*¨¨*★ Cher Tickets on May 25, 2014B in Las Vegas, Nevada For Sale

Cher TICKETS
MGM Grand Garden Arena
Las Vegas, NV
May 25, xxxxB
View Cher Tickets at MGM Grand Garden Arena
Call Online Ticket window Toll Free (855) 730-xxxx
Bruno Mars Bryan Adams Casting Crowns, Steve Curtis Chapman & Natalie Grant Celtic Thunder Celtic Woman Cher Charlie Wilson Chicago - The Band Chicago - The Musical Chris Botti Chris Cornell Cirque Dreams: Holidaze Cirque Du Soleil - Varekai Darius Rucker Dark Star OrchestraDave Koz David Garrett Demi Lovato Diana Krall Disney's Beauty And The Beast Disney Junior Live: Pirate & Princess Adventure Disney Live! Three Classic Fairy Tales Disney On Ice: Let's Celebrate! Disney On Ice: 100 Years Of Magic Disney On Ice: Princesses And Heroes Disney On Ice: Rockin' Ever After Disney On Ice: Passport To Adventure Dixie Chicks Donny and Marie - Christmas Tour Drake & Miguel Eddie Izzard Elf Elton John Evita Flashdance Florida Georgia Line 50 Shades! The Musical A Christmas Carol A Christmas Story Advance Auto Parts Monster Jam Adventure Club Alejandro Fernandez Alton Brown Live American Idiot Amos Lee Andrea Bocelli Arcade Fire Arctic Monkeys Austin Mahone B.B. King Barry Manilow Beyonce Bill Cosby Billy Joel Black Crowes Black Sabbath Blue Man Group Bonnie Raitt Brad Paisley Brian Regan Brian Setzer Orchestra Freestyle Motocross: Nuclear Cowboyz Gabriel Iglesias Garth Brooks Gavin Degraw George Lopez George Strait Ghost - The Musical Hedley Hillsong United How The Grinch Stole Christmas Hunter Hayes & Ashley Monroe I Love Lucy - Live Onstage il Divo: A Musical Affair Imagine Dragons Irving Berlin's White Christmas J. Cole Jaheim & Chrisette Michele Jake Miller Jason Aldean Jay-Z Jeff Dunham Jerry Seinfeld Jersey Boys Jim Brickman Jim Gaffigan Jimmy Buffett Joe Bonamassa Joel Osteen John Legend John Mayer John Pinette John Prine Johnny Reid Journey & Steve Miller Band Justin Moore Justin Timberlake - The 20/20 Experience World Tour Kanye West & Kendrick Lamar Kathy Griffin Keith Urban Kenny Rogers Kings of Leon & Gary Clark Jr. Kip Moore Korn & Rob Zombie Lady Antebellum Larry The Cable Guy Lewis Black Luke Bryan Macklemore & Ryan Lewis Mamma Mia! Mannheim Steamroller Marc Anthon Martina McBride Max and Ruby - The Nutcracker Suite Merle Haggard MGMT Michael Buble Miley Cyrus -- Bangerz Tour Million Dollar Quarte Monster Energy AMA Supercross Moody Blues Moscow Ballet's Great Russian Nutcracker MythBusters: Behind the Myths Nine Inch Nail Nitro Circus Live Once Panic! At The Disco Paramore, Metric & HelloGoodbye Paul Simon & Sting PBR - Professional Bull Rider Pearl Jam Pentatonix Peter And The Starcatcher Phantom of the Opera Pink Porgy and Bess Pretty Lights PBR - Professional Bull Riders Radio City Christmas Spectacular Rain - A Tribute to The Beattles REO Speedwagon Ringling Brothers And Barnum & Bailey Circus Robert Earl Keen Robin Thicke & Jessie J Rod Stewart & Steve Winwood Ron White Selena Gomez Sesame Street Live: Can't Stop Singing Sesame Street Live: Make A New Friend Sesame Street Live: Elmo Makes Music Shen Yun Performing Arts Sister Act Skillet & Third Day Slayer & Gojira So You Think You Can Dance? - Live Tour Sting & Paul Simon Straight No Chaser Stuart McLean Styx The Addams Family The Avett Brothers The Band Perry The Book Of Mormon The Eagles The Fresh Beat Band The Harlem Globetrotters The Lion King The Nutcracker The Oak Ridge Boys The Piano Guys The Story Tour: Casting Crowns, Steve Curtis Chapman & Natalie Grant The Wizard Of Oz Theresa Caputo Third Eye Blind TobyMac Tony Bennett Trace Adkins Trans-Siberian Orchestra: The Lost Christmas Eve Twenty One Pilots UFC War Horse We Will Rock You West Side StoryWicked Willie Nelson WWE: Live WWE: SmackDown WWE: Raw Yo Gabba Gabba: Holiday Show Zac Brown Band ZZ Top Baltimore Ravens Buffalo Bills Cincinnati Bengals Cleveland Browns Denver Broncos Houston Texans Indianapolis Colts Jacksonville Jaguars Kansas City Chiefs Miami Dolphins New England Patriots New York Jets Oakland Raiders Pittsburgh Steelers San Diego Chargers Tennessee Titans Arizona Cardinals Atlanta Falcons Carolina Panthers Chicago Bears Dallas_ Cowboys Detroit Lions Green Bay Packers Minnesota Vikings New Orleans Saints New York Giants Philadelphia Eagles San Francisco 49ers Seattle Seahawks St Louis Rams Tampa Bay Buccaneers Washington Redskins Atlanta Hawks Boston Celtics Brooklyn Nets Charlotte Bobcats Chicago Bulls Cleveland Cavaliers Detroit Pistons Indiana Pacers Miami Heat Milwaukee Bucks New York Knicks Orlando Magic Philadelphia 76ers Toronto Raptors Washington Wizards Dallas Mavericks Denver Nuggets Golden State Warriors Houston Rockets Los Angeles Clippers Lakers Memphis Grizzlies Minnesota Timberwolves New Orleans Pelicans Phoenix Suns Portland Trail Blazers Sacramento Kings San Antonio Spurs Oklahoma City Thunder Utah Jazz Boston Bruins Buffalo Sabres Carolina Hurricanes Florida Panthers Montreal Canadiens New Jersey Devils New York Islanders New York Rangers Ottawa Senators Philadelphia Flyers Pittsburgh Penguins Tampa Bay Lightning
