Jump to navigation Jump to search

NGOpedia is a web-based, free encyclopedia based on a model of openly editable and viewable content, a wiki. It is a general reference work for the NGO community on the World Wide Web. It is owned and supported by the GSERED, a non-profit organization that operates on money it receives from donors.

NGOpedia was launched on February26, 2019, by GSERED.With 130 articles, the English Wikipedia is the largest of the more than 290 Wikipedia encyclopedias. Overall, Wikipedia comprises more than 40 million articles in 301 different languages and by February 2014 it had reached 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors per month.

NGOpedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of NGO's. The goal of an NGOpedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge of NGO's and their work in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing.


Unlike traditional encyclopedias, NGOpedia follows the procrastination principle regarding the security of its content It started almost entirely open—anyone could create articles, and any NGOpedia article could be edited by any reader, even those who did not have a NGOpedia account. Modifications to all articles would be published immediately. As a result, any article could contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant text.


Due to the increasing popularity of NGOpedia, some editions, including the English version, have introduced editing restrictions in some cases. For instance, on the English NGOpedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article. On the English NGOpedia, among others, some particularly controversial, sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to some degree. A frequently vandalized article can be semi-protected or extended confirmed protected, meaning that only autoconfirmed or extended confirmed editors are able to modify it. A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make changes.

In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors, depending on certain conditions. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles, which have passed certain reviews. Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012. Under this system, new and unregistered users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are reviewed by established users before they are published.

Review of changes[edit]

Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikipedia provides certain tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. The "History" page of each article links to each revision. On most articles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's history page. Anyone can view the latest change to articles, and anyone may maintain a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of any changes. "New pages patrol" is a process whereby newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.

In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in a wiki create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favor "creative construction" over "creative destruction".


Any change or edit that manipulates content in a way that purposefully compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include additions of obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also include advertising and other types of spam. Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing content 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 use images disruptively.

Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes. However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair.

In the Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler in May 2005. Seigenthaler was falsely presented as a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The article remained uncorrected for four months. Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy 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. After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool". This incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.


Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with "administrator", privileged users who can delete pages, prevent articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes (setting protective measures on articles), and try to prevent certain persons 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 implement restrictions intended to prevent certain persons from making disruptive edits (such as vandalism).

Fewer editors become administrators than in years past, in part because the process of vetting potential Wikipedia administrators has become more rigorous.

Bureaucrats name new administrators, solely upon the recommendations from the community.

Dispute resolution[edit]

Wikipedians often have disputes regarding content, which may result in repeatedly making opposite changes to an article, known as edit warring. Over time, Wikipedia has developed a semi-formal dispute resolution process to assist in such circumstances. In order to determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at appropriate community forums, or seek outside input through third opinion requests or by initiating a more general community discussion known as a request for comment.

Arbitration Committee[edit]

The Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute resolution process. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how an article should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on the specific view that should be adopted. Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted, 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 considered biased). Its remedies include cautions and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43%), subject matters (23%), or Wikipedia (16%). Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of impersonation and anti-social behavior. When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus or in violation of editing policies, remedies tend to be limited to warnings


Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated "Talk" page. These form the primary communication channel for editors to discuss, coordinate and debate.

Wikipedia's community has been described as cult-like, although not always with entirely negative connotations. The project's preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of credentials, has been referred to as "anti-elitism".

Wikipedians sometimes award one another virtual barnstars for good work. These personalized tokens of appreciation reveal a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation work.

Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification. As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked on the project. Jimmy 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". 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.

Editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk page comments, may implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to a sometimes convoluted dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references". Editors who do not log in are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia, 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", but the contribution histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their IP addresses cannot be attributed to a particular editor with certainty.


A 2007 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". Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "(I)t turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users... 524 people... And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits." However, Business Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodget showed in 2009 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", while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders".

A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others, although a later commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness and that the differences with the control group and the samples were small. According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".


