Who Was the Greatest Republican President?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search

In political studies, surveys have been conducted in order to construct historical rankings of the success of individuals who have served as the president of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults.^[1][2][3]

In the 1920s, sculptor Gutzon Borglum and President Calvin Coolidge selected George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln to appear on Mount Rushmore—it later became an iconic symbol of presidential greatness.

Contents

• 1General findings
• 2Notable scholar surveys
• 3Scholar survey results
• 4Murray-Blessing 1982 survey
• 5Public opinion polls
  
  • 5.1Rasmussen poll
  • 5.2Gallup poll
  
  
• 6Public opinion polls on recent presidents
  
  • 6.12010 Gallup poll
  • 6.2Public Policy Polling
  • 6.3Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll
  • 6.42013 Gallup poll
  • 6.52014 Quinnipiac poll
  • 6.62017 Quinnipiac poll
  • 6.72017 Morning Consult poll
  • 6.82018 Quinnipiac poll
  
  
• 7Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2010
• 82017 C-SPAN Presidential Historian Survey
• 9Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2018
• 10Memorability of the presidents
• 11Criticism and alternatives
  
  • 11.1Ivan Eland's Recarving Rushmore (2008)
  • 11.2Racial Equality Assessments
    
    • 11.2.1Northwestern Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion Survey (2019)
      
      • 11.2.1.1Overall (Performance + Diversity and Inclusion Score)
      • 11.2.1.2Diversity and Inclusion Leadership Score (Without Including Overall Leadership)
  
  
• 12See also
• 13Footnotes
• 14References
• 15Further reading
• 16External links

General findings

Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington are most often listed as the three highest-rated presidents among historians. The remaining places within the Top 10 are often rounded out by Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy. More recent presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are often rated among the greatest in public opinion polls, but do not always rank as highly among presidential scholars and historians. The bottom 10 often include James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Ulysses S. Grant, Zachary Taylor, George W. Bush, and/or Donald Trump. Because William Henry Harrison (30 days) and James A. Garfield (200 days, incapacitated after 119 days) both died shortly after taking office, they are usually omitted from presidential rankings. Furthermore, Zachary Taylor died after serving as president for only 16 months, but he is usually included. In the case of these three, it is not clear if they received low rankings due to their actions as president, or because each was in office for such a limited time that it is not possible to assess them more thoroughly.
Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham noted the "dichotomous or schizoid profiles" of presidents, which can make some hard to classify. Historian Alan Brinkley stated that "there are presidents who could be considered both failures and great or near great (for example, Nixon)". Historian and political scientist James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon: "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"^[4]
Notable scholar surveys

Abraham Lincoln is often considered the greatest president for his leadership during the American Civil War and his eloquence in speeches such as the Gettysburg Address.

James Buchanan is often considered the worst president for his inept leadership during the years leading up to the Civil War.

The 1948 poll was conducted by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. of Harvard University.^[1] The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger, who surveyed 75 historians.^[5] Schlesinger's son, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., conducted another poll in 1996.^[6]
The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents also gives the results of the 1982 survey, a poll of 49 historians conducted by the Chicago Tribune. A notable difference from the 1962 Schlesinger poll was the ranking of Dwight D. Eisenhower, which rose from 22nd in 1962 to 9th in 1982.
The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1988 to 1996 by William J. Ridings Jr. and Stuart B. McIver and published in Rating The Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. Leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent.^[7] More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part. Participants from every state were included and emphasis was placed upon getting input from female historians and "specialists in African-American studies" as well as a few non-American historians. Poll respondents rated the presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments and crisis management, political skill, appointments and character and integrity) and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.
A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at 8th. Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.
Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.^[8] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight". Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".
The Siena College Research Institute of Siena College has conducted surveys in 1982, 1990, 1994, 2002, 2010, and 2018—during the second year of the first term of each president since Ronald Reagan.^[9] These surveys collect presidential rankings from historians, political scientists, and presidential scholars in a range of attributes, abilities, and accomplishments.^[10] The 1994 survey placed only two presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points and two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding, below 50 points.^[11][12]
A 2006 Siena College poll of 744 professors reported the following results:^[13]

• "George W. Bush has just finished five years as President. If today were the last day of his presidency, how would you rank him? The responses were: Great: 2%; Near Great: 5%; Average: 11%; Below Average: 24%; Failure: 58%"
• "In your judgment, do you think he has a realistic chance of improving his rating?" Two-thirds (67%) responded no; less than a quarter (23%) responded yes; and 10% chose "no opinion or not applicable"

Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do". Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow".^[13]
The 2010 Siena poll of 238 presidential scholars found that former president George W. Bush was ranked 39th out of 43, with poor ratings in handling of the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence. Meanwhile, the then-current president Barack Obama was ranked 15th out of 43, with high ratings for imagination, communication ability and intelligence and a low rating for background (family, education and experience).^[14][15]
The 2018 Siena poll of 157 presidential scholars reported George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson as the top five US presidents, with SCRI director Don Levy stating, "The top five, Mount Rushmore plus FDR, is carved in granite with presidential historians...."^[16] Donald J. Trump—entering the SCRI survey for the first time—joined Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce among the bottom five US presidents. George W. Bush, who presidential scholars had rated among the bottom five in the previous 2010 survey, improved to a position in the third quartile.
The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and biographers. The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership has taken place three times: in 2000, 2009 and 2017.^[17][18][19] The most recent survey was of 91 presidential historians, surveyed by C-SPAN's Academic Advisor Team, made up of Douglas G. Brinkley, Edna Greene Medford and Richard Norton Smith. In the survey, each historian rates each president on a scale of one ("not effective") to 10 ("very effective") on presidential leadership in ten categories: Public Persuasion, Crisis Leadership, Economic Management, Moral Authority, International Relations, Administrative Skills, Relations with Congress, Vision/Setting An Agenda, Pursued Equal Justice for All and Performance Within the Context of His Times—each category is equally weighed.^[20] The results of all three C-SPAN surveys have been fairly consistent. Abraham Lincoln has taken the highest ranking in each survey and George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt have always ranked in the top five while James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce have been ranked at the bottom of all three surveys.^[19]
In 2008, The Times daily newspaper of London asked eight of its own "top international and political commentators" to rank all 42 presidents "in order of greatness".^[21]
In 2011, through the agency of its United States Presidency Centre (USPC), the Institute for the Study of the Americas (located in the University of London's School of Advanced Study) released the first ever United Kingdom academic survey to rate presidents. This polled the opinion of British specialists in American history and politics to assess presidential performance. They also gave an interim assessment of Barack Obama, but his unfinished presidency was not included in the survey (had he been included, he would have attained eighth place overall).^[22]
In 2012, Newsweek magazine asked a panel of historians to rank the ten best presidents since 1900. The results showed that historians had ranked Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama as the best since that year.^[23]
A 2013 History News Network poll of 203 American historians, when asked to rate Obama's presidency on an A–F scale, gave him a B- grade. Obama, whom historians graded using 15 separate measures plus an overall grade, was rated most highly in the categories of communication ability, integrity and crisis management; and most poorly for his relationship with Congress, transparency and accountability.^[24]
A 2015 poll administered by the American Political Science Association (APSA) among political scientists specializing in the American presidency had Abraham Lincoln in the top spot, with George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson making the top 10.^[25] APSA conducted a repeat of this poll in 2018, with Donald Trump appearing for the first time, in last position.^[26]
Scholar survey results

Within each column:^{[note 1]}

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Note: click the "sort" icon at the head of each column to view the rankings for each survey in numerical order.

No.	President	Political party	Schl. 1948[1]	Schl. 1962[5]	M-B 1982	CT 1982	Siena 1982	Siena 1990	Siena 1994	R-McI 1996[7]	Schl. 1996[6]	C-SPAN 2000	WSJ 2000	Siena 2002	WSJ 2005[8]	C-SPAN 2009[27]	Siena 2010[14][15]	USPC 2011[22]	APSA 2015[25]	C-SPAN 2017[28]	APSA 2018[26]	Siena 2018[29]	Most frequent quartile
1	George Washington	Independent	02	02	03	02	04	04	04	03	02 (tie)	03	01	04	01	02	04	03	02	02	02	01	1
2	John Adams	Federalist	09	10	09	15	10	14	12	14	11	16	13	12	13	17	17	12	15	19	14	14	2
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	05	05	04	05	02	03	05	04	04	07	04	05	04	07	05	04	05	07	05	05	1
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	14	12	14	17	09	08	09	10	17	18	15	09	17	20	06	14	13	17	12	07	2
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	12	18	15	16	15	11	15	13	15	14	16	08	16	14	07	13	16	13	18	08	2
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	11	13	16	19	17	16	17	18	18	19	20	17	25	19	19	20	22	21	23	18	2
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	06	06	07	07	13	09	11	08	05	13	06	13	10	13	14	09	09	18	15	19	1
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	15	17	20	18	21	21	22	21	21	30	23	24	27	31	23	27	25	34	27	25	3
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	–	–	–	–	26	35	28	35	–	37	–	36	–	39	35	–	39	38	42	39	4
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	22	25	28	28	34	33	34	34	32	36	34	37	35	35	37	37	36	39	37	37	4
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	10	08 (tie)	12	10	12	13	14	11	09	12	10	11	09	12	12	16	19	14	20	12	2
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	25	24	27	26	29	34	33	29	29	28	31	34	33	29	33	33	33	31	35	30	3
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	24	26	29	31	32	32	35	36	31	35	35	38	36	37	38	35	37	37	38	38	4
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	27	28	31	33	35	36	37	37	33 (tie)	39	37 (tie)	39	38	40	40	39	40	41	41	40	4
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	26	29	33	34	37	38	39	40	38	41	39	41	40	42	42	40	43	43	43	43	4
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	01	01	01	01	03	02	02	01	01	01	02	02	02	01	03	02	01	01	01	03	1
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	19	23	32	30	38	39	40	39	37	40	36	42	37	41	43	36	41	42	40	44	4
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	28	30	35	32	36	37	38	38	33 (tie)	33	32	35	29	23	26	29	28	22	21	24	4
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	13	14	22	22	22	23	24	25	23	26	22	27	24	33	31	30	30	32	29	32	3
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	–	–	–	–	25	30	26	30	–	29	–	33	–	28	27	–	31	29	34	28	3
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	17	21 (tie)	23	24	24	26	27	28	26	32	26	30	26	32	25	32	32	35	31	34	3
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	08	11	17	13	18	17	19	16	13	17	12	20	12	21	20	21	23	23	24	23	2
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	21	20	26	25	31	29	30	31	19	31	27	32	30	30	34	34	29	30	32	35	3
25	William McKinley	Republican	18	15	18	11	19	19	18	17	16	15	14	19	14	16	21	17	21	16	19	20	2
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	07	07	05	04	05	05	03	05	06	04	05	03	05	04	02	05	04	04	04	04	1
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	16	16	19	20	20	20	21	20	22	24	19	21	20	24	24	25	20	24	22	22	2
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	04	04	06	06	06	06	06	06	07	06	11	06	11	09	08	06	10	11	11	11	1
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	29	31	36	36	39	40	41	41	39	38	37 (tie)	40	39	38	41	38	42	40	39	41	4
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	23	27	30	29	30	31	36	33	30	27	25	29	23	26	29	28	27	27	28	31	3
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	20	19	21	21	27	28	29	24	33 (tie)	34	29	31	31	34	36	26	38	36	36	36	3
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	03	03	02	03	01	01	01	02	02 (tie)	02	03	01	03	03	01	01	03	03	03	02	1
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	–	08 (tie)	08	08	07	07	07	07	08	05	07	07	07	05	09	07	06	06	06	09	1
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	–	21 (tie)	11	09	11	12	08	09	10	09	09	10	08	08	10	10	07	05	07	06	1
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	–	–	13	14	08	10	10	15	12	08	18	14	15	06	11	15	14	08	16	10	2
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	–	–	10	12	14	15	13	12	14	10	17	15	18	11	16	11	12	10	10	16	2
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	–	–	34	35	28	25	23	32	36	25	33	26	32	27	30	23	34	28	33	29	3
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	–	–	24	23	23	27	32	27	28	23	28	28	28	22	28	24	24	25	25	27	3
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	–	–	25	27	33	24	25	19	27	22	30	25	34	25	32	18	26	26	26	26	3
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	–	–	–	–	16 *	22	20	26	25	11	08	16	06	10	18	08	11	09	09	13	1
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	–	–	–	–	–	18 *	31	22	24	20	21	22	21	18	22	22	17	20	17	21	2
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	–	–	–	–	–	–	16 *	23 *	20 *	21 *	24 *	18	22	15	13	19	08	15	13	15	2
43	George W. Bush	Republican	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	23 *	19 *	36	39	31	35	33	30	33	3
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	15 *	–	18 *	12	08	17	2
45	Donald Trump	Republican	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	44 *	42 *	4 *
Total in survey			29	31	36	36	39	40	41	41	39	41	39	42	40	42	43	40	43	43	44	44	44

* Ranking calculated before president had completed his term in office.Note: Grover Cleveland was elected to two non-consecutive terms, serving as both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States; he is the only person to have held the office in non-consecutive terms. Because Cleveland had two presidencies, the number of persons who have served as president is one less than the number of presidents in order of succession.
William Henry Harrison and James Garfield are sometimes omitted from rankings of the presidents because of the brevity of their terms in office.

Murray-Blessing 1982 survey

The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey asked historians whether they were liberal or conservative on domestic, social and economic issues.^[32] The table below shows that the two groups had only small differences in ranking the best and worst presidents. Both groups agreed on the composition of nine of the top ten presidents (and were split over the inclusion of either Lyndon B. Johnson or Dwight D. Eisenhower) and six of the worst seven (split over Jimmy Carter or Calvin Coolidge).

Rank	Liberals (n = 190)	Conservatives (n = 50)
1	Abraham Lincoln	Abraham Lincoln
2	Franklin D. Roosevelt	George Washington
3	George Washington	Franklin D. Roosevelt
4	Thomas Jefferson	Thomas Jefferson
5	Theodore Roosevelt	Theodore Roosevelt
6	Woodrow Wilson	Andrew Jackson
7	Andrew Jackson	Harry S. Truman
8	Harry S. Truman	Woodrow Wilson
9	Lyndon B. Johnson	Dwight D. Eisenhower
10	John Adams	John Adams
30	Calvin Coolidge	Jimmy Carter
31	Franklin Pierce	Richard Nixon
32	James Buchanan	Franklin Pierce
33	Andrew Johnson	Andrew Johnson
34	Ulysses S. Grant	James Buchanan
35	Richard Nixon	Ulysses S. Grant
36	Warren G. Harding	Warren G. Harding

Public opinion polls

Rasmussen poll

According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.^[33]

President	Favorable	Unfavorable	Net favorable
George Washington	94	2	92
Abraham Lincoln	92	4	88
Thomas Jefferson	89	4	85
Theodore Roosevelt	84	8	76
Franklin D. Roosevelt	81	12	69
John F. Kennedy	80	13	67
John Adams	74	9	65
James Madison	73	8	65
Ronald Reagan	72	22	50
Dwight D. Eisenhower	72	15	57
Harry S. Truman	70	14	56
Andrew Jackson	69	14	55
Gerald Ford	62	26	36
John Quincy Adams	59	7	52
Ulysses S. Grant	58	24	34
George H. W. Bush	57	41	16
Jimmy Carter	57	34	23
William Howard Taft	57	15	42
Woodrow Wilson	56	19	37
Bill Clinton	55	41	14
James Monroe	49	10	39
Herbert Hoover	48	34	14
Lyndon B. Johnson	45	42	3
Andrew Johnson	45	26	19
Chester A. Arthur	43	17	26
James A. Garfield	42	16	26
William McKinley	42	24	18
George W. Bush	41	59	−18
Grover Cleveland	40	26	14
Calvin Coolidge	38	31	7
Rutherford B. Hayes	38	19	19
Richard Nixon	32	60	−28
Benjamin Harrison	30	35	−5
Warren G. Harding	29	33	−4
James Buchanan	28	32	−4
James K. Polk	27	21	6
Zachary Taylor	26	18	8
Martin Van Buren	23	19	4
William Henry Harrison	21	16	5
Franklin Pierce	17	25	−8
Millard Fillmore	17	25	−8
John Tyler	9	15	−6

Gallup poll

A Gallup poll about presidential greatness taken February 2–5, 2011, asked 1,015 adults in the United States the following question: "Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?".^[3]

1. Ronald Reagan (19%)
2. Abraham Lincoln (14%)
3. Bill Clinton (13%)
4. John F. Kennedy (11%)
5. George Washington (10%)
6. Franklin Roosevelt (8%)
7. Barack Obama (5%)
8. Theodore Roosevelt (3%)
9. Harry S. Truman (3%)
10. George W. Bush (2%)
11. Thomas Jefferson (2%)
12. Jimmy Carter (1%)
13. Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
14. George H. W. Bush (1%)
15. Andrew Jackson (<0.5%)
16. Lyndon B. Johnson (<0.5%)
17. Richard Nixon (<0.5%)