In a departure from the style of traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia is open to outside editing. This means that, with the exception of particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages that are "protected" to some degree,[25] the reader of an article can edit the text without needing approval, doing so with a registered account or even anonymously. Different language editions modify this policy to some extent; for example, only registered users may create a new article in the English edition.[26] No article is considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor, nor is it vetted by any recognized authority. Instead, editors are supposed to agree on the content and structure of articles by By default, an edit to an article becomes available immediately, prior to any review. As such, an article may contain inaccuracies, ideological biases, or even patent nonsense, until or unless another editor corrects the problem. Different language editions, each under separate administrative control, are free to modify this policy. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles,[28] which have passed certain reviews. Following the protracted trials and community discussion, the "pending changes" system was introduced to English Wikipedia in December xxxx.[29] Under this system, new users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles would be "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication".In addition, editors may view the most "recent changes" to the website, which are displayed in reverse chronology. Regular contributors often maintain a "watchlist" of articles of interest to them, in order to easily track recent changes to those articles. In language editions with many articles, editors tend to prefer the "watchlist" because the number of edits has become too large to follow in "recent changes". New page patrol is a process by which newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.[33] A frequently vandalized article can be semi-protected, allowing only well established users to edit it.[34] A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make changes.[35]Articles in Wikipedia are loosely organized according to their development status and subject matter.[41] A new article often starts as a "stub", a very short page consisting of definitions and some links. On the other extreme, the most developed articles may be nominated for "featured article" status. One "featured article" per day, as selected by editors, appears on the main page of Wikipedia.[42][43] Researcher Giacomo Poderi found that articles tend to reach featured status via the intensive work of a few editors.[44] A xxxx study found unevenness in quality among featured articles and concluded that the community process is ineffective in assessing the quality of articles.[45] In xxxx, in preparation for producing a print version, the English-language Wikipedia introduced an assessment scale against which the quality of articles is judged.[46]Any edit that changes content in a way that deliberately compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include insertion of obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also include advertising language, and other types of spam.[47] Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information to an article, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the underlying code of an article, or utilize images disruptively.[48]Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, the copyright laws) of the United States and of the US state of Florida, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars", and numerous policies and guidelines that are intended to shape the content appropriately. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors as a community write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.[53] Editors can enforce rules by deleting or modifying non-compliant material. Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on a translation of the rules on the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent.According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia, to be worthy of inclusion, must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-like.[54] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[55] which usually means that it must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as mainstream media or major academic journals that are independent of the subject of the topic. Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized.[56] It must not present new information or original research. A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference to a reliable source. Among Wikipedia editors, this is often phrased as "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the truthfulness of the articles and making their own interpretations.[57] This can lead to the removal of information that is valid, thus hindering inclusion of knowledge and growth of the encyclopedia.[58] Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[59] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article.[60] This is known as neutral point of view (NPOV).Wikipedia has many methods of settling disputes. A "BOLD, revert, discuss" cycle sometimes occurs, in which an editor changes something, another editor reverts the change, and then the two editors discuss the issue on a talk page. When editors disregard this process ? when a change is repeatedly done by one editor and then undone by another ? an "edit war" may be asserted to have begun.[61] The provenance of this phrase "edit war" is unknown.[62]The Arbitration Committee is the ultimate dispute resolution method. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how articles should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on which view should be adopted. Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and focuses on the way disputes are conducted instead,[64] functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate. Therefore, the committee does not dictate the content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new content violates Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content is biased). Its remedies include cautions and probations (used in 63.2% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43.3%), subject matters (23.4%) or Wikipedia (15.7%). Complete bans from Wikipedia are largely limited to instances of impersonation and anti-social behavior. When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus or violating editing policies, warnings tend to be issued.