Wales - his co - founder and head - and other scandals derivatives. Of course, Wales, co-founder, is fully aware of this and has recently stated, "Wikipedia has more and more power, but is in the hands of the people".

Perhaps one of the biggest debates that raises the Wikipedia is precisely that of its reliability. From the social Web, which has come to be known by some as the dictatorship of idiots, it was felt he could not leave a product of good quality, reliable, open and free, but rather a rough copy and paste from editorial sources prestige. The reliability of Wikipedia has therefore always been questioned and, indeed, came to prohibit its use and obviously it's appointment as a documentary source in Middlebury College (USA). However, since some scientific sources have attempted to corroborate the reliability expected in an information product of these characteristics by comparing with other encyclopedias. The article published in the journal Nature is the most famous and there are articles comparing different pre-selected and subjected to peer review. The results were surprising since the number of errors found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Wikipedia were very similar. According to the text published in Nature, it was found that, on average, each entry in Wikipedia had four errors and the British had three, while the biggest complaint against Wikipedia was that the entries were confusing and poorly structured.

It should be noted that the criticism of their reliability were born very early and just by people who were involved from the outset in its implementation. So, Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, disassociated himself completely from the project in 2002 after criticizing the lack of control over the content that was contributed by the partners. Finally, in 2006, launched a collaborative encyclopedia that from his point of view, was more stringent under the name of Citizendium.

But beyond what is published, the debate also revolves on what should be and what should not be inside her. For example, within the biblioblogosfera, sought to include a term as representative of the blogs of Library and Information Science, but the proposal was rejected by his publishers. This shows that what or who deserves to be in it is a more complex task of so-called librarians, nor manage to escape the controversy, since the pressures are many and varied. However, sometimes the pressures on the created and the content, vastly outnumber the good intentions of the advocates of the free cleaning. This has forced the organization to intervene to try to prevent vandalism, and even within it to take drastic decisions to stop them.

Unfortunately, not only people at your own risk, along with small organizations, have tried to alter their contents, too large agencies have set their eyes on it and intervened to manipulate their articles. Well known is the fact that the U.S. agency CIA was discovered trying to adulterate content. this website or alternatively, the pressures received from Islam to retire an image of the prophet Muhammad to not offend the sensibilities of the followers of this cult, which was ultimately rejected. Moreover, other problems are emerging as the emergence of companies that pay publishers of the encyclopedia for the content of a certain item is closest to their interests. But the sights do not end there, of course, since Wikipedia has also served to predict death, but not to avoid it.

Unfortunately, allegations of fraudulent manipulation and editing of content are not the only players who have entered the fray on information from the media on Wikipedia. Beyond the dark past of people who worked for Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales activities are followed very carefully and continually analyzed their actions. Thus, with Jimmy Wales complaints have arisen extortion and embezzlement, with allegations of illegal publishing of a Wikipedia entry by an ex-lover of the founder that have been gathered and disseminated by the media.

In conclusion, noting that the challenges of the Wikipedia are the challenges facing the Web 2.0 in general. The power of Wikipedia is the power of many concentrated in one spot, giving voice to anyone who has something to contribute, under the guidance of peers. Of course, the difficulties of the Wikipedia, for its size and ambition, can not be extrapolated to all projects fully Web 2.0, although those based on trust between peers. Under apparently building knowledge collaborative environments are unstoppable as Web 2.0 as a whole.