In addition, "Other" received 1%, "None" received 1% and "No opinion" received 5%.
Public opinion polls on recent presidents

These polls evaluate recent presidents only.
2010 Gallup poll

A Gallup poll taken on November 19–21, 2010, asked 1,037 Americans to say, based on what they know or remember about the nine most recent former presidents, whether they approve or disapprove of how each handled his job in office.^[34]

1. John F. Kennedy (85% approval/10% disapproval)
2. Ronald Reagan (74% approval/24% disapproval)
3. Bill Clinton (69% approval/30% disapproval)
4. George H. W. Bush (64% approval/34% disapproval)
5. Gerald Ford (61% approval/26% disapproval)
6. Jimmy Carter (52% approval/42% disapproval)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (49% approval/36% disapproval)
8. George W. Bush (47% approval/51% disapproval)
9. Richard Nixon (29% approval/65% disapproval)

Public Policy Polling

A Public Policy Polling poll taken between September 8–11, 2011, asked 665 American voters, based on what they know or remember about the nine then-most recent former presidents, whether they hold favorable or unfavorable views of how each handled his job in office.^[35]

1. John F. Kennedy (74% favorability/15% unfavorability)
2. Ronald Reagan (60% favorability/30% unfavorability)
3. Bill Clinton (62% favorability/34% unfavorability)
4. George H. W. Bush (53% favorability/35% unfavorability)
5. Gerald Ford (45% favorability/26% unfavorability)
6. Jimmy Carter (45% favorability/43% unfavorability)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (36% favorability/39% unfavorability)
8. George W. Bush (41% favorability/51% unfavorability)
9. Richard Nixon (19% favorability/62% unfavorability)

Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll

A Vision Critical/Angus Reid Public Opinion poll taken on February 18–19, 2011, asked 1,010 respondents about 11 former presidents plus the current president and whether each was a good or bad president.^[36]

1. John F. Kennedy (80% approval/6% disapproval)
2. Ronald Reagan (72% approval/16% disapproval)
3. Bill Clinton (65% approval/24% disapproval)
4. Dwight D. Eisenhower (61% approval/6% disapproval)
5. Harry S. Truman (57% approval/7% disapproval)
6. Jimmy Carter (47% approval/28% disapproval)
7. George H. W. Bush (44% approval/38% disapproval)
8. Barack Obama (41% approval/33% disapproval)
9. Gerald Ford (37% approval/25% disapproval)
10. Lyndon B. Johnson (33% approval/27% disapproval)
11. George W. Bush (30% approval/55% disapproval)
12. Richard Nixon (24% approval/54% disapproval)

2013 Gallup poll

A Gallup poll taken November 7–10, 2013, asked 1,039 adults in the United States the following question: "How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history—as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?".^[37]

President	Outstanding	Above average	Average	Below average	Poor	No opinion	Weighted average[38]
Dwight D. Eisenhower	10%	39%	36%	2%	1%	12%	3.63
John F. Kennedy	18%	56%	19%	2%	1%	4%	3.92
Lyndon B. Johnson	4%	16%	46%	14%	8%	12%	2.93
Richard Nixon	2%	13%	27%	29%	23%	6%	2.38
Gerald Ford	2%	14%	56%	15%	5%	8%	2.92
Jimmy Carter	4%	19%	37%	20%	15%	6%	2.76
Ronald Reagan	19%	42%	27%	6%	4%	2%	3.67
George H. W. Bush	3%	24%	48%	12%	10%	2%	2.98
Bill Clinton	11%	44%	29%	9%	6%	1%	3.45
George W. Bush	3%	18%	36%	20%	23%	1%	2.58
Barack Obama	6%	22%	31%	18%	22%	1%	2.72

2014 Quinnipiac poll

A Quinnipiac University poll taken June 24–30, 2014, asked 1,446 registered voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[39]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (35%)
2. Bill Clinton (18%)
3. John F. Kennedy (15%)
4. Barack Obama (8%)
5. Dwight Eisenhower (5%)
6. Harry S. Truman (4%)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (3%)
8. George H. W. Bush (tie) (3%)
9. Jimmy Carter (2%)
10. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
11. Gerald Ford (tie) (1%)
12. George W. Bush (tie) (1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Barack Obama (33%)
2. George W. Bush (28%)
3. Richard Nixon (13%)
4. Jimmy Carter (8%)
5. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (3%)
6. Ronald Reagan (tie) (3%)
7. Bill Clinton (tie) (3%)
8. Gerald Ford (tie) (2%)
9. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
10. Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
11. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)

2017 Quinnipiac poll

Four years later, a Quinnipiac University poll taken January 20–25, 2017, asked 1,190 voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[40]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (30%)
2. Barack Obama (29%)
3. John F. Kennedy (12%)
4. Bill Clinton (9%)
5. Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (3%)
6. George W. Bush (tie) (3%)
7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (2%)
8. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (2%)
9. Jimmy Carter (tie) (2%)
10. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
11. Richard Nixon (tie) (<1%)
12. Gerald R. Ford (tie) (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Richard Nixon (24%)
2. Barack Obama (23%)
3. George W. Bush (22%)
4. Jimmy Carter (10%)
5. Ronald Reagan (5%)
6. Bill Clinton (4%)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (3%)
8. George H. W. Bush (2%)
9. Gerald R. Ford (1%)
10. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
11. Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (<1%)
12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)

2017 Morning Consult poll

Including for the first time President Donald Trump, a Morning Consult poll taken February 9–10, 2017, asked 1,791 registered voters in the United States, who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[41][42]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (26%)
2. Barack Obama (20%)
3. John F. Kennedy (17%)
4. Bill Clinton (9%)
5. Donald Trump (6%)
6. George W. Bush (tie) (2%)
7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (2%)
8. Jimmy Carter (tie) (2%)
9. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
10. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
11. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (1%)
12. Gerald R. Ford (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Donald Trump (26%)
2. Barack Obama (25%)
3. Richard Nixon (13%)
4. George W. Bush (7%)
5. Bill Clinton (6%)
6. Jimmy Carter (5%)
7. George H. W. Bush (3%)
8. Lyndon B. Johnson (2%)
9. Ronald Reagan (tie) (1%)
10. Gerald R. Ford (tie) (1%)
11. Dwight D. Eisenhower (tie) (1%)
12. Harry S. Truman (tie) (1%)
13. John F. Kennedy (<1%)

2018 Quinnipiac poll

A Quinnipiac University poll taken March 3–5, 2018, asked 1,122 voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[43]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (28%)
2. Barack Obama (24%)
3. John F. Kennedy (tie) (10%)
4. Bill Clinton (tie) (10%)
5. Donald Trump (7%)
6. Dwight Eisenhower (4%)
7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (3%)
8. Jimmy Carter (tie) (3%)
9. Lyndon B. Johnson (2%)
10. George H. W. Bush (tie) (1%)
11. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
12. George W. Bush (tie) (1%)
13. Gerald R. Ford (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Donald Trump (41%)
2. Barack Obama (21%)
3. Richard Nixon (10%)
4. Jimmy Carter (8%)
5. George W. Bush (6%)
6. Bill Clinton (4%)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (2%)
8. Ronald Reagan (tie) (2%)
9. Gerald R. Ford (1%)
10. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
11. Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (<1%)
12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)
13. George H. W. Bush (tie) (<1%)

Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2010

Abbreviations

• Bg = Background
• PL = Party leadership
• CAb = Communication ability
• RC = Relations with Congress
• CAp = Court appointments
• HE = Handling of economy
• L = Luck
• AC = Ability to compromise
• WR = Willing to take risks
• EAp = Executive appointments
• OA = Overall ability
• Im = Imagination
• DA = Domestic accomplishments
• Int = Integrity
• EAb = Executive ability
• FPA = Foreign policy accomplishments
• LA = Leadership ability
• IQ = Intelligence
• AM = Avoid crucial mistakes
• EV = Experts' view
• O = Overall

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Source:^[44]

Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	PL	CAb	RC	CAp	HE	L	AC	WR	EAp	OA	Im	DA	Int	EAb	FPA	LA	IQ	AM	EV	O
1	George Washington	Independent	7	18	12	3	3	4	1	3	4	1	4	9	4	2	2	3	1	12	1	3	4
2	John Adams	Federalist	4	29	18	26	10	13	23	32	16	15	13	17	22	3	19	12	20	7	15	12	17
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	1	4	6	4	6	16	6	11	8	5	5	3	6	14	5	7	6	1	6	5	5
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	3	10	11	9	7	12	17	7	15	9	6	8	12	5	14	20	17	2	10	8	6
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	9	12	15	8	14	9	9	8	17	8	16	16	8	10	11	2	13	15	7	9	7
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	2	34	20	35	16	14	30	29	23	13	15	11	18	4	21	16	26	5	20	21	19
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	30	2	10	14	27	28	4	38	5	19	12	13	14	23	6	19	5	23	12	13	14
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	16	13	23	19	24	38	33	13	32	25	24	24	27	29	23	25	27	22	27	24	23
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	24	30	25	31	33	27	42	35	30	24	37	35	36	30	33	39	24	31	33	34	35
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	33	42	39	42	39	31	22	39	26	34	35	29	34	33	37	35	36	33	32	36	37
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	17	9	13	12	21	15	7	23	7	16	17	14	11	24	9	8	10	20	9	11	12
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	37	35	28	37	37	24	36	34	28	28	34	27	37	21	31	34	25	37	25	33	33
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	40	41	40	38	35	33	25	25	37	35	38	36	35	36	38	33	39	39	30	35	38
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	38	37	37	41	40	34	35	36	38	38	39	39	39	38	40	40	40	38	35	40	40
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	23	40	41	40	42	41	40	41	43	39	42	42	43	40	42	41	43	40	41	43	42
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	28	6	2	6	4	5	13	1	2	2	1	2	1	1	1	5	2	3	2	1	3
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	42	43	43	43	43	37	39	43	34	42	41	41	42	37	41	38	42	41	42	42	43
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	26	28	24	22	25	29	21	22	22	40	28	26	26	27	34	24	21	29	31	31	26
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	29	33	30	29	29	26	19	18	33	33	33	32	33	28	30	30	32	30	24	29	31
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	20	22	22	24	32	23	41	27	31	29	25	28	25	25	26	31	23	26	22	27	27
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	41	31	32	27	28	19	14	21	27	26	30	25	20	32	27	26	28	32	17	26	25
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	19	16	17	15	17	22	20	19	24	18	20	22	17	19	17	21	19	25	14	19	20
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	39	32	34	28	30	35	29	30	39	36	36	34	32	31	35	28	34	35	23	32	34
25	William McKinley	Republican	21	14	19	11	23	18	24	20	21	20	21	23	19	22	18	15	18	27	11	20	21
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	6	7	3	5	1	2	2	12	1	4	3	1	2	6	4	4	4	6	3	4	2
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	14	36	29	30	18	20	32	24	36	22	23	30	21	18	25	23	31	18	28	23	24
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	8	8	9	16	8	8	15	37	9	10	8	5	9	11	10	10	12	4	29	10	8
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	43	38	36	34	36	39	37	26	40	43	43	43	40	42	43	37	41	43	39	41	41
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	25	24	38	21	26	30	12	28	41	30	32	37	31	17	28	32	33	28	19	28	29
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	10	26	31	33	19	43	43	40	42	32	26	38	41	13	29	36	37	14	40	38	36
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	5	1	1	2	2	1	5	2	3	3	2	4	3	16	3	1	3	10	4	2	1
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	35	15	14	20	15	6	11	15	6	7	7	15	7	8	8	6	9	17	8	6	9
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	12	17	21	10	9	11	8	5	20	17	11	20	13	9	7	9	7	19	5	7	10
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	13	19	4	13	12	7	27	6	10	6	14	7	15	35	13	17	11	11	16	14	11
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	15	3	16	1	5	10	28	9	12	12	9	12	5	34	12	43	15	21	37	16	16
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	18	20	26	36	38	25	34	33	14	37	22	19	24	43	24	11	29	16	43	37	30
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	27	25	35	17	22	36	31	17	35	23	31	33	30	15	32	27	30	34	26	25	28
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	31	39	27	39	20	40	38	31	25	21	29	21	29	7	36	29	35	13	36	30	32
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	34	5	5	7	31	21	3	14	11	31	19	18	23	26	20	13	8	36	13	17	18
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	11	27	33	23	34	32	26	16	29	27	27	31	28	20	22	14	22	24	18	22	22
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	22	11	8	25	11	3	10	4	18	11	10	10	10	41	15	18	14	9	34	15	13
43	George W. Bush	Republican	36	23	42	32	41	42	18	42	19	41	40	40	38	39	39	42	38	42	38	39	39
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	32	21	7	18	13	17	16	10	13	14	18	6	16	12	16	22	16	8	21	18	15
Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	PL	CAb	RC	CAp	HE	L	AC	WR	EAp	OA	Im	DA	Int	EAb	FPA	LA	IQ	AM	EV	O

2017 C-SPAN Presidential Historian Survey

Abbreviations

• PP = Public persuasion
• CL = Crisis leadership
• EM = Economic management
• MA = Moral authority
• IR = International relations
• AS = Administrative skills
• RC = Relations with Congress
• VSA = Vision/Setting an agenda
• PEJ = Pursued equal justice for all
• PCT = Performance within context of times
• O = Overall

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Source:^[45]

Seq.	President	Political party	PP	CL	EM	MA	IR	AS	RC	VSA	PEJ	PCT	O
1	George Washington	Independent	4	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	13	1	2
2	John Adams	Federalist	22	17	15	11	13	21	24	20	15	19	19
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	8	13	13	6	11	7	5	5	17	6	7
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	18	19	19	9	22	17	13	18	18	16	17
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	17	14	18	16	7	11	9	14	25	11	13
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	33	23	17	12	15	18	32	15	9	22	21
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	7	10	26	20	20	23	21	10	38	13	18
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	30	35	40	33	26	26	28	33	30	33	34
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	28	38	38	31	42	40	38	36	37	38	38
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	39	36	39	37	28	38	41	37	41	36	39
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	13	9	14	27	16	9	11	11	36	12	14
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	27	28	28	28	30	35	35	30	34	30	31
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	40	34	34	36	34	36	36	39	39	37	37
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	41	41	41	39	40	39	40	41	42	41	41
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	43	43	42	43	43	41	42	43	43	43	43
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	3	1	2	2	3	1	4	1	1	2	1
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	42	42	37	41	39	43	43	42	40	42	42
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	19	21	27	19	19	37	20	23	10	21	22
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	29	30	25	32	33	29	30	32	32	28	32
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	21	31	29	22	36	32	27	25	20	27	29
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	37	32	31	35	35	28	29	34	27	32	35
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	20	22	24	26	23	22	22	21	31	23	23
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	32	33	32	30	27	30	26	31	24	31	30
25	William McKinley	Republican	16	16	11	18	17	13	10	17	26	18	16
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	2	5	4	5	4	4	7	4	11	4	4
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	31	26	20	25	21	12	23	28	22	24	24
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	11	11	9	8	12	8	16	7	35	10	11
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	36	39	35	40	37	42	34	40	33	40	40
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	24	29	22	21	29	25	18	29	29	26	27
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	38	40	43	29	31	14	31	38	28	39	36
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	1	3	5	3	1	3	3	3	8	3	3
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	14	4	10	10	5	10	14	13	4	5	6
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	12	6	6	4	6	5	6	16	12	7	5
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	6	7	7	15	14	16	12	9	7	9	8
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	15	20	12	24	38	6	1	8	2	14	10
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	26	27	23	42	10	24	37	24	21	34	28
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	34	24	30	23	25	27	19	35	14	25	25
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	35	37	33	14	32	31	33	22	5	29	26
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	5	8	16	13	9	33	8	6	23	8	9
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	23	12	21	17	8	16	15	27	16	20	20
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	9	18	3	38	18	20	17	19	6	17	15
43	George W. Bush	Republican	25	25	36	34	41	34	25	26	19	35	33
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	10	15	8	7	24	19	39	12	3	15	12
Seq.	President	Political party	PP	CL	EM	MA	IR	AS	RC	VSA	PEJ	PCT	O

Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2018

On February 13, 2019, Siena released its 6th presidential poll.^[46]
The poll was initiated in 1982 and occurs one year into the term of each new president. It is currently a survey of 157 presidential scholars, across a range of leadership parameters.
The ranking gave the top five spots to George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), Abraham Lincoln, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson. This top five, described as Mt. Rushmore plus FDR, was consistent with prior surveys. Washington had been ranked fourth in all previous surveys, and FDR first.
Abbreviations