[65]One privacy concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain private: to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure" in the eyes of the law.[66] It is a battle between the right to be anonymous in cyberspace and the right to be anonymous in real life ("meatspace"). A particular problem occurs in the case of an individual who is relatively unimportant and for whom there exists a Wikipedia page against her or his wishes.The Wikipedia community has established "a bureaucracy of sorts", including "a clear power structure that gives volunteer administrators the authority to exercise editorial control".[72][73][74]Wikipedia does not require that its users provide identification.[80] However, as Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked on the project, often with a reference to other Web 2.0 projects such as Digg.[81] Wales once argued that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization". Wales performed a study finding that over 50% of all the edits were done by just 0.7% of the users (at the time: 524 people). This method of evaluating contributions was later disputed by Aaron Swartz, who noted that several articles he sampled had large portions of their content (measured by number of characters) contributed by users with low edit counts.[82] A xxxx study by researchers from Dartmouth College found that "anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia [...] are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site".[83]Members of the community interact with each other predominantly via "talk" pages, which are wiki-edited pages that are associated with articles, as well as via talk pages that are specific to particular contributors, and talk pages that help run the site. These pages help the contributors reach consensus about what the contents of the articles should be, how the site's rules may change, and to take actions with respect to any problems within the community.[90]Up to sixty percent of Wikipedia's registered users never make another edit after their first 24 hours. Possible explanations are that such users register for only a single purpose, or are scared away by their experiences.[95] Goldman writes that editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk pages, implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders will target their contributions as a threat. Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to build a user page, learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to an arcane dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references". Non-logged-in users are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,[96] as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation",[97] but the contribution histories of IP addresses cannot necessarily with any certainty be credited to, or blamed upon, a particular user.One study found that the contributor base to Wikipedia "was barely 13% women; the average age of a contributor was in the mid-20s". A xxxx study by researchers from University of Minnesota found that females comprised 16.1% of the 38,497 editors who started editing Wikipedia during xxxx.[99] In a January xxxx New York Times article, Noam Cohen observed that just 13% of Wikipedia's contributors are female, according to a xxxx Wikimedia Foundation survey.[100] Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, hopes to see female editing contributions increase to twenty-five percent by xxxx.[101] Linda Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women, noted the contrast in these Wikipedia editor statistics with the percentage of women currently completing bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and PhD programs in the United States (all at rates of fifty percent or greater).[102]There are currently 285 language editions (or language versions) of Wikipedia; of these, eight have over one million articles each (English, Dutch, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Russian and Swedish), five more have over 700,000 articles (Polish, Japanese, Portuguese, and Chinese Wikipedia), 33 more have over 100,000 articles, and 73 more have over 10,000 articles.[105][106] The largest, the English Wikipedia, has over 4.3 million articles. As of June xxxx, according to Alexa, the English subdomain (en.wikipedia.org; English Wikipedia) receives approximately 56% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages (Spanish: 9%; Japanese: 8%; Russian: 6%; German: 5%; French: 4%; Italian: 3%).[5] As of April xxxx, the five largest language editions are (in order of article count) the English, German, Dutch, French, and Italian Wikipedias.[107] The coexistence of multilingual content on Wikipedia is made possible by Unicode, whose support was first introduced into Wikipedia in January xxxx by Brion Vibber after he had similarly implemented the alphabet of Esperanto.[108][109]Since Wikipedia is based on the Web and therefore worldwide, contributors of a same language edition may use different dialects or may come from different countries (as is the case for the English edition). These differences may lead to some conflicts over spelling differences (e.g. colour versus color)[110] or points of view.[111]Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process. Nupedia was founded on March 9, xxxx, under the ownership of Bomis, a web portal company. Its main figures were the Bomis CEO Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was licensed initially under its own Nupedia Open Content License, switching to the GNU Free Documentation License before Wikipedia's founding at the urging of Richard Stallman.[120] Sanger and Wales founded Wikipedia.