Javanmardi, J, & Cristina, L. (n.d). Statistical measure of quality in Wikipedia. 7. Retrieved 22 March 2012 from http://snap.stanford.edu/soma2010/papers/soma2010_18.pdf

Wikipedia has become one of the most popular crowdsourcing and co-authorship networks, which is being written by millions of volunteers all around the world. However, the quality of Wikipedia's articles is debatable. For example, in 2005 John Seigenthaler (a journalist) found incorrect biographic information about himself in Wikipedia, he found he affirmed he saw the U.S president John F. Kennedys assassination and because Wikipedia does not accept any responsibility about its validity of information, he thought Wikipedia's content cannot be trustable. So, Wikipedia increased its users to have more "featured article" (articles which have marked as "featured article" have the highest validity). When an article marked as featured, more users come to see and edit them, statistic shows 95% of edited articles are them marked as statistic.

There is a positive relation between the quality and the number of revision and editing of an article. Because, when an article edited many times, the article will be more qualified than its first edition. However, focusing on contributor's reputation to estimate quality of content has some limitations:
Data sparsely: large numbers of users in Wikipedia do not have essential information to edit content, so new user's content presumed as invaluable edits.
Anonymity: recognizing the active editors and publishers of Wikipedia is hard to understand, however, sometimes the most active of them can recognize by their IP address.
Expertise: "the quality of a user's contribution depends on his expertise on that particular topic", because some editors may be very professional editor about a specific topic and they can't have valuable information about all topics in Wikipedia or there is no guarantee that the most active editors be active in future. In addition, Wikipedia has very valid articles and if a new user changes its content, the system automatically refreshes content to its last edit.

Sorry for any gramatical mistake.

Chant, R. (18 March 2011). How small businesses can get a link from Wikipedia. Retrieved 23 March 2012 from http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2066183/How-Small-Businesses-Can-Get-a-Link-from-Wikipedia

This article speaks about how small businesses can get a link from Wikipedia.
From long time ago some businesses have tried to put a like in Wikipedia as a commercial to improve their business. However, putting link/links in Wikipedia is a bit challenging and businesses must pass four steps to have link in Wikipedia.

1- Become a trusted editor: if you want to put any content in Wikipedia you must have good history of editing behind you because Wikipedia's editor will remove new users content from Wikipedia. So, businesses should focus on a topic, which the topic may related to their own business or they can correct some articles or start to fill some holes in Wikipedia.

2- Pick a page that you are going to own: according to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies in this stage businesses still can't have their own page in Wikipedia, so they need to find a page which its topic is very close to your business area.

3- Add your links: when businesses found a target page they can add some content there and add their own links (but not dozen of links!) too, they can also edit contents (but if they are sure the content they are adding is valid) or they can add some media, such as a photograph or diagram.

4- Link up your page: as you see getting external links from Wikipedia is really challenging, but making internal links is not that much hard and businesses can create internal links as many as they can to make more traffic in their page.

Sorry for any gramatical mistake.

(Bruckman, A, & A. Forte. (n.d). Why do people write for Wikipedia? Incentives to contribute to open-content publishing.Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Computing. 6. Retrieved 2012, March 17th from http://jellis.org/work/group2005/papers/forteBruckmanIncentivesGroup.pdf

We know authors of Wikipedia cannot publish any article with their own name, so I think it is very interesting to know why they are spending even up to 30 hours per week on Wikipedia to publish their article/articles?

It is not important for most of the Wikipedia's authors, they cannot be holder of have been published articles, the most important thing to them is sense of the credibility (Credibility for them means publishing powerful, true and efficiency article/articles), having some credits in Wikipedia motivate them to be more and more active and publish more beneficial articles about the world. In addition, Wikipedia has some active users, who are editing others content, so, authors will learn more from active users. It is true that Wikipedia is ownership of all of its content, but all of the publishers have their own user page and they can distinguish wich articles published by them (Bruckman and Forte, n.d).
In addition, if Wikipedia's published their articles with using multiple sources and add links and provide reliably assess to those sources for other users, Wikipedia knows them as a trustable user (Wikipedia checks the validity of published and edited articles by its soft wares), so, by each valuable publishing, the authors can archive more credibility from Wikipedia. As you see, the meaning of credibility for authors in Wikipedia is really different from the credibility in broader social contexts. Using discussion pages, mailing list, meta-pages, announcement pages are another advantage of Wikipedia for Wikipedia's who gathered some credit from Wikipedia and this credibility is gathering by publishing, editing and spending time in Wikipedia. (Bruckman and Forte, n.d).

Sorry for any gramatical mistake.

Potts, H. (2009). Review of Lazy Virtues: teaching writing in the edge of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia singpost. 5, (17), 3. Retrieved 24Murch 2012 from http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/15377/1/15377.pdf

This article is about teaching writing in the age of Wikipedia and it speaks Wikipedia is using for higher education much more than before and students are now much more active in Wikipedia than before.
Nowadays, using the social media application is very popular for students to create and share their knowledge with others, which Wikipedia is one of them. Wikipedia, as a social network described in terms of creativity, collaboration and conviviality. Commons Based Peer Production (CBPP) is a theatrical structure to understand how Wikipedia can be useful in higher education for teaching and learning. Because, when students found they have opportunity to create and re-edit their content, they will try to provide the best one, even more they can self-determine their content. In addition, Wikipedia has some active editors, who will edit students content, so, students can gather some more authenticity, which engage them to write more in Wikipedia.

As time goes on Wikipedia is changing and the attitude of users will change too. For example in 2005 two students of a class edited pages related to the film "the color purple" and after more than 3 years, such a successful film were not covered in depth on Wikipedia. Furthermore, many of the students were pessimist with the use of Wikipedia. In contrast, in 2008 another survey of medical undergraduates showed 83% of students they use Wikipedia as a valuable learning recourse, which even 9% of them had some editing too.

Sorry for any gramatical mistake.