• Bg = Background
• Im = Imagination
• Int = Integrity
• IQ = Intelligence
• L = Luck
• WR = Willing to take risks
• AC = Ability to compromise
• EAb = Executive ability
• LA = Leadership ability
• CAb = Communication ability
• OA = Overall ability
• PL = Party leadership
• RC = Relations with Congress
• CAp = Court appointments
• HE = Handling of economy
• EAp = Executive appointments
• DA = Domestic accomplishments
• FPA = Foreign policy accomplishments
• AM = Avoid crucial mistakes
• EV = Experts' view
• O = Overall

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	Im	Int	IQ	L	WR	AC	EAb	LA	CAb	OA	PL	RC	CAp	HE	EAp	DA	FPA	AM	EV	O
1	George Washington	Independent	7	7	1	10	1	6	2	2	1	11	2	18	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	2	1
2	John Adams	Federalist	3	13	4	4	24	14	31	21	21	13	8	28	17	4	13	15	19	13	16	10	14
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	2	2	14	1	8	5	14	6	6	4	4	5	5	7	20	4	6	9	7	5	5
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	4	6	7	3	16	15	6	13	17	10	6	9	10	6	14	7	11	19	11	8	7
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	9	14	11	18	6	16	7	10	12	15	17	12	8	11	9	9	10	5	6	9	8
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	1	9	6	5	29	19	24	22	23	12	16	29	29	15	17	18	21	15	14	18	18
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	37	15	29	28	4	4	38	11	9	18	19	6	16	30	25	25	17	23	20	19	19
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	23	22	27	25	34	28	20	28	27	25	27	16	23	25	31	26	29	27	24	28	25
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	22	38	28	37	44	32	41	38	29	31	37	36	37	42	41	40	42	44	37	39	39
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	34	33	35	34	22	26	37	36	37	34	36	41	40	38	34	36	36	26	32	36	37
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	19	10	23	23	9	7	18	7	11	16	12	10	11	22	15	16	12	8	8	13	12
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	30	26	22	32	37	24	26	26	25	32	32	35	32	37	27	33	27	30	26	30	30
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	40	37	36	38	35	38	32	37	39	40	39	40	39	39	37	37	37	37	33	37	38
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	38	39	38	40	39	38	39	39	40	41	40	39	38	41	40	39	41	39	38	40	40
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	36	43	40	39	42	41	40	42	44	42	43	42	41	43	42	43	44	43	44	44	43
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	28	1	2	2	18	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	4	3	4	2	1	6	2	1	3
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	42	42	41	42	40	34	43	43	43	44	42	44	43	44	43	42	43	41	43	43	44
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	20	24	25	24	26	18	17	27	18	26	26	24	19	24	26	38	24	24	31	24	24
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	35	30	32	29	23	35	23	33	33	30	31	33	30	27	22	30	35	31	28	29	32
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	22	25	21	20	41	30	25	25	24	23	24	27	26	34	29	27	34	34	27	25	28
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	41	31	37	36	17	33	22	30	34	36	35	34	33	33	30	31	25	32	23	31	34
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	26	23	26	27	19	27	22	19	20	19	22	20	27	20	21	23	23	21	15	22	23
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	33	34	30	35	28	36	33	35	35	35	34	31	28	35	32	34	32	29	29	33	35
25	William McKinley	Republican	29	20	20	26	32	22	21	17	19	22	20	11	12	23	16	17	20	14	13	20	20
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	5	4	8	6	2	2	15	4	4	5	5	7	7	9	3	5	4	3	5	4	4
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	12	28	12	14	27	31	19	23	26	21	23	30	21	16	19	21	18	22	19	23	22
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	8	8	19	7	14	11	35	14	14	7	14	8	14	13	11	14	14	11	25	15	11
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	39	41	42	43	33	40	34	40	41	39	41	38	35	36	35	41	38	36	39	41	41
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	32	36	17	33	13	39	27	32	38	37	33	26	24	31	24	32	33	35	22	32	31
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	13	35	15	13	43	37	36	29	36	29	29	32	33	26	44	35	39	33	40	35	36
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	6	3	16	12	5	3	4	3	3	2	3	1	3	2	2	3	3	1	4	3	2
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	31	16	9	21	12	8	12	8	10	14	10	14	15	17	8	10	7	4	9	7	9
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	11	18	5	17	7	21	5	5	5	20	7	15	9	5	6	11	8	7	3	6	6
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	14	5	31	11	31	9	8	12	8	3	11	17	13	12	7	6	15	17	18	12	10
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	15	11	34	22	25	10	9	9	13	17	9	3	2	8	12	8	5	40	35	17	16
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	16	21	43	16	36	12	30	24	28	27	25	22	34	32	23	28	22	16	42	38	29
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	18	32	10	30	30	29	11	31	30	33	30	25	25	21	33	24	31	28	21	27	27
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	25	19	3	15	38	27	29	32	32	24	28	37	36	19	38	22	28	25	34	26	26
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	27	17	24	31	3	13	10	15	7	6	18	4	6	18	18	20	16	12	12	16	13
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	10	27	18	19	20	27	13	20	22	28	21	21	20	29	28	19	26	10	17	21	21
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	21	12	39	8	11	17	3	16	15	8	13	13	18	10	5	12	9	18	30	14	15
43	George W. Bush	Republican	17	29	33	41	21	20	28	34	31	38	38	19	22	28	36	29	30	38	36	34	33
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	24	11	13	9	15	23	16	18	16	9	15	23	31	14	10	13	13	20	10	11	17
45	Donald Trump	Republican	43	40	44	44	10	25	42	41	42	43	44	43	42	40	39	44	40	42	41	42	42
Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	Im	Int	IQ	L	WR	AC	EAb	LA	CAb	OA	PL	RC	CAp	HE	EAp	DA	FPA	AM	EV	O

Memorability of the presidents

In November 2014, Henry L. Roediger III and K. Andrew DeSoto published a study in the journal Science asking research subjects to name as many presidents as possible.^[47][48] They reported data from three generations as well as from an online survey conducted in 2014. The percentage of participants in the online survey sample who could name each president was the following:

1. Barack Obama (100%)
2. Bill Clinton (96%)
3. George W. Bush or George H. W. Bush (95%)
4. George Washington (94%)
5. Abraham Lincoln (88%)
6. John F. Kennedy (83%)
7. Richard Nixon (82%)
8. Jimmy Carter (79%)
9. Thomas Jefferson (72%)
10. Ronald Reagan (66%)
11. Gerald Ford (62%)
12. Franklin D. Roosevelt or Theodore Roosevelt (60%)
13. John Adams or John Quincy Adams (56%)
14. Dwight D. Eisenhower (54%)
15. Harry S. Truman (50%)
16. Andrew Jackson (47%)
17. Herbert Hoover (42%)
18. Andrew Johnson or Lyndon B. Johnson (41%)
19. William Howard Taft (39%)
20. James Madison (38%)
21. Ulysses S. Grant (38%)
22. James Monroe (30%)
23. Woodrow Wilson (29%)
24. Calvin Coolidge (22%)
25. James A. Garfield (19%)
26. James K. Polk (17%)
27. Warren G. Harding (16%)
28. William McKinley (15%)
29. John Tyler (12%)
30. James Buchanan (12%)
31. Grover Cleveland (11%)
32. William Henry Harrison or Benjamin Harrison (11%)
33. Martin Van Buren (11%)
34. Rutherford B. Hayes (10%)
35. Zachary Taylor (10%)
36. Millard Fillmore (8%)
37. Franklin Pierce (7%)
38. Chester A. Arthur (7%)

Criticism and alternatives

David H. Donald, noted biographer of Abraham Lincoln, relates that when he met John F. Kennedy in 1961, Kennedy voiced his deep dissatisfaction and resentment with historians who had rated some of his predecessors. Kennedy said: "No one has a right to grade a president—even poor James Buchanan—who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions".^[49] Historian and political scientist Julian E. Zelizer argues that traditional presidential rankings explain little concerning actual presidential history and that they are "weak mechanisms for evaluating what has taken place in the White House".^[50]
Ivan Eland's Recarving Rushmore (2008)

Libertarian political commentator Ivan Eland wrote a book titled Recarving Rushmore (2008; updated 2014) in which he wrote that historians' criteria are poor in their capacity to reflect presidents' actual services to the country. In the book, Eland chose to rate 40 presidents on the basis of whether their policies promoted prosperity, liberty and non-interventionism as well as modest executive roles for themselves—his final rankings varied significantly from those of most scholars.
Racial Equality Assessments

In 2002, Ron Walters, former director of the University of Maryland's African American Leadership Institute, stated that presidents ranked by how each one balanced the interests of majority interests and the interests of excluded groups was practical in respect to American debate on racial politics. presidents have traditionally been ranked on personal qualities and their leadership ability to solve problems that move the nation in a positive direction. Walters stated there was a qualitative difference between white and African-American intellectuals in evaluating presidents. In the 1996 New York Times poll by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., 31 white historians and one black historian ranked presidents on differing categories of greatness. In a survey done by professors Hanes Walton Jr. and Robert Smith and in their text book American Politics And The African American Quest For Universal Freedom, 44 African-American political scientists and historians ranked presidents in terms of racial attitudes and racial legislation proposed.^[51] Individual presidents' attitudes, policies and perspectives were historically ranked in five categories: White Supremacist; Racist; Racially Neutral; Racially Ambivalent; Antiracist.^[52]
Northwestern Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion Survey (2019)

In May 2019, the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, "in conjunction the Dr. Christina Greer of Fordham University, the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy’s conducted a poll of 113 academic researchers and asked them to rate the 14 modern presidents on both their overall leadership and rhetoric on diversity and inclusion using a scale ranging from 0 to 100." ^[53] Survey respondents were significantly more liberal than the national average, with "with only 13 percent of the respondents describing themselves as either moderate, slightly conservative, or conservative." However, "similar patterns of ratings [were stated to be found] across the ideological spectrum".^[53]
Overall (Performance + Diversity and Inclusion Score)

1.) Franklin Roosevelt (83/100)
2.) Barack Obama (77/100)
3.) Lyndon Johnson (69/100)
4.) Bill Clinton (62/100)
5.) John Kennedy (61/100)
6.) Harry Truman (57/100)
7.) Dwight Eisenhower (54.4/100)
8.) Ronald Reagan (54.1/100)
9.) Jimmy Carter (50/100)
10.) George H. W. Bush (49/100)
11.) Gerald Ford (39/100)
12.) George W. Bush (38/100)
13.) Richard Nixon (32/100)
14.) Donald Trump (11/100)
Diversity and Inclusion Leadership Score (Without Including Overall Leadership)

1.) Barack Obama (75/100)
2.) Bill Clinton (54/100)
3.) Jimmy Carter (43/100)
4.) George W. Bush (41/100)
5.) Lyndon Johnson (40/100)
6.) George H. W. Bush (34/100)
7.) Franklin Roosevelt (31/100)
8.) Gerald Ford (30/100)
9.) John F. Kennedy (28.4/100)
10.) Harry Truman (28/100)
11.) Ronald Reagan (27.8/100)
12.) Dwight Eisenhower (26/100)
13.) Richard Nixon (24/100)
14.) Donald Trump (9/100)
See also

• Historical rankings of Chancellors of Germany
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of Australia
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of Canada
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the Netherlands
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Footnotes

• ^ Quartiles were determined by splitting the data into an upper and lower half and then splitting these into the first two and last two quartiles, respectively. When splitting an odd number of values, the median was included in the upper half.

References

• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c} Maranell, Gary M. (June 1970). "The Evaluation of Presidents: An Extension of the Schlesinger Polls". The Journal of American History. 57 (1): 104–113. doi:10.2307/1900552. JSTOR 1900552.
• ^ William J. Ridings Jr. and Stuart B. McIver. Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. 2000. ISBN 0806521511.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Americans Say Reagan Is the Greatest U.S. President". Gallup.com. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
• ^ Skidmore. 2001.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Schlesinger, Arthur M. "Our Presidents: A Rating by 75 Historians". The New York Times. July 1962. pp. 12–13, 40–41, 43.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Rating the Presidents: Washington to Clinton". Retrieved March 25, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. 2000. ISBN 0806521511.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Presidential Leadership; The Rankings". Wall Street Journal Online. September 12, 2005. Archived from the original on February 7, 2006.
• ^ "About the Presidents Study". Retrieved September 24, 2019.
• ^ "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018". Retrieved September 24,2019.
• ^ "Historians Give Good Grades to Clinton Presidency in Siena College Survey". January 11, 1995. Archived June 28, 2006.
• ^ "FDR America's Greatest President". August 19, 2002. Archived February 10, 2007.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Experts: Bush Presidency Is A Failure; Little Chance To Improve Ranking". Archived May 27, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. Siena Research Institute. May 1, 2006.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents" Archived July 7, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Siena Research Institute. July 1, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Thomas, G. Scott (July 1, 2010). "Clean sweep for the Roosevelts". Business First of Buffalo. Retrieved September 1, 2010.
• ^ "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018". Retrieved September 24,2019.
• ^ "C-SPAN Releases Second Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership". C-SPAN. February 15, 2009.
• ^ "Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. February 17, 2017.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "C-SPAN Releases Third Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership". C-SPAN. February 17, 2017.
• ^ "Methodology: Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. February 17, 2017.
• ^ Griffin, Jeremy; Hines, Nico (October 28, 2008). "Who's the greatest? The Times US presidential rankings". The Times. London. Retrieved March 24, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Iwan Morgan. "UK Survey of US Presidents: Results and Analysis". Retrieved October 10, 2013.
• ^ "From Franklin Delano Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, Newsweek's 10 Best Presidents (Photos)". The Daily Beast. September 24, 2012. Retrieved April 13,2014.
• ^ HNN Staff (September 8, 2013). "Historians Give Barack Obama a B-". History News Network. Retrieved April 13, 2014.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Brandon Rottinghaus (February 13, 2015). "Measuring Obama against the great presidents". The Brookings Institution.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?". The New York Times. February 19, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2018.
• ^ "Lincoln Wins: Honest Abe tops new presidential survey". CNN. February 16, 2009. Retrieved October 30, 2010.
• ^ "Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
• ^ "Presidents 2018 Rank by Category" (PDF). Retrieved February 19, 2019.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d} Tyler was elected on the Whig ticket as Harrison's vice president, but Tyler became an independent after the Whigs expelled him from the party in 1841.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d} Johnson was a former War Democrat elected on the National Union ticket as Lincoln's vice president, but by 1868 the National Union Party disbanded.
• ^ Murray and Blessing. p. 135.
• ^ "Washington, Lincoln Most Popular Presidents: Nixon, Bush Least Popular - Rasmussen Reports™". Rasmussenreports.com. July 4, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
• ^ "Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest". Gallup. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
• ^ "JFK, Reagan, Clinton most popular recent ex-presidents". September 15, 2011.
• ^ "Kennedy and Reagan Lead List of Good Presidents for Americans". Angus Reid Public Opinion. Archived August 22, 2012, at the Wayback MachineRetrieved August 22, 2012.
• ^ "Americans Rate JFK as Top Modern President". Gallup. Archived from the original on August 1, 2016.
• ^ The weights were 5 for "Outstanding", 4 for "Above Average", 3 for "Average", 2 for "Below Average" and 1 for "Poor".
• ^ "National (US) Poll – July 2, 2014 – Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better". Quinnipiac University.
• ^ "Trump Starts In The Hole As U.S. Voters Disapprove, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Reagan, Obama Are Best Presidents In 70 Years". Quinnipiac University.
• ^ "Morning Consult National Tracking Poll February 09–10,2017". Politico.
• ^ "Poll: Trump and Obama Are America's Worst Presidents Since World War II". Morning Consult. February 15, 2017.
• ^ "QU Poll Release Detail". Quinnipiac University. March 7, 2018. Retrieved March 10, 2018.
• ^ "Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents". Siena College. July 1, 2010. Archived from the original on July 6, 2010. Retrieved May 19, 2017.
• ^ "All Presidents - C-SPAN Survey on Presidents 2017". C-SPAN. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
• ^ "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018".
• ^ Roediger, Henry L.; DeSoto, K. Andrew (November 28, 2014), "Forgetting the Presidents", Science, 346 (6213): 1106–1109, Bibcode:2014Sci...346.1106R, doi:10.1126/science.1259627, PMID 25430768
• ^ Carey, Benedict (November 27, 2014). "Study on Cultural Memory Confirms: Chester A. Arthur, We Hardly Knew Ye". The New York Times. Retrieved September 11, 2015.
• ^ Donald, David H. Lincoln. 1995. p. 13.
• ^ Zelizer (February 21, 2011). "What's wrong with presidential rankings". CNN Opinion.
• ^ Walters (July 8, 2002)."Presidency: How Do African-American Scholars Rank Presidents?". History News Network.
• ^ Walton Jr., Hanes; Smith, Robert C. (2000). American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. pp. 201–202.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Tillery Jr., Alvin (May 31, 2019). "The First-Ever Expert Survey on Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion" (PDF). Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy. Retrieved June 25, 2019.