Several studies have shown that most of the Wikipedia contributors are male. Notably, the results of a Wikimedia Foundation survey in 2008 showed that only 13% of Wikipedia editors were female. Because of this, universities throughout the United States tried to encourage females to become Wikipedia contributors. Similarly, many of these universities, including Yale and Brown, gave college credit to students who create or edit an article relating to women in science or technology.Andrew Lih, a professor and scientist, wrote in The New York Times that the reason he thought the number of male contributors outnumbered the number of females so greatly, is because identifying as a feminist may expose oneself to "ugly, intimidating behavior." Data has shown that Africans are underrepresented among Wikipedia editors.

Help Us Grow by contributing[edit]

NGOpedia is the first complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide NGO guide. It is built in collaboration from around the globe, and your contributions will be seen by 7 Million users every month!

You can make a valuable contribution to NGOpedia in just minutes.

How to ?[edit]

1. Add a listing. Articles on NGOpedia have different Sections:next to each section there is an option to Add Listing. Simply click on it and "Add New Listing" box will show up. Fill out the sections following our guidelines and click on Save. In this way you have contributed to NGOpedia and helped other users.

  • What to add. Choose any NGO in the given categories that you want to add information in it. It should be somewhere you know and have visited, but it really doesn't matter if you have been there while travelling, or if it is in your local area. You don't have to be an expert. Your experience and perspective is valuable to others like you.
  • How to describe it. Describe what category in which you want to donate and what is the reason for their donation. Everybody has different interests of donation,so choose the category as per your interest. Help doners to find where they want to donate. If you like it, what are your interests that make you like it? If you know the best reason to donate, or the best time to experience it, add that too. Don't use I, me,, us, or we in the description. Don't hesitate to use you, though, when addressing the reader.

2. Edit a page. You can edit any article on Ngopedia simply by clicking "Edit" link. You will see the text formatted in Wiki markup. It helps the rest of us if you follow our policies and guidelines and manual of style. However, even more important than following every guideline is to plunge forward and write something – someone will be along to help with the formatting later! Add your hometown, or NGO that you donated!

  • Find the right article. NGOpedia articles are named after the many researches. find the best article depending upon your interest of donation. Select the best article based on where the ypu want to edit.
  • How to describe it. Decide in which category you would like ro visit. Everybody has different interests, from birdwatching to adventure sports, from quiet country pub to the latest urban beats. Help doners to find where they want to donate. If you like it, what are your interests that make you like it? If you know the best way to get there, or the best time to experience it, add that too. Don't use I, me,, us, or we in the description. Don't hesitate to use you, though, when addressing the reader.

3. Create a page. sometimes the destination you would like to describe or add an attraction to doesn't exist. Plunge forward and start an article. Check that the page you want does not already exist, or that the information doesn't already exist on another page. Do a search for the name of your proposed new page, and see what is returned. When creating a new page, you will be asked to choose the right template. New pages can be created for cities, towns, national parks, and regions; for travel topics (including phrasebooks); and for itineraries. Please do not create new articles for hotels, restaurants or attractions; they should be listed in existing destination articles instead. See What is an article? for details.

4. Register an Account. Anybody can make contributions to NGOpedia, but creating an account will give you various benefits:

  1. Write on User Talk pages to communicate with other writers about your edits and travel tips.
  2. Ability to turn off advertising in your Account Settings.
  3. Credit for your travel writing/edits, which will be attributed to you rather than just an IP address.
  4. Your contributions will be more trusted as you become familiar to other Wikitravelers.


  • Changing section headings - even if you don't like them. NGOpedia uses a standard template for each article.
  • Writing about culture. NGOpedia articles often have Respect or Understand sections, which attract extensive contributions on NGO. However, your time is best spent adding practical advice and suggestions, and letting the traveller discover the culture for themselves when they get there.
  • Writing about things you don't like. Don't waste your time on NGOpedia telling visitors about NGO they don't want to Donate, sharing your insight into somewhere donators would want to go is infinitely more valuable!
  • Encyclopediac or promotional language. Writing that something is fantastic or the best can be meaningless to a reader who may have different interests to you. Remember to think of why you like something, and say it in the normal words you would use. Don't adopt the tone of a donating purposes, or a neutral point of view just because you are writing in a guide. Your natural conversational tone, and your genuine interest in what you are describing is what we are hoping to capture!