[121][122] While Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[123][124] Sanger is credited with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[125] On January 10, xxxx, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[126]Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August xxxx, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of articles and of contributors, appears to have peaked around early xxxx.[136] Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in xxxx; by xxxx that average was roughly 800.[137] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center attributed this slowing of growth to the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change.[138] Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because articles that could be called "low-hanging fruit" ? topics that clearly merit an article ? have already been created and built up extensively.[139][140][141]In November xxxx, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid (Spain) found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of xxxx; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in xxxx.[142][143] The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.[144] Wales disputed these claims in xxxx, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study.[145] Two years later, Wales acknowledged the presence of a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June xxxx to 35,800 in June xxxx.[146] Nevertheless, in the same interview, he claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable". In July xxxx, the Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also in decline.[147]Wikipedia blackout protest against SOPA on January 18, xxxxIn January xxxx, Wikipedia entered for the first time the top-ten list of the most popular websites in the United States, according to comScore Networks. With 42.9 million unique visitors, Wikipedia was ranked number 9, surpassing the New York Times (#10) and Apple (#11). This marked a significant increase over January xxxx, when the rank was number 33, with Wikipedia receiving around 18.3 million unique visitors.[148] As of June xxxx, Wikipedia is the seventh most popular website worldwide according to Alexa Internet,[5] receiving more than 2.7 billion US pageviews every month,[149] out of a global monthly total of over 12 billion pageviews.[150] In the 25 November xxxx issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward upgraded this ranking information stating, "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis. As MIT's Technology Review revealed recently, since xxxx, the site has lost a third of the volunteer editors who update and correct the online encyclopedia's millions of pages and those still there have focused increasingly on minutiae."[151]Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, xxxx, as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[127] and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[123] Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view"[128] was codified in its initial months. Otherwise, there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated independently of Nupedia.[123] Originally, Bomis intended to make Wikipedia a for profit business.[129]Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. On August 8, xxxx, Wikipedia had over 8,000 articles.[130] On September 25, xxxx, Wikipedia had over 13,000 articles.[131] And by the end of xxxx it had grown to approximately 20,000 articles and 18 language editions. By late xxxx, it had reached 26 language editions, 46 by the end of xxxx, and 161 by the final days of xxxx.[132] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in xxxx, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. English Wikipedia passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, xxxx, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing even the xxxx Yongle Encyclopedia, which had held the record for 600 years.[133]Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February xxxx.[134] These moves encouraged Wales to announce that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and to change Wikipedia's domain from wikipedia.com to Though the various language editions are held to global policies such as "neutral point of view", they diverge on some points of policy and practice, most notably on whether images that are not licensed freely may be used under a claim of fair use.[112][113][114]Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".[115] Though each language edition functions more or less independently, some efforts are made to supervise them all. They are coordinated in part by Meta-Wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki devoted to maintaining all of its projects (Wikipedia and others).[116] For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia,[117] and it maintains a list of articles every Wikipedia should have.[118] The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, and mathematics. As for the rest, it is not rare for articles strongly related to a particular language not to have counterparts in another edition. For example, articles about small towns in the United States might only be available in English, even when they meet notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects.Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions, in part because fully automated translation of articles is disallowed.[119] Articles available in more than one language may offer "interwiki links", which link to the counterpart articles in other editions.In a research article published in PLoS ONE in xxxx, Yasseri et al., based on the circadian patterns of editorial activities of the community, have estimated the share of contributions to different editions of Wikipedia from different regions of the world. For instance, it has been reported that edits from North America are limited to almost 50% in the English Wikipedia and this value decreases to twenty-five percent in simple English Wikipedia. The article also covers some other editions in different languages.