Further reading

• Bailey, Thomas A. (1966). Presidential Greatness: The Image and the Man from George Washington to the Present. New York: Appleton-Century. → A non-quantitative appraisal by leading historian.
• Bose, Meena; Landis Mark (2003). The Uses and Abuses of Presidential Ratings. New York: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1590337943. → A collection of essays by presidential scholars.
• DeGregorio, William A. (1993). The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents (4th, rev., expanded, and up-dated ed.). New York: Barricade Books. ISBN 978-0942637922. → Contains the results of the 1962 and 1982 surveys.
• Eland, Ivan (2009). Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty. Oakland, California: Independent Institute. ISBN 978-1598130225.
• Faber, Charles; Faber, Richard (2000). The American Presidents Ranked by Performance. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Co. ISBN 978-0786407651.
• Felzenberg, Alvin S. (1997). "There You Go Again: Liberal Historians and the New York Times Deny Ronald Reagan His Due". Policy Review. 82: 51–54. ISSN 0146-5945.
• Holli, Melvin G. (1999). The American Mayor: The Best & the Worst Big-City Leaders. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0271018768.
• Merry, Robert W. Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians (2012).
• Miller, Nathan (1998). Star-Spangled Men America's Ten Worst Presidents. New York: Scribner. ISBN 978-0684836102.
• Murray, Robert K.; Blessing, Tim H. (1994). Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, from Washington Through Ronald Reagan (2., updated ed.). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0271010892.
• Nichols, Curt (2012). "The Presidential Ranking Game: Critical Review and Some New Discoveries". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 42 (2): 275–299. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2012.03966.x. ISSN 0360-4918.
• Pfiffner, James P. (2003). "Ranking the Presidents: Continuity and Volatility" (PDF). White House Studies. 3: 23. ISSN 1535-4768.
• Ridings Jr., William J.; McIver, Stuart B. (1997). Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing. ISBN 978-0806517995.
• Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (1997). "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton". Political Science Quarterly. 112 (2): 179–190. doi:10.2307/2657937. JSTOR 2657937.
• Skidmore, Max J. (2004). Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Co. ISBN 978-0786418206.
• Skidmore, Max J. (2001). "Ranking and Evaluating Presidents: The Case of Theodore Roosevelt". White House Studies. 1 (4): 495–505. ISSN 1535-4768.
• Taranto, James; Leo, Leonard (2004). Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House. New York: Wall Street Journal Books. ISBN 978-0743254335. → For Federalist Society surveys.
• Vedder, Richard; Gallaway, Lowell (2001). "Rating Presidential Performance". In Denson, John V. (ed.). Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 978-0945466291.

External links

• "Ranking Presidents: Utter Nonsense Or Useful Analysis?". 2001 column by John Dean.
• "List of presidential rankings". Historians rank the 42 men who have held the office. AP via MSNBC. February 16, 2009, poll.

hide v t e Lists related to the presidents and vice presidents of the United States
List of presidents List of vice presidents
Presidents	Age Autobiographies Burial places Death Historical rankings Lifespan timeline Number living Official vehicles Portraits Time in office
Professional careers	Approval rating Assassination attempts and plots Campaign slogans Control of Congress Doctrines Elections lost Inaugurations International trips Judicial appointments Libraries Military rank Military service Other offices held Pardons Previous experience Vetoes
Personal life	Coats of arms Deaths in office Education Facial hair Firsts Freemasons Multilingualism Net worth Nicknames Pets Home state Religious affiliation Residences Slave owners
Vice presidents	Age Burial places Coats of arms Education Number living Other offices held Place of primary affiliation Religious affiliation Tie-breaking votes Time in office
Succession	Acting President Designated survivor Line of succession
Elections	Electoral College margin Popular vote margin Summary Winner lost popular vote Contingent elections
Candidates	Democrat Republican Third party Green Libertarian Federalist Democratic-Republican National Republican/Whig African American Female Received at least one electoral vote Number of votes received Height Unsuccessful major party candidates Unsuccessful major party vice presidential candidates Lost their home state Firsts
Families	First families First ladies Second ladies Children
Namesakes, honors	Memorial sites U.S. postage stamp appearances Educational institution names Currency appearances U.S. county names U.S. Senate vice presidential bust collection
In fiction	Presidents actors Vice Presidents actors Candidates Line of succession
United States Portal Biography Portal Presidents of the United States

[Methais]

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search

In political studies, surveys have been conducted in order to construct historical rankings of the success of individuals who have served as the president of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults.^[1][2][3]

In the 1920s, sculptor Gutzon Borglum and President Calvin Coolidge selected George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln to appear on Mount Rushmore—it later became an iconic symbol of presidential greatness.

Contents

• 1General findings
• 2Notable scholar surveys
• 3Scholar survey results
• 4Murray-Blessing 1982 survey
• 5Public opinion polls
  
  • 5.1Rasmussen poll
  • 5.2Gallup poll
  
  
• 6Public opinion polls on recent presidents
  
  • 6.12010 Gallup poll
  • 6.2Public Policy Polling
  • 6.3Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll
  • 6.42013 Gallup poll
  • 6.52014 Quinnipiac poll
  • 6.62017 Quinnipiac poll
  • 6.72017 Morning Consult poll
  • 6.82018 Quinnipiac poll
  
  
• 7Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2010
• 82017 C-SPAN Presidential Historian Survey
• 9Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2018
• 10Memorability of the presidents
• 11Criticism and alternatives
  
  • 11.1Ivan Eland's Recarving Rushmore (2008)
  • 11.2Racial Equality Assessments
    
    • 11.2.1Northwestern Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion Survey (2019)
      
      • 11.2.1.1Overall (Performance + Diversity and Inclusion Score)
      • 11.2.1.2Diversity and Inclusion Leadership Score (Without Including Overall Leadership)
  
  
• 12See also
• 13Footnotes
• 14References
• 15Further reading
• 16External links

General findings

Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington are most often listed as the three highest-rated presidents among historians. The remaining places within the Top 10 are often rounded out by Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy. More recent presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are often rated among the greatest in public opinion polls, but do not always rank as highly among presidential scholars and historians. The bottom 10 often include James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Ulysses S. Grant, Zachary Taylor, George W. Bush, and/or Donald Trump. Because William Henry Harrison (30 days) and James A. Garfield (200 days, incapacitated after 119 days) both died shortly after taking office, they are usually omitted from presidential rankings. Furthermore, Zachary Taylor died after serving as president for only 16 months, but he is usually included. In the case of these three, it is not clear if they received low rankings due to their actions as president, or because each was in office for such a limited time that it is not possible to assess them more thoroughly.
Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham noted the "dichotomous or schizoid profiles" of presidents, which can make some hard to classify. Historian Alan Brinkley stated that "there are presidents who could be considered both failures and great or near great (for example, Nixon)". Historian and political scientist James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon: "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"^[4]
Notable scholar surveys

Abraham Lincoln is often considered the greatest president for his leadership during the American Civil War and his eloquence in speeches such as the Gettysburg Address.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/JamesBuchanan1860s.png/170px-JamesBuchanan1860s.png

James Buchanan is often considered the worst president for his inept leadership during the years leading up to the Civil War.

The 1948 poll was conducted by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. of Harvard University.^[1] The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger, who surveyed 75 historians.^[5] Schlesinger's son, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., conducted another poll in 1996.^[6]
The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents also gives the results of the 1982 survey, a poll of 49 historians conducted by the Chicago Tribune. A notable difference from the 1962 Schlesinger poll was the ranking of Dwight D. Eisenhower, which rose from 22nd in 1962 to 9th in 1982.
The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1988 to 1996 by William J. Ridings Jr. and Stuart B. McIver and published in Rating The Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. Leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent.^[7] More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part. Participants from every state were included and emphasis was placed upon getting input from female historians and "specialists in African-American studies" as well as a few non-American historians. Poll respondents rated the presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments and crisis management, political skill, appointments and character and integrity) and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.
A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at 8th. Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.
Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.^[8] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight". Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".
The Siena College Research Institute of Siena College has conducted surveys in 1982, 1990, 1994, 2002, 2010, and 2018—during the second year of the first term of each president since Ronald Reagan.^[9] These surveys collect presidential rankings from historians, political scientists, and presidential scholars in a range of attributes, abilities, and accomplishments.^[10] The 1994 survey placed only two presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points and two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding, below 50 points.^[11][12]
A 2006 Siena College poll of 744 professors reported the following results:^[13]

• "George W. Bush has just finished five years as President. If today were the last day of his presidency, how would you rank him? The responses were: Great: 2%; Near Great: 5%; Average: 11%; Below Average: 24%; Failure: 58%"
• "In your judgment, do you think he has a realistic chance of improving his rating?" Two-thirds (67%) responded no; less than a quarter (23%) responded yes; and 10% chose "no opinion or not applicable"

Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do". Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow".^[13]
The 2010 Siena poll of 238 presidential scholars found that former president George W. Bush was ranked 39th out of 43, with poor ratings in handling of the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence. Meanwhile, the then-current president Barack Obama was ranked 15th out of 43, with high ratings for imagination, communication ability and intelligence and a low rating for background (family, education and experience).^[14][15]
The 2018 Siena poll of 157 presidential scholars reported George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson as the top five US presidents, with SCRI director Don Levy stating, "The top five, Mount Rushmore plus FDR, is carved in granite with presidential historians...."^[16] Donald J. Trump—entering the SCRI survey for the first time—joined Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce among the bottom five US presidents. George W. Bush, who presidential scholars had rated among the bottom five in the previous 2010 survey, improved to a position in the third quartile.
The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and biographers. The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership has taken place three times: in 2000, 2009 and 2017.^[17][18][19] The most recent survey was of 91 presidential historians, surveyed by C-SPAN's Academic Advisor Team, made up of Douglas G. Brinkley, Edna Greene Medford and Richard Norton Smith. In the survey, each historian rates each president on a scale of one ("not effective") to 10 ("very effective") on presidential leadership in ten categories: Public Persuasion, Crisis Leadership, Economic Management, Moral Authority, International Relations, Administrative Skills, Relations with Congress, Vision/Setting An Agenda, Pursued Equal Justice for All and Performance Within the Context of His Times—each category is equally weighed.^[20] The results of all three C-SPAN surveys have been fairly consistent. Abraham Lincoln has taken the highest ranking in each survey and George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt have always ranked in the top five while James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce have been ranked at the bottom of all three surveys.^[19]
In 2008, The Times daily newspaper of London asked eight of its own "top international and political commentators" to rank all 42 presidents "in order of greatness".^[21]
In 2011, through the agency of its United States Presidency Centre (USPC), the Institute for the Study of the Americas (located in the University of London's School of Advanced Study) released the first ever United Kingdom academic survey to rate presidents. This polled the opinion of British specialists in American history and politics to assess presidential performance. They also gave an interim assessment of Barack Obama, but his unfinished presidency was not included in the survey (had he been included, he would have attained eighth place overall).^[22]
In 2012, Newsweek magazine asked a panel of historians to rank the ten best presidents since 1900. The results showed that historians had ranked Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama as the best since that year.^[23]
A 2013 History News Network poll of 203 American historians, when asked to rate Obama's presidency on an A–F scale, gave him a B- grade. Obama, whom historians graded using 15 separate measures plus an overall grade, was rated most highly in the categories of communication ability, integrity and crisis management; and most poorly for his relationship with Congress, transparency and accountability.^[24]
A 2015 poll administered by the American Political Science Association (APSA) among political scientists specializing in the American presidency had Abraham Lincoln in the top spot, with George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson making the top 10.^[25] APSA conducted a repeat of this poll in 2018, with Donald Trump appearing for the first time, in last position.^[26]
Scholar survey results

Within each column:^{[note 1]}

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Note: click the "sort" icon at the head of each column to view the rankings for each survey in numerical order.

No.	President	Political party	Schl. 1948[1]	Schl. 1962[5]	M-B 1982	CT 1982	Siena 1982	Siena 1990	Siena 1994	R-McI 1996[7]	Schl. 1996[6]	C-SPAN 2000	WSJ 2000	Siena 2002	WSJ 2005[8]	C-SPAN 2009[27]	Siena 2010[14][15]	USPC 2011[22]	APSA 2015[25]	C-SPAN 2017[28]	APSA 2018[26]	Siena 2018[29]	Most frequent quartile
1	George Washington	Independent	02	02	03	02	04	04	04	03	02 (tie)	03	01	04	01	02	04	03	02	02	02	01	1
2	John Adams	Federalist	09	10	09	15	10	14	12	14	11	16	13	12	13	17	17	12	15	19	14	14	2
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	05	05	04	05	02	03	05	04	04	07	04	05	04	07	05	04	05	07	05	05	1
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	14	12	14	17	09	08	09	10	17	18	15	09	17	20	06	14	13	17	12	07	2
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	12	18	15	16	15	11	15	13	15	14	16	08	16	14	07	13	16	13	18	08	2
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	11	13	16	19	17	16	17	18	18	19	20	17	25	19	19	20	22	21	23	18	2
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	06	06	07	07	13	09	11	08	05	13	06	13	10	13	14	09	09	18	15	19	1
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	15	17	20	18	21	21	22	21	21	30	23	24	27	31	23	27	25	34	27	25	3
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	–	–	–	–	26	35	28	35	–	37	–	36	–	39	35	–	39	38	42	39	4
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	22	25	28	28	34	33	34	34	32	36	34	37	35	35	37	37	36	39	37	37	4
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	10	08 (tie)	12	10	12	13	14	11	09	12	10	11	09	12	12	16	19	14	20	12	2
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	25	24	27	26	29	34	33	29	29	28	31	34	33	29	33	33	33	31	35	30	3
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	24	26	29	31	32	32	35	36	31	35	35	38	36	37	38	35	37	37	38	38	4
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	27	28	31	33	35	36	37	37	33 (tie)	39	37 (tie)	39	38	40	40	39	40	41	41	40	4
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	26	29	33	34	37	38	39	40	38	41	39	41	40	42	42	40	43	43	43	43	4
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	01	01	01	01	03	02	02	01	01	01	02	02	02	01	03	02	01	01	01	03	1
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	19	23	32	30	38	39	40	39	37	40	36	42	37	41	43	36	41	42	40	44	4
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	28	30	35	32	36	37	38	38	33 (tie)	33	32	35	29	23	26	29	28	22	21	24	4
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	13	14	22	22	22	23	24	25	23	26	22	27	24	33	31	30	30	32	29	32	3
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	–	–	–	–	25	30	26	30	–	29	–	33	–	28	27	–	31	29	34	28	3
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	17	21 (tie)	23	24	24	26	27	28	26	32	26	30	26	32	25	32	32	35	31	34	3
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	08	11	17	13	18	17	19	16	13	17	12	20	12	21	20	21	23	23	24	23	2
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	21	20	26	25	31	29	30	31	19	31	27	32	30	30	34	34	29	30	32	35	3
25	William McKinley	Republican	18	15	18	11	19	19	18	17	16	15	14	19	14	16	21	17	21	16	19	20	2
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	07	07	05	04	05	05	03	05	06	04	05	03	05	04	02	05	04	04	04	04	1
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	16	16	19	20	20	20	21	20	22	24	19	21	20	24	24	25	20	24	22	22	2
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	04	04	06	06	06	06	06	06	07	06	11	06	11	09	08	06	10	11	11	11	1
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	29	31	36	36	39	40	41	41	39	38	37 (tie)	40	39	38	41	38	42	40	39	41	4
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	23	27	30	29	30	31	36	33	30	27	25	29	23	26	29	28	27	27	28	31	3
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	20	19	21	21	27	28	29	24	33 (tie)	34	29	31	31	34	36	26	38	36	36	36	3
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	03	03	02	03	01	01	01	02	02 (tie)	02	03	01	03	03	01	01	03	03	03	02	1
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	–	08 (tie)	08	08	07	07	07	07	08	05	07	07	07	05	09	07	06	06	06	09	1
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	–	21 (tie)	11	09	11	12	08	09	10	09	09	10	08	08	10	10	07	05	07	06	1
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	–	–	13	14	08	10	10	15	12	08	18	14	15	06	11	15	14	08	16	10	2
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	–	–	10	12	14	15	13	12	14	10	17	15	18	11	16	11	12	10	10	16	2
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	–	–	34	35	28	25	23	32	36	25	33	26	32	27	30	23	34	28	33	29	3
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	–	–	24	23	23	27	32	27	28	23	28	28	28	22	28	24	24	25	25	27	3
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	–	–	25	27	33	24	25	19	27	22	30	25	34	25	32	18	26	26	26	26	3
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	–	–	–	–	16 *	22	20	26	25	11	08	16	06	10	18	08	11	09	09	13	1
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	–	–	–	–	–	18 *	31	22	24	20	21	22	21	18	22	22	17	20	17	21	2
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	–	–	–	–	–	–	16 *	23 *	20 *	21 *	24 *	18	22	15	13	19	08	15	13	15	2
43	George W. Bush	Republican	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	23 *	19 *	36	39	31	35	33	30	33	3
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	15 *	–	18 *	12	08	17	2
45	Donald Trump	Republican	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	44 *	42 *	4 *
Total in survey			29	31	36	36	39	40	41	41	39	41	39	42	40	42	43	40	43	43	44	44	44

* Ranking calculated before president had completed his term in office.Note: Grover Cleveland was elected to two non-consecutive terms, serving as both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States; he is the only person to have held the office in non-consecutive terms. Because Cleveland had two presidencies, the number of persons who have served as president is one less than the number of presidents in order of succession.
William Henry Harrison and James Garfield are sometimes omitted from rankings of the presidents because of the brevity of their terms in office.