Moving forward[edit]

If you want to get more involved, or learn more about NGOpedia you could start by reading the manual of style, and the help file which will give you an in-depth description, or by looking at some of our star articles.

Access to content[edit]

Content licensing[edit]

When the project was started in 2001, all text in Wikipedia was covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), a copyleft license permitting the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work. The GFDL was created for software manuals that come with free software programs licensed under the GPL. This made it a poor choice for a general reference work: for example, the GFDL requires the reprints of materials from Wikipedia to come with a full copy of the GFDL text. In December 2002, the Creative Commons license was released: it was specifically designed for creative works in general, not just for software manuals. The license gained popularity among bloggers and others distributing creative works on the Web. The Wikipedia project sought the switch to the Creative Commons.Because the two licenses, GFDL and Creative Commons, were incompatible, in November 2008, following the request of the project, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) released a new version of the GFDL designed specifically to allow Wikipedia to Licensing update by August 1, 2009. (A new version of the GFDL automatically covers Wikipedia contents.) In April 2009, Wikipedia and its sister projects held a community-wide referendum which decided the switch in June 2009.

The handling of media files (e.g. image files) varies across language editions. Some language editions, such as the English Wikipedia, include non-free image files under fair use doctrine, while the others have opted not to, in part because of the lack of fair use doctrines in their home countries (e.g. in Japanese copyright law). Media files covered by free conten licenses (e.g. Creative Commons' CC BY-SA) are shared across language editions via Wikimedia Commons repository, a project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia's accommodation of varying international copyright laws regarding images has led some to observe that its photographic coverage of topics lags behind the quality of the encyclopedic text.

The Wikimedia Foundation is not a licensor of content, but merely a hosting service for the contributors (and licensors) of the Wikipedia. This position has been successfully defended in court.

Methods of access[edit]

Because Wikipedia content is distributed under an open license, anyone can reuse or re-distribute it at no charge. The content of Wikipedia has been published in many forms, both online and offline, outside of the Wikipedia website.

  • Websites – Thousands of "mirror sites" exist that republish content from Wikipedia: two prominent ones, that also include content from other reference sources, are and Another example is Wapedia, which began to display Wikipedia content in a mobile-device-friendly format before Wikipedia itself did.
  • Mobile apps – A variety of mobile apps provide access to Wikipedia on hand-held devices, including both Android and iOSdevices .
  • Search engines – Some web search engines make special use of Wikipedia content when displaying search results: examples include Bing


  • Compact discs, DVDs – Collections of Wikipedia articles have been published on optical discs. An English version, 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, contained about 2,000 articles.The Polish-language version contains nearly 240,000 articles. There are German- and Spanish-language versions as well.

Also, "Wikipedia for Schools", the Wikipedia series of CDs / DVDs produced by Wikipedians and SOS Children, is a free, hand-checked, non-commercial selection from Wikipedia targeted around the UK National Curriculum and intended to be useful for much of the English-speaking world.The project is available online; an equivalent print encyclopedia would require roughly 20 volumes.

Mobile access[edit]

As Wikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit content using any standard web browser through a fixed Internet connection ,so was ours. Although Wikipedia content has been accessible through the mobile web since July 2013, The New York Times on February 9, 2014, quoted Erik Möller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, stating that the transition of internet traffic from desktops to mobile devices was significant and a cause for concern and worry. The article in The New York Times reported the comparison statistics for mobile edits stating that, "Only 20 percent of the readership of the English-language Wikipedia comes via mobile devices, a figure substantially lower than the percentage of mobile traffic for other media sites, many of which approach 50 percent. And the shift to mobile editing has lagged even more. The New York Times reports that Möller has assigned "a team of 10 software developers focused on mobile", out of a total of approximately 200 employees working at the Wikimedia Foundation. Taking it as a lesson we also started building our NGOpedia Mobile Friendly to provide our users a better experience of reading and donating on NGOpedia.

NGOpedia Sister Projects[edit]