[103] The Wikimedia Foundation hopes to increase the number of editors in the Global South to thirty-seven percent by xxxx.[104]A xxxx study by Business Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodget[98] showed that in a random sample of articles most content in Wikipedia (measured by the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled edit) is created by "outsiders" (users with low edit counts), while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders" (a select group of established users).In xxxx, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in wiki software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that such features as easy access to past versions of a page favor "creative construction" over "creative destruction".[84] In his xxxx book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, Zittrain cites Wikipedia's success as a case study in how open collaboration has fostered innovation on the web.[85] A xxxx study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others.[86][87] A xxxx study suggested there was "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".[88]At OOPSLA xxxx, Wikimedia chief technology officer and senior software architect Brion Vibber gave a presentation entitled "Community Performance Optimization: Making Your People Run as Smoothly as Your Site"[89] in which he discussed the challenges of handling the contributions from a large community and compared the process to that of software development.Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with "administrator",[75][76] a group of privileged users who have the ability to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and block users from editing. Despite the name, administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to block users making disruptive edits (such as vandalism).[77][78] As the process of vetting potential Wikipedia administrators has become more rigorous, fewer editors are promoted to admin status than in years In January xxxx, a German court ordered the German Wikipedia shut down within Germany because it stated the full name of Boris Floricic, aka "Tron", a deceased hacker. On February 9, xxxx, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned, with the court rejecting the notion that Tron's right to privacy or that of his parents were being violated.[67]Wikipedia has a "Volunteer Response Team" that uses the OTRS system to handle queries without having to reveal the identities of the involved parties. This is used, for example, in confirming the permission for using individual images and other media in the project.In order to gain a broader community consensus, editors can raise issues at the Village Pump, or initiate a Request for Comment. An editor can report impolite, uncivil, or otherwise problematic communications with another editor via the "Wikiquette Assistance" noticeboard. [needs update] Such postings themselves have no binding or disciplinary power. Specialized forums exist for centralizing discussion on specific decisions, such as whether or not an article should be deleted. Mediation is sometimes used, although it has been deemed by some Wikipedians to be unhelpful for resolving particularly contentious disputes.[63]Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from wiki articles; in practice, the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes.[20][21] However, in one high-profile incident in xxxx, false information was introduced into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler and remained undetected for four months.[49] John Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikipedia co-founder Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales replied that he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced.[50][51] This incident led to policy changes on the site, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of all biographical articles of living people.[52]A group of Wikipedia editors may form a WikiProject to focus their work on a specific topic area, using its associated discussion page to coordinate changes across multiple articles.Computer programs called bots have been used widely to perform simple and repetitive tasks, such as correcting common misspellings and stylistic issues, or to start articles such as geography entries in a standard format from statistical data.[36][37][38] There are also some bots designed to warn users making "undesirable" edits,[39] block on the creation of links to particular websites, and block on edits from particular accounts or IP address ranges. Bots on Wikipedia must be approved by administration prior to activation.[40]Contributors, whether registered or not, can take advantage of features available in the software that powers Wikipedia. The "History" page belonging to each article records every single past revision of the article, though a revision with libelous content, criminal threats or copyright infringements may be removed retroactively.[30] Editors can use this page to undo undesirable changes or restore lost content. The "Talk" page associated with each article helps coordinate work among multiple editors.[31] Importantly, editors may use the "Talk" page to reach consensus,[32] sometimes through the use of polling.
• Location: Las Vegas
• Post ID: xxxxxxxx lasvegas
• Other ads by this user:
♥ Fri, Feb 7 xxxx - Styx Tickets  buy, sell, trade: tickets for sale
♥ Sun, Feb 16 xxxx - The Eagles Tickets  buy, sell, trade: tickets for sale
♥ Sat, Feb 15 xxxx - The Eagles Tickets  buy, sell, trade: tickets for sale
Discount Brad Paisley, Beyonce, Kanye West, Elton John, Adventure Club & Other Tickets buy, sell, trade: tickets for sale
Discount The Eagles, CHER, Kings of Leon, Neil Young, Jingle Ball, Jason Aldean & More Tickets buy, sell, trade: tickets for sale
//
//]]>
Email this ad