Murray-Blessing 1982 survey

The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey asked historians whether they were liberal or conservative on domestic, social and economic issues.^[32] The table below shows that the two groups had only small differences in ranking the best and worst presidents. Both groups agreed on the composition of nine of the top ten presidents (and were split over the inclusion of either Lyndon B. Johnson or Dwight D. Eisenhower) and six of the worst seven (split over Jimmy Carter or Calvin Coolidge).

Rank	Liberals (n = 190)	Conservatives (n = 50)
1	Abraham Lincoln	Abraham Lincoln
2	Franklin D. Roosevelt	George Washington
3	George Washington	Franklin D. Roosevelt
4	Thomas Jefferson	Thomas Jefferson
5	Theodore Roosevelt	Theodore Roosevelt
6	Woodrow Wilson	Andrew Jackson
7	Andrew Jackson	Harry S. Truman
8	Harry S. Truman	Woodrow Wilson
9	Lyndon B. Johnson	Dwight D. Eisenhower
10	John Adams	John Adams
30	Calvin Coolidge	Jimmy Carter
31	Franklin Pierce	Richard Nixon
32	James Buchanan	Franklin Pierce
33	Andrew Johnson	Andrew Johnson
34	Ulysses S. Grant	James Buchanan
35	Richard Nixon	Ulysses S. Grant
36	Warren G. Harding	Warren G. Harding

Public opinion polls

Rasmussen poll

According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.^[33]

President	Favorable	Unfavorable	Net favorable
George Washington	94	2	92
Abraham Lincoln	92	4	88
Thomas Jefferson	89	4	85
Theodore Roosevelt	84	8	76
Franklin D. Roosevelt	81	12	69
John F. Kennedy	80	13	67
John Adams	74	9	65
James Madison	73	8	65
Ronald Reagan	72	22	50
Dwight D. Eisenhower	72	15	57
Harry S. Truman	70	14	56
Andrew Jackson	69	14	55
Gerald Ford	62	26	36
John Quincy Adams	59	7	52
Ulysses S. Grant	58	24	34
George H. W. Bush	57	41	16
Jimmy Carter	57	34	23
William Howard Taft	57	15	42
Woodrow Wilson	56	19	37
Bill Clinton	55	41	14
James Monroe	49	10	39
Herbert Hoover	48	34	14
Lyndon B. Johnson	45	42	3
Andrew Johnson	45	26	19
Chester A. Arthur	43	17	26
James A. Garfield	42	16	26
William McKinley	42	24	18
George W. Bush	41	59	−18
Grover Cleveland	40	26	14
Calvin Coolidge	38	31	7
Rutherford B. Hayes	38	19	19
Richard Nixon	32	60	−28
Benjamin Harrison	30	35	−5
Warren G. Harding	29	33	−4
James Buchanan	28	32	−4
James K. Polk	27	21	6
Zachary Taylor	26	18	8
Martin Van Buren	23	19	4
William Henry Harrison	21	16	5
Franklin Pierce	17	25	−8
Millard Fillmore	17	25	−8
John Tyler	9	15	−6

Gallup poll

A Gallup poll about presidential greatness taken February 2–5, 2011, asked 1,015 adults in the United States the following question: "Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?".^[3]

1. Ronald Reagan (19%)
2. Abraham Lincoln (14%)
3. Bill Clinton (13%)
4. John F. Kennedy (11%)
5. George Washington (10%)
6. Franklin Roosevelt (8%)
7. Barack Obama (5%)
8. Theodore Roosevelt (3%)
9. Harry S. Truman (3%)
10. George W. Bush (2%)
11. Thomas Jefferson (2%)
12. Jimmy Carter (1%)
13. Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
14. George H. W. Bush (1%)
15. Andrew Jackson (<0.5%)
16. Lyndon B. Johnson (<0.5%)
17. Richard Nixon (<0.5%)

In addition, "Other" received 1%, "None" received 1% and "No opinion" received 5%.
Public opinion polls on recent presidents

These polls evaluate recent presidents only.
2010 Gallup poll

A Gallup poll taken on November 19–21, 2010, asked 1,037 Americans to say, based on what they know or remember about the nine most recent former presidents, whether they approve or disapprove of how each handled his job in office.^[34]

1. John F. Kennedy (85% approval/10% disapproval)
2. Ronald Reagan (74% approval/24% disapproval)
3. Bill Clinton (69% approval/30% disapproval)
4. George H. W. Bush (64% approval/34% disapproval)
5. Gerald Ford (61% approval/26% disapproval)
6. Jimmy Carter (52% approval/42% disapproval)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (49% approval/36% disapproval)
8. George W. Bush (47% approval/51% disapproval)
9. Richard Nixon (29% approval/65% disapproval)

Public Policy Polling

A Public Policy Polling poll taken between September 8–11, 2011, asked 665 American voters, based on what they know or remember about the nine then-most recent former presidents, whether they hold favorable or unfavorable views of how each handled his job in office.^[35]

1. John F. Kennedy (74% favorability/15% unfavorability)
2. Ronald Reagan (60% favorability/30% unfavorability)
3. Bill Clinton (62% favorability/34% unfavorability)
4. George H. W. Bush (53% favorability/35% unfavorability)
5. Gerald Ford (45% favorability/26% unfavorability)
6. Jimmy Carter (45% favorability/43% unfavorability)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (36% favorability/39% unfavorability)
8. George W. Bush (41% favorability/51% unfavorability)
9. Richard Nixon (19% favorability/62% unfavorability)

Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll

A Vision Critical/Angus Reid Public Opinion poll taken on February 18–19, 2011, asked 1,010 respondents about 11 former presidents plus the current president and whether each was a good or bad president.^[36]

1. John F. Kennedy (80% approval/6% disapproval)
2. Ronald Reagan (72% approval/16% disapproval)
3. Bill Clinton (65% approval/24% disapproval)
4. Dwight D. Eisenhower (61% approval/6% disapproval)
5. Harry S. Truman (57% approval/7% disapproval)
6. Jimmy Carter (47% approval/28% disapproval)
7. George H. W. Bush (44% approval/38% disapproval)
8. Barack Obama (41% approval/33% disapproval)
9. Gerald Ford (37% approval/25% disapproval)
10. Lyndon B. Johnson (33% approval/27% disapproval)
11. George W. Bush (30% approval/55% disapproval)
12. Richard Nixon (24% approval/54% disapproval)

2013 Gallup poll

A Gallup poll taken November 7–10, 2013, asked 1,039 adults in the United States the following question: "How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history—as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?".^[37]

President	Outstanding	Above average	Average	Below average	Poor	No opinion	Weighted average[38]
Dwight D. Eisenhower	10%	39%	36%	2%	1%	12%	3.63
John F. Kennedy	18%	56%	19%	2%	1%	4%	3.92
Lyndon B. Johnson	4%	16%	46%	14%	8%	12%	2.93
Richard Nixon	2%	13%	27%	29%	23%	6%	2.38
Gerald Ford	2%	14%	56%	15%	5%	8%	2.92
Jimmy Carter	4%	19%	37%	20%	15%	6%	2.76
Ronald Reagan	19%	42%	27%	6%	4%	2%	3.67
George H. W. Bush	3%	24%	48%	12%	10%	2%	2.98
Bill Clinton	11%	44%	29%	9%	6%	1%	3.45
George W. Bush	3%	18%	36%	20%	23%	1%	2.58
Barack Obama	6%	22%	31%	18%	22%	1%	2.72

2014 Quinnipiac poll

A Quinnipiac University poll taken June 24–30, 2014, asked 1,446 registered voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[39]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (35%)
2. Bill Clinton (18%)
3. John F. Kennedy (15%)
4. Barack Obama (8%)
5. Dwight Eisenhower (5%)
6. Harry S. Truman (4%)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (3%)
8. George H. W. Bush (tie) (3%)
9. Jimmy Carter (2%)
10. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
11. Gerald Ford (tie) (1%)
12. George W. Bush (tie) (1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Barack Obama (33%)
2. George W. Bush (28%)
3. Richard Nixon (13%)
4. Jimmy Carter (8%)
5. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (3%)
6. Ronald Reagan (tie) (3%)
7. Bill Clinton (tie) (3%)
8. Gerald Ford (tie) (2%)
9. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
10. Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
11. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)

2017 Quinnipiac poll

Four years later, a Quinnipiac University poll taken January 20–25, 2017, asked 1,190 voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[40]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (30%)
2. Barack Obama (29%)
3. John F. Kennedy (12%)
4. Bill Clinton (9%)
5. Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (3%)
6. George W. Bush (tie) (3%)
7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (2%)
8. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (2%)
9. Jimmy Carter (tie) (2%)
10. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
11. Richard Nixon (tie) (<1%)
12. Gerald R. Ford (tie) (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Richard Nixon (24%)
2. Barack Obama (23%)
3. George W. Bush (22%)
4. Jimmy Carter (10%)
5. Ronald Reagan (5%)
6. Bill Clinton (4%)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (3%)
8. George H. W. Bush (2%)
9. Gerald R. Ford (1%)
10. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
11. Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (<1%)
12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)

2017 Morning Consult poll

Including for the first time President Donald Trump, a Morning Consult poll taken February 9–10, 2017, asked 1,791 registered voters in the United States, who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[41][42]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (26%)
2. Barack Obama (20%)
3. John F. Kennedy (17%)
4. Bill Clinton (9%)
5. Donald Trump (6%)
6. George W. Bush (tie) (2%)
7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (2%)
8. Jimmy Carter (tie) (2%)
9. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
10. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
11. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (1%)
12. Gerald R. Ford (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Donald Trump (26%)
2. Barack Obama (25%)
3. Richard Nixon (13%)
4. George W. Bush (7%)
5. Bill Clinton (6%)
6. Jimmy Carter (5%)
7. George H. W. Bush (3%)
8. Lyndon B. Johnson (2%)
9. Ronald Reagan (tie) (1%)
10. Gerald R. Ford (tie) (1%)
11. Dwight D. Eisenhower (tie) (1%)
12. Harry S. Truman (tie) (1%)
13. John F. Kennedy (<1%)

2018 Quinnipiac poll

A Quinnipiac University poll taken March 3–5, 2018, asked 1,122 voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[43]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (28%)
2. Barack Obama (24%)
3. John F. Kennedy (tie) (10%)
4. Bill Clinton (tie) (10%)
5. Donald Trump (7%)
6. Dwight Eisenhower (4%)
7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (3%)
8. Jimmy Carter (tie) (3%)
9. Lyndon B. Johnson (2%)
10. George H. W. Bush (tie) (1%)
11. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
12. George W. Bush (tie) (1%)
13. Gerald R. Ford (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Donald Trump (41%)
2. Barack Obama (21%)
3. Richard Nixon (10%)
4. Jimmy Carter (8%)
5. George W. Bush (6%)
6. Bill Clinton (4%)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (2%)
8. Ronald Reagan (tie) (2%)
9. Gerald R. Ford (1%)
10. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
11. Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (<1%)
12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)
13. George H. W. Bush (tie) (<1%)

Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2010

Abbreviations

• Bg = Background
• PL = Party leadership
• CAb = Communication ability
• RC = Relations with Congress
• CAp = Court appointments
• HE = Handling of economy
• L = Luck
• AC = Ability to compromise
• WR = Willing to take risks
• EAp = Executive appointments
• OA = Overall ability
• Im = Imagination
• DA = Domestic accomplishments
• Int = Integrity
• EAb = Executive ability
• FPA = Foreign policy accomplishments
• LA = Leadership ability
• IQ = Intelligence
• AM = Avoid crucial mistakes
• EV = Experts' view
• O = Overall

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Source:^[44]

Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	PL	CAb	RC	CAp	HE	L	AC	WR	EAp	OA	Im	DA	Int	EAb	FPA	LA	IQ	AM	EV	O
1	George Washington	Independent	7	18	12	3	3	4	1	3	4	1	4	9	4	2	2	3	1	12	1	3	4
2	John Adams	Federalist	4	29	18	26	10	13	23	32	16	15	13	17	22	3	19	12	20	7	15	12	17
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	1	4	6	4	6	16	6	11	8	5	5	3	6	14	5	7	6	1	6	5	5
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	3	10	11	9	7	12	17	7	15	9	6	8	12	5	14	20	17	2	10	8	6
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	9	12	15	8	14	9	9	8	17	8	16	16	8	10	11	2	13	15	7	9	7
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	2	34	20	35	16	14	30	29	23	13	15	11	18	4	21	16	26	5	20	21	19
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	30	2	10	14	27	28	4	38	5	19	12	13	14	23	6	19	5	23	12	13	14
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	16	13	23	19	24	38	33	13	32	25	24	24	27	29	23	25	27	22	27	24	23
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	24	30	25	31	33	27	42	35	30	24	37	35	36	30	33	39	24	31	33	34	35
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	33	42	39	42	39	31	22	39	26	34	35	29	34	33	37	35	36	33	32	36	37
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	17	9	13	12	21	15	7	23	7	16	17	14	11	24	9	8	10	20	9	11	12
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	37	35	28	37	37	24	36	34	28	28	34	27	37	21	31	34	25	37	25	33	33
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	40	41	40	38	35	33	25	25	37	35	38	36	35	36	38	33	39	39	30	35	38
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	38	37	37	41	40	34	35	36	38	38	39	39	39	38	40	40	40	38	35	40	40
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	23	40	41	40	42	41	40	41	43	39	42	42	43	40	42	41	43	40	41	43	42
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	28	6	2	6	4	5	13	1	2	2	1	2	1	1	1	5	2	3	2	1	3
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	42	43	43	43	43	37	39	43	34	42	41	41	42	37	41	38	42	41	42	42	43
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	26	28	24	22	25	29	21	22	22	40	28	26	26	27	34	24	21	29	31	31	26
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	29	33	30	29	29	26	19	18	33	33	33	32	33	28	30	30	32	30	24	29	31
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	20	22	22	24	32	23	41	27	31	29	25	28	25	25	26	31	23	26	22	27	27
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	41	31	32	27	28	19	14	21	27	26	30	25	20	32	27	26	28	32	17	26	25
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	19	16	17	15	17	22	20	19	24	18	20	22	17	19	17	21	19	25	14	19	20
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	39	32	34	28	30	35	29	30	39	36	36	34	32	31	35	28	34	35	23	32	34
25	William McKinley	Republican	21	14	19	11	23	18	24	20	21	20	21	23	19	22	18	15	18	27	11	20	21
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	6	7	3	5	1	2	2	12	1	4	3	1	2	6	4	4	4	6	3	4	2
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	14	36	29	30	18	20	32	24	36	22	23	30	21	18	25	23	31	18	28	23	24
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	8	8	9	16	8	8	15	37	9	10	8	5	9	11	10	10	12	4	29	10	8
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	43	38	36	34	36	39	37	26	40	43	43	43	40	42	43	37	41	43	39	41	41
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	25	24	38	21	26	30	12	28	41	30	32	37	31	17	28	32	33	28	19	28	29
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	10	26	31	33	19	43	43	40	42	32	26	38	41	13	29	36	37	14	40	38	36
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	5	1	1	2	2	1	5	2	3	3	2	4	3	16	3	1	3	10	4	2	1
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	35	15	14	20	15	6	11	15	6	7	7	15	7	8	8	6	9	17	8	6	9
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	12	17	21	10	9	11	8	5	20	17	11	20	13	9	7	9	7	19	5	7	10
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	13	19	4	13	12	7	27	6	10	6	14	7	15	35	13	17	11	11	16	14	11
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	15	3	16	1	5	10	28	9	12	12	9	12	5	34	12	43	15	21	37	16	16
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	18	20	26	36	38	25	34	33	14	37	22	19	24	43	24	11	29	16	43	37	30
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	27	25	35	17	22	36	31	17	35	23	31	33	30	15	32	27	30	34	26	25	28
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	31	39	27	39	20	40	38	31	25	21	29	21	29	7	36	29	35	13	36	30	32
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	34	5	5	7	31	21	3	14	11	31	19	18	23	26	20	13	8	36	13	17	18
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	11	27	33	23	34	32	26	16	29	27	27	31	28	20	22	14	22	24	18	22	22
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	22	11	8	25	11	3	10	4	18	11	10	10	10	41	15	18	14	9	34	15	13
43	George W. Bush	Republican	36	23	42	32	41	42	18	42	19	41	40	40	38	39	39	42	38	42	38	39	39
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	32	21	7	18	13	17	16	10	13	14	18	6	16	12	16	22	16	8	21	18	15
Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	PL	CAb	RC	CAp	HE	L	AC	WR	EAp	OA	Im	DA	Int	EAb	FPA	LA	IQ	AM	EV	O

2017 C-SPAN Presidential Historian Survey

Abbreviations

• PP = Public persuasion
• CL = Crisis leadership
• EM = Economic management
• MA = Moral authority
• IR = International relations
• AS = Administrative skills
• RC = Relations with Congress
• VSA = Vision/Setting an agenda
• PEJ = Pursued equal justice for all
• PCT = Performance within context of times
• O = Overall

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Source:^[45]

Seq.	President	Political party	PP	CL	EM	MA	IR	AS	RC	VSA	PEJ	PCT	O
1	George Washington	Independent	4	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	13	1	2
2	John Adams	Federalist	22	17	15	11	13	21	24	20	15	19	19
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	8	13	13	6	11	7	5	5	17	6	7
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	18	19	19	9	22	17	13	18	18	16	17
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	17	14	18	16	7	11	9	14	25	11	13
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	33	23	17	12	15	18	32	15	9	22	21
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	7	10	26	20	20	23	21	10	38	13	18
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	30	35	40	33	26	26	28	33	30	33	34
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	28	38	38	31	42	40	38	36	37	38	38
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	39	36	39	37	28	38	41	37	41	36	39
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	13	9	14	27	16	9	11	11	36	12	14
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	27	28	28	28	30	35	35	30	34	30	31
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	40	34	34	36	34	36	36	39	39	37	37
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	41	41	41	39	40	39	40	41	42	41	41
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	43	43	42	43	43	41	42	43	43	43	43
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	3	1	2	2	3	1	4	1	1	2	1
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	42	42	37	41	39	43	43	42	40	42	42
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	19	21	27	19	19	37	20	23	10	21	22
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	29	30	25	32	33	29	30	32	32	28	32
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	21	31	29	22	36	32	27	25	20	27	29
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	37	32	31	35	35	28	29	34	27	32	35
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	20	22	24	26	23	22	22	21	31	23	23
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	32	33	32	30	27	30	26	31	24	31	30
25	William McKinley	Republican	16	16	11	18	17	13	10	17	26	18	16
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	2	5	4	5	4	4	7	4	11	4	4
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	31	26	20	25	21	12	23	28	22	24	24
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	11	11	9	8	12	8	16	7	35	10	11
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	36	39	35	40	37	42	34	40	33	40	40
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	24	29	22	21	29	25	18	29	29	26	27
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	38	40	43	29	31	14	31	38	28	39	36
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	1	3	5	3	1	3	3	3	8	3	3
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	14	4	10	10	5	10	14	13	4	5	6
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	12	6	6	4	6	5	6	16	12	7	5
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	6	7	7	15	14	16	12	9	7	9	8
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	15	20	12	24	38	6	1	8	2	14	10
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	26	27	23	42	10	24	37	24	21	34	28
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	34	24	30	23	25	27	19	35	14	25	25
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	35	37	33	14	32	31	33	22	5	29	26
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	5	8	16	13	9	33	8	6	23	8	9
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	23	12	21	17	8	16	15	27	16	20	20
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	9	18	3	38	18	20	17	19	6	17	15
43	George W. Bush	Republican	25	25	36	34	41	34	25	26	19	35	33
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	10	15	8	7	24	19	39	12	3	15	12
Seq.	President	Political party	PP	CL	EM	MA	IR	AS	RC	VSA	PEJ	PCT	O

Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2018

On February 13, 2019, Siena released its 6th presidential poll.^[46]
The poll was initiated in 1982 and occurs one year into the term of each new president. It is currently a survey of 157 presidential scholars, across a range of leadership parameters.
The ranking gave the top five spots to George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), Abraham Lincoln, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson. This top five, described as Mt. Rushmore plus FDR, was consistent with prior surveys. Washington had been ranked fourth in all previous surveys, and FDR first.
Abbreviations

• Bg = Background
• Im = Imagination
• Int = Integrity
• IQ = Intelligence
• L = Luck
• WR = Willing to take risks
• AC = Ability to compromise
• EAb = Executive ability
• LA = Leadership ability
• CAb = Communication ability
• OA = Overall ability
• PL = Party leadership
• RC = Relations with Congress
• CAp = Court appointments
• HE = Handling of economy
• EAp = Executive appointments
• DA = Domestic accomplishments
• FPA = Foreign policy accomplishments
• AM = Avoid crucial mistakes
• EV = Experts' view
• O = Overall

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	Im	Int	IQ	L	WR	AC	EAb	LA	CAb	OA	PL	RC	CAp	HE	EAp	DA	FPA	AM	EV	O
1	George Washington	Independent	7	7	1	10	1	6	2	2	1	11	2	18	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	2	1
2	John Adams	Federalist	3	13	4	4	24	14	31	21	21	13	8	28	17	4	13	15	19	13	16	10	14
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	2	2	14	1	8	5	14	6	6	4	4	5	5	7	20	4	6	9	7	5	5
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	4	6	7	3	16	15	6	13	17	10	6	9	10	6	14	7	11	19	11	8	7
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	9	14	11	18	6	16	7	10	12	15	17	12	8	11	9	9	10	5	6	9	8
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	1	9	6	5	29	19	24	22	23	12	16	29	29	15	17	18	21	15	14	18	18
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	37	15	29	28	4	4	38	11	9	18	19	6	16	30	25	25	17	23	20	19	19
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	23	22	27	25	34	28	20	28	27	25	27	16	23	25	31	26	29	27	24	28	25
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	22	38	28	37	44	32	41	38	29	31	37	36	37	42	41	40	42	44	37	39	39
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	34	33	35	34	22	26	37	36	37	34	36	41	40	38	34	36	36	26	32	36	37
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	19	10	23	23	9	7	18	7	11	16	12	10	11	22	15	16	12	8	8	13	12
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	30	26	22	32	37	24	26	26	25	32	32	35	32	37	27	33	27	30	26	30	30
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	40	37	36	38	35	38	32	37	39	40	39	40	39	39	37	37	37	37	33	37	38
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	38	39	38	40	39	38	39	39	40	41	40	39	38	41	40	39	41	39	38	40	40
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	36	43	40	39	42	41	40	42	44	42	43	42	41	43	42	43	44	43	44	44	43
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	28	1	2	2	18	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	4	3	4	2	1	6	2	1	3
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	42	42	41	42	40	34	43	43	43	44	42	44	43	44	43	42	43	41	43	43	44
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	20	24	25	24	26	18	17	27	18	26	26	24	19	24	26	38	24	24	31	24	24
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	35	30	32	29	23	35	23	33	33	30	31	33	30	27	22	30	35	31	28	29	32
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	22	25	21	20	41	30	25	25	24	23	24	27	26	34	29	27	34	34	27	25	28
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	41	31	37	36	17	33	22	30	34	36	35	34	33	33	30	31	25	32	23	31	34
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	26	23	26	27	19	27	22	19	20	19	22	20	27	20	21	23	23	21	15	22	23
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	33	34	30	35	28	36	33	35	35	35	34	31	28	35	32	34	32	29	29	33	35
25	William McKinley	Republican	29	20	20	26	32	22	21	17	19	22	20	11	12	23	16	17	20	14	13	20	20
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	5	4	8	6	2	2	15	4	4	5	5	7	7	9	3	5	4	3	5	4	4
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	12	28	12	14	27	31	19	23	26	21	23	30	21	16	19	21	18	22	19	23	22
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	8	8	19	7	14	11	35	14	14	7	14	8	14	13	11	14	14	11	25	15	11
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	39	41	42	43	33	40	34	40	41	39	41	38	35	36	35	41	38	36	39	41	41
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	32	36	17	33	13	39	27	32	38	37	33	26	24	31	24	32	33	35	22	32	31
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	13	35	15	13	43	37	36	29	36	29	29	32	33	26	44	35	39	33	40	35	36
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	6	3	16	12	5	3	4	3	3	2	3	1	3	2	2	3	3	1	4	3	2
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	31	16	9	21	12	8	12	8	10	14	10	14	15	17	8	10	7	4	9	7	9
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	11	18	5	17	7	21	5	5	5	20	7	15	9	5	6	11	8	7	3	6	6
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	14	5	31	11	31	9	8	12	8	3	11	17	13	12	7	6	15	17	18	12	10
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	15	11	34	22	25	10	9	9	13	17	9	3	2	8	12	8	5	40	35	17	16
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	16	21	43	16	36	12	30	24	28	27	25	22	34	32	23	28	22	16	42	38	29
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	18	32	10	30	30	29	11	31	30	33	30	25	25	21	33	24	31	28	21	27	27
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	25	19	3	15	38	27	29	32	32	24	28	37	36	19	38	22	28	25	34	26	26
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	27	17	24	31	3	13	10	15	7	6	18	4	6	18	18	20	16	12	12	16	13
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	10	27	18	19	20	27	13	20	22	28	21	21	20	29	28	19	26	10	17	21	21
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	21	12	39	8	11	17	3	16	15	8	13	13	18	10	5	12	9	18	30	14	15
43	George W. Bush	Republican	17	29	33	41	21	20	28	34	31	38	38	19	22	28	36	29	30	38	36	34	33
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	24	11	13	9	15	23	16	18	16	9	15	23	31	14	10	13	13	20	10	11	17
45	Donald Trump	Republican	43	40	44	44	10	25	42	41	42	43	44	43	42	40	39	44	40	42	41	42	42
Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	Im	Int	IQ	L	WR	AC	EAb	LA	CAb	OA	PL	RC	CAp	HE	EAp	DA	FPA	AM	EV	O

Memorability of the presidents

In November 2014, Henry L. Roediger III and K. Andrew DeSoto published a study in the journal Science asking research subjects to name as many presidents as possible.^[47][48] They reported data from three generations as well as from an online survey conducted in 2014. The percentage of participants in the online survey sample who could name each president was the following:

1. Barack Obama (100%)
2. Bill Clinton (96%)
3. George W. Bush or George H. W. Bush (95%)
4. George Washington (94%)
5. Abraham Lincoln (88%)
6. John F. Kennedy (83%)
7. Richard Nixon (82%)
8. Jimmy Carter (79%)
9. Thomas Jefferson (72%)
10. Ronald Reagan (66%)
11. Gerald Ford (62%)
12. Franklin D. Roosevelt or Theodore Roosevelt (60%)
13. John Adams or John Quincy Adams (56%)
14. Dwight D. Eisenhower (54%)
15. Harry S. Truman (50%)
16. Andrew Jackson (47%)
17. Herbert Hoover (42%)
18. Andrew Johnson or Lyndon B. Johnson (41%)
19. William Howard Taft (39%)
20. James Madison (38%)
21. Ulysses S. Grant (38%)
22. James Monroe (30%)
23. Woodrow Wilson (29%)
24. Calvin Coolidge (22%)
25. James A. Garfield (19%)
26. James K. Polk (17%)
27. Warren G. Harding (16%)
28. William McKinley (15%)
29. John Tyler (12%)
30. James Buchanan (12%)
31. Grover Cleveland (11%)
32. William Henry Harrison or Benjamin Harrison (11%)
33. Martin Van Buren (11%)
34. Rutherford B. Hayes (10%)
35. Zachary Taylor (10%)
36. Millard Fillmore (8%)
37. Franklin Pierce (7%)
38. Chester A. Arthur (7%)

Criticism and alternatives

David H. Donald, noted biographer of Abraham Lincoln, relates that when he met John F. Kennedy in 1961, Kennedy voiced his deep dissatisfaction and resentment with historians who had rated some of his predecessors. Kennedy said: "No one has a right to grade a president—even poor James Buchanan—who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions".^[49] Historian and political scientist Julian E. Zelizer argues that traditional presidential rankings explain little concerning actual presidential history and that they are "weak mechanisms for evaluating what has taken place in the White House".^[50]
Ivan Eland's Recarving Rushmore (2008)

Libertarian political commentator Ivan Eland wrote a book titled Recarving Rushmore (2008; updated 2014) in which he wrote that historians' criteria are poor in their capacity to reflect presidents' actual services to the country. In the book, Eland chose to rate 40 presidents on the basis of whether their policies promoted prosperity, liberty and non-interventionism as well as modest executive roles for themselves—his final rankings varied significantly from those of most scholars.
Racial Equality Assessments

In 2002, Ron Walters, former director of the University of Maryland's African American Leadership Institute, stated that presidents ranked by how each one balanced the interests of majority interests and the interests of excluded groups was practical in respect to American debate on racial politics. presidents have traditionally been ranked on personal qualities and their leadership ability to solve problems that move the nation in a positive direction. Walters stated there was a qualitative difference between white and African-American intellectuals in evaluating presidents. In the 1996 New York Times poll by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., 31 white historians and one black historian ranked presidents on differing categories of greatness. In a survey done by professors Hanes Walton Jr. and Robert Smith and in their text book American Politics And The African American Quest For Universal Freedom, 44 African-American political scientists and historians ranked presidents in terms of racial attitudes and racial legislation proposed.^[51] Individual presidents' attitudes, policies and perspectives were historically ranked in five categories: White Supremacist; Racist; Racially Neutral; Racially Ambivalent; Antiracist.^[52]
Northwestern Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion Survey (2019)

In May 2019, the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, "in conjunction the Dr. Christina Greer of Fordham University, the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy’s conducted a poll of 113 academic researchers and asked them to rate the 14 modern presidents on both their overall leadership and rhetoric on diversity and inclusion using a scale ranging from 0 to 100." ^[53] Survey respondents were significantly more liberal than the national average, with "with only 13 percent of the respondents describing themselves as either moderate, slightly conservative, or conservative." However, "similar patterns of ratings [were stated to be found] across the ideological spectrum".^[53]
Overall (Performance + Diversity and Inclusion Score)

1.) Franklin Roosevelt (83/100)
2.) Barack Obama (77/100)
3.) Lyndon Johnson (69/100)
4.) Bill Clinton (62/100)
5.) John Kennedy (61/100)
6.) Harry Truman (57/100)
7.) Dwight Eisenhower (54.4/100)
8.) Ronald Reagan (54.1/100)
9.) Jimmy Carter (50/100)
10.) George H. W. Bush (49/100)
11.) Gerald Ford (39/100)
12.) George W. Bush (38/100)
13.) Richard Nixon (32/100)
14.) Donald Trump (11/100)
Diversity and Inclusion Leadership Score (Without Including Overall Leadership)

1.) Barack Obama (75/100)
2.) Bill Clinton (54/100)
3.) Jimmy Carter (43/100)
4.) George W. Bush (41/100)
5.) Lyndon Johnson (40/100)
6.) George H. W. Bush (34/100)
7.) Franklin Roosevelt (31/100)
8.) Gerald Ford (30/100)
9.) John F. Kennedy (28.4/100)
10.) Harry Truman (28/100)
11.) Ronald Reagan (27.8/100)
12.) Dwight Eisenhower (26/100)
13.) Richard Nixon (24/100)
14.) Donald Trump (9/100)
See also

• Historical rankings of Chancellors of Germany
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of Australia
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of Canada
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the Netherlands
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Footnotes

• ^ Quartiles were determined by splitting the data into an upper and lower half and then splitting these into the first two and last two quartiles, respectively. When splitting an odd number of values, the median was included in the upper half.

References

• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c} Maranell, Gary M. (June 1970). "The Evaluation of Presidents: An Extension of the Schlesinger Polls". The Journal of American History. 57 (1): 104–113. doi:10.2307/1900552. JSTOR 1900552.
• ^ William J. Ridings Jr. and Stuart B. McIver. Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. 2000. ISBN 0806521511.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Americans Say Reagan Is the Greatest U.S. President". Gallup.com. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
• ^ Skidmore. 2001.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Schlesinger, Arthur M. "Our Presidents: A Rating by 75 Historians". The New York Times. July 1962. pp. 12–13, 40–41, 43.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Rating the Presidents: Washington to Clinton". Retrieved March 25, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. 2000. ISBN 0806521511.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Presidential Leadership; The Rankings". Wall Street Journal Online. September 12, 2005. Archived from the original on February 7, 2006.
• ^ "About the Presidents Study". Retrieved September 24, 2019.
• ^ "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018". Retrieved September 24,2019.
• ^ "Historians Give Good Grades to Clinton Presidency in Siena College Survey". January 11, 1995. Archived June 28, 2006.
• ^ "FDR America's Greatest President". August 19, 2002. Archived February 10, 2007.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Experts: Bush Presidency Is A Failure; Little Chance To Improve Ranking". Archived May 27, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. Siena Research Institute. May 1, 2006.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents" Archived July 7, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Siena Research Institute. July 1, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Thomas, G. Scott (July 1, 2010). "Clean sweep for the Roosevelts". Business First of Buffalo. Retrieved September 1, 2010.
• ^ "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018". Retrieved September 24,2019.
• ^ "C-SPAN Releases Second Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership". C-SPAN. February 15, 2009.
• ^ "Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. February 17, 2017.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "C-SPAN Releases Third Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership". C-SPAN. February 17, 2017.
• ^ "Methodology: Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. February 17, 2017.
• ^ Griffin, Jeremy; Hines, Nico (October 28, 2008). "Who's the greatest? The Times US presidential rankings". The Times. London. Retrieved March 24, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Iwan Morgan. "UK Survey of US Presidents: Results and Analysis". Retrieved October 10, 2013.
• ^ "From Franklin Delano Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, Newsweek's 10 Best Presidents (Photos)". The Daily Beast. September 24, 2012. Retrieved April 13,2014.
• ^ HNN Staff (September 8, 2013). "Historians Give Barack Obama a B-". History News Network. Retrieved April 13, 2014.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Brandon Rottinghaus (February 13, 2015). "Measuring Obama against the great presidents". The Brookings Institution.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?". The New York Times. February 19, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2018.
• ^ "Lincoln Wins: Honest Abe tops new presidential survey". CNN. February 16, 2009. Retrieved October 30, 2010.
• ^ "Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
• ^ "Presidents 2018 Rank by Category" (PDF). Retrieved February 19, 2019.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d} Tyler was elected on the Whig ticket as Harrison's vice president, but Tyler became an independent after the Whigs expelled him from the party in 1841.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d} Johnson was a former War Democrat elected on the National Union ticket as Lincoln's vice president, but by 1868 the National Union Party disbanded.
• ^ Murray and Blessing. p. 135.
• ^ "Washington, Lincoln Most Popular Presidents: Nixon, Bush Least Popular - Rasmussen Reports™". Rasmussenreports.com. July 4, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
• ^ "Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest". Gallup. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
• ^ "JFK, Reagan, Clinton most popular recent ex-presidents". September 15, 2011.
• ^ "Kennedy and Reagan Lead List of Good Presidents for Americans". Angus Reid Public Opinion. Archived August 22, 2012, at the Wayback MachineRetrieved August 22, 2012.
• ^ "Americans Rate JFK as Top Modern President". Gallup. Archived from the original on August 1, 2016.
• ^ The weights were 5 for "Outstanding", 4 for "Above Average", 3 for "Average", 2 for "Below Average" and 1 for "Poor".
• ^ "National (US) Poll – July 2, 2014 – Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better". Quinnipiac University.
• ^ "Trump Starts In The Hole As U.S. Voters Disapprove, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Reagan, Obama Are Best Presidents In 70 Years". Quinnipiac University.
• ^ "Morning Consult National Tracking Poll February 09–10,2017". Politico.
• ^ "Poll: Trump and Obama Are America's Worst Presidents Since World War II". Morning Consult. February 15, 2017.
• ^ "QU Poll Release Detail". Quinnipiac University. March 7, 2018. Retrieved March 10, 2018.
• ^ "Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents". Siena College. July 1, 2010. Archived from the original on July 6, 2010. Retrieved May 19, 2017.
• ^ "All Presidents - C-SPAN Survey on Presidents 2017". C-SPAN. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
• ^ "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018".
• ^ Roediger, Henry L.; DeSoto, K. Andrew (November 28, 2014), "Forgetting the Presidents", Science, 346 (6213): 1106–1109, Bibcode:2014Sci...346.1106R, doi:10.1126/science.1259627, PMID 25430768
• ^ Carey, Benedict (November 27, 2014). "Study on Cultural Memory Confirms: Chester A. Arthur, We Hardly Knew Ye". The New York Times. Retrieved September 11, 2015.
• ^ Donald, David H. Lincoln. 1995. p. 13.
• ^ Zelizer (February 21, 2011). "What's wrong with presidential rankings". CNN Opinion.
• ^ Walters (July 8, 2002)."Presidency: How Do African-American Scholars Rank Presidents?". History News Network.
• ^ Walton Jr., Hanes; Smith, Robert C. (2000). American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. pp. 201–202.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Tillery Jr., Alvin (May 31, 2019). "The First-Ever Expert Survey on Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion" (PDF). Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy. Retrieved June 25, 2019.

Further reading

• Bailey, Thomas A. (1966). Presidential Greatness: The Image and the Man from George Washington to the Present. New York: Appleton-Century. → A non-quantitative appraisal by leading historian.
• Bose, Meena; Landis Mark (2003). The Uses and Abuses of Presidential Ratings. New York: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1590337943. → A collection of essays by presidential scholars.
• DeGregorio, William A. (1993). The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents (4th, rev., expanded, and up-dated ed.). New York: Barricade Books. ISBN 978-0942637922. → Contains the results of the 1962 and 1982 surveys.
• Eland, Ivan (2009). Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty. Oakland, California: Independent Institute. ISBN 978-1598130225.
• Faber, Charles; Faber, Richard (2000). The American Presidents Ranked by Performance. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Co. ISBN 978-0786407651.
• Felzenberg, Alvin S. (1997). "There You Go Again: Liberal Historians and the New York Times Deny Ronald Reagan His Due". Policy Review. 82: 51–54. ISSN 0146-5945.
• Holli, Melvin G. (1999). The American Mayor: The Best & the Worst Big-City Leaders. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0271018768.
• Merry, Robert W. Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians (2012).
• Miller, Nathan (1998). Star-Spangled Men America's Ten Worst Presidents. New York: Scribner. ISBN 978-0684836102.
• Murray, Robert K.; Blessing, Tim H. (1994). Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, from Washington Through Ronald Reagan (2., updated ed.). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0271010892.
• Nichols, Curt (2012). "The Presidential Ranking Game: Critical Review and Some New Discoveries". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 42 (2): 275–299. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2012.03966.x. ISSN 0360-4918.
• Pfiffner, James P. (2003). "Ranking the Presidents: Continuity and Volatility" (PDF). White House Studies. 3: 23. ISSN 1535-4768.
• Ridings Jr., William J.; McIver, Stuart B. (1997). Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing. ISBN 978-0806517995.
• Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (1997). "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton". Political Science Quarterly. 112 (2): 179–190. doi:10.2307/2657937. JSTOR 2657937.
• Skidmore, Max J. (2004). Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Co. ISBN 978-0786418206.
• Skidmore, Max J. (2001). "Ranking and Evaluating Presidents: The Case of Theodore Roosevelt". White House Studies. 1 (4): 495–505. ISSN 1535-4768.
• Taranto, James; Leo, Leonard (2004). Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House. New York: Wall Street Journal Books. ISBN 978-0743254335. → For Federalist Society surveys.
• Vedder, Richard; Gallaway, Lowell (2001). "Rating Presidential Performance". In Denson, John V. (ed.). Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 978-0945466291.

External links

• "Ranking Presidents: Utter Nonsense Or Useful Analysis?". 2001 column by John Dean.
• "List of presidential rankings". Historians rank the 42 men who have held the office. AP via MSNBC. February 16, 2009, poll.

hide v t e Lists related to the presidents and vice presidents of the United States
List of presidents List of vice presidents
Presidents	Age Autobiographies Burial places Death Historical rankings Lifespan timeline Number living Official vehicles Portraits Time in office
Professional careers	Approval rating Assassination attempts and plots Campaign slogans Control of Congress Doctrines Elections lost Inaugurations International trips Judicial appointments Libraries Military rank Military service Other offices held Pardons Previous experience Vetoes
Personal life	Coats of arms Deaths in office Education Facial hair Firsts Freemasons Multilingualism Net worth Nicknames Pets Home state Religious affiliation Residences Slave owners
Vice presidents	Age Burial places Coats of arms Education Number living Other offices held Place of primary affiliation Religious affiliation Tie-breaking votes Time in office
Succession	Acting President Designated survivor Line of succession
Elections	Electoral College margin Popular vote margin Summary Winner lost popular vote Contingent elections
Candidates	Democrat Republican Third party Green Libertarian Federalist Democratic-Republican National Republican/Whig African American Female Received at least one electoral vote Number of votes received Height Unsuccessful major party candidates Unsuccessful major party vice presidential candidates Lost their home state Firsts
Families	First families First ladies Second ladies Children
Namesakes, honors	Memorial sites U.S. postage stamp appearances Educational institution names Currency appearances U.S. county names U.S. Senate vice presidential bust collection
In fiction	Presidents actors Vice Presidents actors Candidates Line of succession
United States Portal Biography Portal Presidents of the United States

[Parkbandit]

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search

In political studies, surveys have been conducted in order to construct historical rankings of the success of individuals who have served as the president of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults.^[1][2][3]

In the 1920s, sculptor Gutzon Borglum and President Calvin Coolidge selected George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln to appear on Mount Rushmore—it later became an iconic symbol of presidential greatness.

Contents

• 1General findings
• 2Notable scholar surveys
• 3Scholar survey results
• 4Murray-Blessing 1982 survey
• 5Public opinion polls
  
  • 5.1Rasmussen poll
  • 5.2Gallup poll
  
  
• 6Public opinion polls on recent presidents
  
  • 6.12010 Gallup poll
  • 6.2Public Policy Polling
  • 6.3Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll
  • 6.42013 Gallup poll
  • 6.52014 Quinnipiac poll
  • 6.62017 Quinnipiac poll
  • 6.72017 Morning Consult poll
  • 6.82018 Quinnipiac poll
  
  
• 7Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2010
• 82017 C-SPAN Presidential Historian Survey
• 9Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2018
• 10Memorability of the presidents
• 11Criticism and alternatives
  
  • 11.1Ivan Eland's Recarving Rushmore (2008)
  • 11.2Racial Equality Assessments
    
    • 11.2.1Northwestern Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion Survey (2019)
      
      • 11.2.1.1Overall (Performance + Diversity and Inclusion Score)
      • 11.2.1.2Diversity and Inclusion Leadership Score (Without Including Overall Leadership)
  
  
• 12See also
• 13Footnotes
• 14References
• 15Further reading
• 16External links

General findings

Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington are most often listed as the three highest-rated presidents among historians. The remaining places within the Top 10 are often rounded out by Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy. More recent presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are often rated among the greatest in public opinion polls, but do not always rank as highly among presidential scholars and historians. The bottom 10 often include James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Ulysses S. Grant, Zachary Taylor, George W. Bush, and/or Donald Trump. Because William Henry Harrison (30 days) and James A. Garfield (200 days, incapacitated after 119 days) both died shortly after taking office, they are usually omitted from presidential rankings. Furthermore, Zachary Taylor died after serving as president for only 16 months, but he is usually included. In the case of these three, it is not clear if they received low rankings due to their actions as president, or because each was in office for such a limited time that it is not possible to assess them more thoroughly.
Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham noted the "dichotomous or schizoid profiles" of presidents, which can make some hard to classify. Historian Alan Brinkley stated that "there are presidents who could be considered both failures and great or near great (for example, Nixon)". Historian and political scientist James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon: "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"^[4]
Notable scholar surveys

Abraham Lincoln is often considered the greatest president for his leadership during the American Civil War and his eloquence in speeches such as the Gettysburg Address.

James Buchanan is often considered the worst president for his inept leadership during the years leading up to the Civil War.

The 1948 poll was conducted by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. of Harvard University.^[1] The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger, who surveyed 75 historians.^[5] Schlesinger's son, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., conducted another poll in 1996.^[6]
The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents also gives the results of the 1982 survey, a poll of 49 historians conducted by the Chicago Tribune. A notable difference from the 1962 Schlesinger poll was the ranking of Dwight D. Eisenhower, which rose from 22nd in 1962 to 9th in 1982.
The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1988 to 1996 by William J. Ridings Jr. and Stuart B. McIver and published in Rating The Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. Leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent.^[7] More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part. Participants from every state were included and emphasis was placed upon getting input from female historians and "specialists in African-American studies" as well as a few non-American historians. Poll respondents rated the presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments and crisis management, political skill, appointments and character and integrity) and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.
A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at 8th. Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.
Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.^[8] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight". Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".
The Siena College Research Institute of Siena College has conducted surveys in 1982, 1990, 1994, 2002, 2010, and 2018—during the second year of the first term of each president since Ronald Reagan.^[9] These surveys collect presidential rankings from historians, political scientists, and presidential scholars in a range of attributes, abilities, and accomplishments.^[10] The 1994 survey placed only two presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points and two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding, below 50 points.^[11][12]
A 2006 Siena College poll of 744 professors reported the following results:^[13]

• "George W. Bush has just finished five years as President. If today were the last day of his presidency, how would you rank him? The responses were: Great: 2%; Near Great: 5%; Average: 11%; Below Average: 24%; Failure: 58%"
• "In your judgment, do you think he has a realistic chance of improving his rating?" Two-thirds (67%) responded no; less than a quarter (23%) responded yes; and 10% chose "no opinion or not applicable"

Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do". Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow".^[13]
The 2010 Siena poll of 238 presidential scholars found that former president George W. Bush was ranked 39th out of 43, with poor ratings in handling of the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence. Meanwhile, the then-current president Barack Obama was ranked 15th out of 43, with high ratings for imagination, communication ability and intelligence and a low rating for background (family, education and experience).^[14][15]
The 2018 Siena poll of 157 presidential scholars reported George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson as the top five US presidents, with SCRI director Don Levy stating, "The top five, Mount Rushmore plus FDR, is carved in granite with presidential historians...."^[16] Donald J. Trump—entering the SCRI survey for the first time—joined Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce among the bottom five US presidents. George W. Bush, who presidential scholars had rated among the bottom five in the previous 2010 survey, improved to a position in the third quartile.
The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and biographers. The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership has taken place three times: in 2000, 2009 and 2017.^[17][18][19] The most recent survey was of 91 presidential historians, surveyed by C-SPAN's Academic Advisor Team, made up of Douglas G. Brinkley, Edna Greene Medford and Richard Norton Smith. In the survey, each historian rates each president on a scale of one ("not effective") to 10 ("very effective") on presidential leadership in ten categories: Public Persuasion, Crisis Leadership, Economic Management, Moral Authority, International Relations, Administrative Skills, Relations with Congress, Vision/Setting An Agenda, Pursued Equal Justice for All and Performance Within the Context of His Times—each category is equally weighed.^[20] The results of all three C-SPAN surveys have been fairly consistent. Abraham Lincoln has taken the highest ranking in each survey and George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt have always ranked in the top five while James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce have been ranked at the bottom of all three surveys.^[19]
In 2008, The Times daily newspaper of London asked eight of its own "top international and political commentators" to rank all 42 presidents "in order of greatness".^[21]
In 2011, through the agency of its United States Presidency Centre (USPC), the Institute for the Study of the Americas (located in the University of London's School of Advanced Study) released the first ever United Kingdom academic survey to rate presidents. This polled the opinion of British specialists in American history and politics to assess presidential performance. They also gave an interim assessment of Barack Obama, but his unfinished presidency was not included in the survey (had he been included, he would have attained eighth place overall).^[22]
In 2012, Newsweek magazine asked a panel of historians to rank the ten best presidents since 1900. The results showed that historians had ranked Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama as the best since that year.^[23]
A 2013 History News Network poll of 203 American historians, when asked to rate Obama's presidency on an A–F scale, gave him a B- grade. Obama, whom historians graded using 15 separate measures plus an overall grade, was rated most highly in the categories of communication ability, integrity and crisis management; and most poorly for his relationship with Congress, transparency and accountability.^[24]
A 2015 poll administered by the American Political Science Association (APSA) among political scientists specializing in the American presidency had Abraham Lincoln in the top spot, with George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson making the top 10.^[25] APSA conducted a repeat of this poll in 2018, with Donald Trump appearing for the first time, in last position.^[26]
Scholar survey results

Within each column:^{[note 1]}

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Note: click the "sort" icon at the head of each column to view the rankings for each survey in numerical order.

No.	President	Political party	Schl. 1948[1]	Schl. 1962[5]	M-B 1982	CT 1982	Siena 1982	Siena 1990	Siena 1994	R-McI 1996[7]	Schl. 1996[6]	C-SPAN 2000	WSJ 2000	Siena 2002	WSJ 2005[8]	C-SPAN 2009[27]	Siena 2010[14][15]	USPC 2011[22]	APSA 2015[25]	C-SPAN 2017[28]	APSA 2018[26]	Siena 2018[29]	Most frequent quartile
1	George Washington	Independent	02	02	03	02	04	04	04	03	02 (tie)	03	01	04	01	02	04	03	02	02	02	01	1
2	John Adams	Federalist	09	10	09	15	10	14	12	14	11	16	13	12	13	17	17	12	15	19	14	14	2
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	05	05	04	05	02	03	05	04	04	07	04	05	04	07	05	04	05	07	05	05	1
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	14	12	14	17	09	08	09	10	17	18	15	09	17	20	06	14	13	17	12	07	2
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	12	18	15	16	15	11	15	13	15	14	16	08	16	14	07	13	16	13	18	08	2
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	11	13	16	19	17	16	17	18	18	19	20	17	25	19	19	20	22	21	23	18	2
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	06	06	07	07	13	09	11	08	05	13	06	13	10	13	14	09	09	18	15	19	1
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	15	17	20	18	21	21	22	21	21	30	23	24	27	31	23	27	25	34	27	25	3
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	–	–	–	–	26	35	28	35	–	37	–	36	–	39	35	–	39	38	42	39	4
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	22	25	28	28	34	33	34	34	32	36	34	37	35	35	37	37	36	39	37	37	4
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	10	08 (tie)	12	10	12	13	14	11	09	12	10	11	09	12	12	16	19	14	20	12	2
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	25	24	27	26	29	34	33	29	29	28	31	34	33	29	33	33	33	31	35	30	3
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	24	26	29	31	32	32	35	36	31	35	35	38	36	37	38	35	37	37	38	38	4
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	27	28	31	33	35	36	37	37	33 (tie)	39	37 (tie)	39	38	40	40	39	40	41	41	40	4
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	26	29	33	34	37	38	39	40	38	41	39	41	40	42	42	40	43	43	43	43	4
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	01	01	01	01	03	02	02	01	01	01	02	02	02	01	03	02	01	01	01	03	1
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	19	23	32	30	38	39	40	39	37	40	36	42	37	41	43	36	41	42	40	44	4
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	28	30	35	32	36	37	38	38	33 (tie)	33	32	35	29	23	26	29	28	22	21	24	4
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	13	14	22	22	22	23	24	25	23	26	22	27	24	33	31	30	30	32	29	32	3
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	–	–	–	–	25	30	26	30	–	29	–	33	–	28	27	–	31	29	34	28	3
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	17	21 (tie)	23	24	24	26	27	28	26	32	26	30	26	32	25	32	32	35	31	34	3
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	08	11	17	13	18	17	19	16	13	17	12	20	12	21	20	21	23	23	24	23	2
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	21	20	26	25	31	29	30	31	19	31	27	32	30	30	34	34	29	30	32	35	3
25	William McKinley	Republican	18	15	18	11	19	19	18	17	16	15	14	19	14	16	21	17	21	16	19	20	2
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	07	07	05	04	05	05	03	05	06	04	05	03	05	04	02	05	04	04	04	04	1
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	16	16	19	20	20	20	21	20	22	24	19	21	20	24	24	25	20	24	22	22	2
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	04	04	06	06	06	06	06	06	07	06	11	06	11	09	08	06	10	11	11	11	1
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	29	31	36	36	39	40	41	41	39	38	37 (tie)	40	39	38	41	38	42	40	39	41	4
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	23	27	30	29	30	31	36	33	30	27	25	29	23	26	29	28	27	27	28	31	3
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	20	19	21	21	27	28	29	24	33 (tie)	34	29	31	31	34	36	26	38	36	36	36	3
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	03	03	02	03	01	01	01	02	02 (tie)	02	03	01	03	03	01	01	03	03	03	02	1
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	–	08 (tie)	08	08	07	07	07	07	08	05	07	07	07	05	09	07	06	06	06	09	1
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	–	21 (tie)	11	09	11	12	08	09	10	09	09	10	08	08	10	10	07	05	07	06	1
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	–	–	13	14	08	10	10	15	12	08	18	14	15	06	11	15	14	08	16	10	2
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	–	–	10	12	14	15	13	12	14	10	17	15	18	11	16	11	12	10	10	16	2
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	–	–	34	35	28	25	23	32	36	25	33	26	32	27	30	23	34	28	33	29	3
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	–	–	24	23	23	27	32	27	28	23	28	28	28	22	28	24	24	25	25	27	3
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	–	–	25	27	33	24	25	19	27	22	30	25	34	25	32	18	26	26	26	26	3
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	–	–	–	–	16 *	22	20	26	25	11	08	16	06	10	18	08	11	09	09	13	1
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	–	–	–	–	–	18 *	31	22	24	20	21	22	21	18	22	22	17	20	17	21	2
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	–	–	–	–	–	–	16 *	23 *	20 *	21 *	24 *	18	22	15	13	19	08	15	13	15	2
43	George W. Bush	Republican	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	23 *	19 *	36	39	31	35	33	30	33	3
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	15 *	–	18 *	12	08	17	2
45	Donald Trump	Republican	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	44 *	42 *	4 *
Total in survey			29	31	36	36	39	40	41	41	39	41	39	42	40	42	43	40	43	43	44	44	44

* Ranking calculated before president had completed his term in office.Note: Grover Cleveland was elected to two non-consecutive terms, serving as both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States; he is the only person to have held the office in non-consecutive terms. Because Cleveland had two presidencies, the number of persons who have served as president is one less than the number of presidents in order of succession.
William Henry Harrison and James Garfield are sometimes omitted from rankings of the presidents because of the brevity of their terms in office.

Murray-Blessing 1982 survey

The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey asked historians whether they were liberal or conservative on domestic, social and economic issues.^[32] The table below shows that the two groups had only small differences in ranking the best and worst presidents. Both groups agreed on the composition of nine of the top ten presidents (and were split over the inclusion of either Lyndon B. Johnson or Dwight D. Eisenhower) and six of the worst seven (split over Jimmy Carter or Calvin Coolidge).

Rank	Liberals (n = 190)	Conservatives (n = 50)
1	Abraham Lincoln	Abraham Lincoln
2	Franklin D. Roosevelt	George Washington
3	George Washington	Franklin D. Roosevelt
4	Thomas Jefferson	Thomas Jefferson
5	Theodore Roosevelt	Theodore Roosevelt
6	Woodrow Wilson	Andrew Jackson
7	Andrew Jackson	Harry S. Truman
8	Harry S. Truman	Woodrow Wilson
9	Lyndon B. Johnson	Dwight D. Eisenhower
10	John Adams	John Adams
30	Calvin Coolidge	Jimmy Carter
31	Franklin Pierce	Richard Nixon
32	James Buchanan	Franklin Pierce
33	Andrew Johnson	Andrew Johnson
34	Ulysses S. Grant	James Buchanan
35	Richard Nixon	Ulysses S. Grant
36	Warren G. Harding	Warren G. Harding

Public opinion polls

Rasmussen poll

According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.^[33]

President	Favorable	Unfavorable	Net favorable
George Washington	94	2	92
Abraham Lincoln	92	4	88
Thomas Jefferson	89	4	85
Theodore Roosevelt	84	8	76
Franklin D. Roosevelt	81	12	69
John F. Kennedy	80	13	67
John Adams	74	9	65
James Madison	73	8	65
Ronald Reagan	72	22	50
Dwight D. Eisenhower	72	15	57
Harry S. Truman	70	14	56
Andrew Jackson	69	14	55
Gerald Ford	62	26	36
John Quincy Adams	59	7	52
Ulysses S. Grant	58	24	34
George H. W. Bush	57	41	16
Jimmy Carter	57	34	23
William Howard Taft	57	15	42
Woodrow Wilson	56	19	37
Bill Clinton	55	41	14
James Monroe	49	10	39
Herbert Hoover	48	34	14
Lyndon B. Johnson	45	42	3
Andrew Johnson	45	26	19
Chester A. Arthur	43	17	26
James A. Garfield	42	16	26
William McKinley	42	24	18
George W. Bush	41	59	−18
Grover Cleveland	40	26	14
Calvin Coolidge	38	31	7
Rutherford B. Hayes	38	19	19
Richard Nixon	32	60	−28
Benjamin Harrison	30	35	−5
Warren G. Harding	29	33	−4
James Buchanan	28	32	−4
James K. Polk	27	21	6
Zachary Taylor	26	18	8
Martin Van Buren	23	19	4
William Henry Harrison	21	16	5
Franklin Pierce	17	25	−8
Millard Fillmore	17	25	−8
John Tyler	9	15	−6

Gallup poll

A Gallup poll about presidential greatness taken February 2–5, 2011, asked 1,015 adults in the United States the following question: "Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?".^[3]

1. Ronald Reagan (19%)
2. Abraham Lincoln (14%)
3. Bill Clinton (13%)
4. John F. Kennedy (11%)
5. George Washington (10%)
6. Franklin Roosevelt (8%)
7. Barack Obama (5%)
8. Theodore Roosevelt (3%)
9. Harry S. Truman (3%)
10. George W. Bush (2%)
11. Thomas Jefferson (2%)
12. Jimmy Carter (1%)
13. Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
14. George H. W. Bush (1%)
15. Andrew Jackson (<0.5%)
16. Lyndon B. Johnson (<0.5%)
17. Richard Nixon (<0.5%)

In addition, "Other" received 1%, "None" received 1% and "No opinion" received 5%.
Public opinion polls on recent presidents

These polls evaluate recent presidents only.
2010 Gallup poll

A Gallup poll taken on November 19–21, 2010, asked 1,037 Americans to say, based on what they know or remember about the nine most recent former presidents, whether they approve or disapprove of how each handled his job in office.^[34]

1. John F. Kennedy (85% approval/10% disapproval)
2. Ronald Reagan (74% approval/24% disapproval)
3. Bill Clinton (69% approval/30% disapproval)
4. George H. W. Bush (64% approval/34% disapproval)
5. Gerald Ford (61% approval/26% disapproval)
6. Jimmy Carter (52% approval/42% disapproval)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (49% approval/36% disapproval)
8. George W. Bush (47% approval/51% disapproval)
9. Richard Nixon (29% approval/65% disapproval)

Public Policy Polling

A Public Policy Polling poll taken between September 8–11, 2011, asked 665 American voters, based on what they know or remember about the nine then-most recent former presidents, whether they hold favorable or unfavorable views of how each handled his job in office.^[35]

1. John F. Kennedy (74% favorability/15% unfavorability)
2. Ronald Reagan (60% favorability/30% unfavorability)
3. Bill Clinton (62% favorability/34% unfavorability)
4. George H. W. Bush (53% favorability/35% unfavorability)
5. Gerald Ford (45% favorability/26% unfavorability)
6. Jimmy Carter (45% favorability/43% unfavorability)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (36% favorability/39% unfavorability)
8. George W. Bush (41% favorability/51% unfavorability)
9. Richard Nixon (19% favorability/62% unfavorability)

Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll

A Vision Critical/Angus Reid Public Opinion poll taken on February 18–19, 2011, asked 1,010 respondents about 11 former presidents plus the current president and whether each was a good or bad president.^[36]

1. John F. Kennedy (80% approval/6% disapproval)
2. Ronald Reagan (72% approval/16% disapproval)
3. Bill Clinton (65% approval/24% disapproval)
4. Dwight D. Eisenhower (61% approval/6% disapproval)
5. Harry S. Truman (57% approval/7% disapproval)
6. Jimmy Carter (47% approval/28% disapproval)
7. George H. W. Bush (44% approval/38% disapproval)
8. Barack Obama (41% approval/33% disapproval)
9. Gerald Ford (37% approval/25% disapproval)
10. Lyndon B. Johnson (33% approval/27% disapproval)
11. George W. Bush (30% approval/55% disapproval)
12. Richard Nixon (24% approval/54% disapproval)

2013 Gallup poll

A Gallup poll taken November 7–10, 2013, asked 1,039 adults in the United States the following question: "How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history—as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?".^[37]

President	Outstanding	Above average	Average	Below average	Poor	No opinion	Weighted average[38]
Dwight D. Eisenhower	10%	39%	36%	2%	1%	12%	3.63
John F. Kennedy	18%	56%	19%	2%	1%	4%	3.92
Lyndon B. Johnson	4%	16%	46%	14%	8%	12%	2.93
Richard Nixon	2%	13%	27%	29%	23%	6%	2.38
Gerald Ford	2%	14%	56%	15%	5%	8%	2.92
Jimmy Carter	4%	19%	37%	20%	15%	6%	2.76
Ronald Reagan	19%	42%	27%	6%	4%	2%	3.67
George H. W. Bush	3%	24%	48%	12%	10%	2%	2.98
Bill Clinton	11%	44%	29%	9%	6%	1%	3.45
George W. Bush	3%	18%	36%	20%	23%	1%	2.58
Barack Obama	6%	22%	31%	18%	22%	1%	2.72

2014 Quinnipiac poll

A Quinnipiac University poll taken June 24–30, 2014, asked 1,446 registered voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[39]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (35%)
2. Bill Clinton (18%)
3. John F. Kennedy (15%)
4. Barack Obama (8%)
5. Dwight Eisenhower (5%)
6. Harry S. Truman (4%)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (3%)
8. George H. W. Bush (tie) (3%)
9. Jimmy Carter (2%)
10. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
11. Gerald Ford (tie) (1%)
12. George W. Bush (tie) (1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Barack Obama (33%)
2. George W. Bush (28%)
3. Richard Nixon (13%)
4. Jimmy Carter (8%)
5. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (3%)
6. Ronald Reagan (tie) (3%)
7. Bill Clinton (tie) (3%)
8. Gerald Ford (tie) (2%)
9. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
10. Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
11. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)

2017 Quinnipiac poll

Four years later, a Quinnipiac University poll taken January 20–25, 2017, asked 1,190 voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[40]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (30%)
2. Barack Obama (29%)
3. John F. Kennedy (12%)
4. Bill Clinton (9%)
5. Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (3%)
6. George W. Bush (tie) (3%)
7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (2%)
8. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (2%)
9. Jimmy Carter (tie) (2%)
10. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
11. Richard Nixon (tie) (<1%)
12. Gerald R. Ford (tie) (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Richard Nixon (24%)
2. Barack Obama (23%)
3. George W. Bush (22%)
4. Jimmy Carter (10%)
5. Ronald Reagan (5%)
6. Bill Clinton (4%)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (3%)
8. George H. W. Bush (2%)
9. Gerald R. Ford (1%)
10. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
11. Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (<1%)
12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)

2017 Morning Consult poll

Including for the first time President Donald Trump, a Morning Consult poll taken February 9–10, 2017, asked 1,791 registered voters in the United States, who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[41][42]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (26%)
2. Barack Obama (20%)
3. John F. Kennedy (17%)
4. Bill Clinton (9%)
5. Donald Trump (6%)
6. George W. Bush (tie) (2%)
7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (2%)
8. Jimmy Carter (tie) (2%)
9. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
10. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
11. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (1%)
12. Gerald R. Ford (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Donald Trump (26%)
2. Barack Obama (25%)
3. Richard Nixon (13%)
4. George W. Bush (7%)
5. Bill Clinton (6%)
6. Jimmy Carter (5%)
7. George H. W. Bush (3%)
8. Lyndon B. Johnson (2%)
9. Ronald Reagan (tie) (1%)
10. Gerald R. Ford (tie) (1%)
11. Dwight D. Eisenhower (tie) (1%)
12. Harry S. Truman (tie) (1%)
13. John F. Kennedy (<1%)

2018 Quinnipiac poll

A Quinnipiac University poll taken March 3–5, 2018, asked 1,122 voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.^[43]
Best President since World War II:

1. Ronald Reagan (28%)
2. Barack Obama (24%)
3. John F. Kennedy (tie) (10%)
4. Bill Clinton (tie) (10%)
5. Donald Trump (7%)
6. Dwight Eisenhower (4%)
7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (3%)
8. Jimmy Carter (tie) (3%)
9. Lyndon B. Johnson (2%)
10. George H. W. Bush (tie) (1%)
11. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
12. George W. Bush (tie) (1%)
13. Gerald R. Ford (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

1. Donald Trump (41%)
2. Barack Obama (21%)
3. Richard Nixon (10%)
4. Jimmy Carter (8%)
5. George W. Bush (6%)
6. Bill Clinton (4%)
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (2%)
8. Ronald Reagan (tie) (2%)
9. Gerald R. Ford (1%)
10. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
11. Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (<1%)
12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)
13. George H. W. Bush (tie) (<1%)

Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2010

Abbreviations

• Bg = Background
• PL = Party leadership
• CAb = Communication ability
• RC = Relations with Congress
• CAp = Court appointments
• HE = Handling of economy
• L = Luck
• AC = Ability to compromise
• WR = Willing to take risks
• EAp = Executive appointments
• OA = Overall ability
• Im = Imagination
• DA = Domestic accomplishments
• Int = Integrity
• EAb = Executive ability
• FPA = Foreign policy accomplishments
• LA = Leadership ability
• IQ = Intelligence
• AM = Avoid crucial mistakes
• EV = Experts' view
• O = Overall

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Source:^[44]

Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	PL	CAb	RC	CAp	HE	L	AC	WR	EAp	OA	Im	DA	Int	EAb	FPA	LA	IQ	AM	EV	O
1	George Washington	Independent	7	18	12	3	3	4	1	3	4	1	4	9	4	2	2	3	1	12	1	3	4
2	John Adams	Federalist	4	29	18	26	10	13	23	32	16	15	13	17	22	3	19	12	20	7	15	12	17
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	1	4	6	4	6	16	6	11	8	5	5	3	6	14	5	7	6	1	6	5	5
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	3	10	11	9	7	12	17	7	15	9	6	8	12	5	14	20	17	2	10	8	6
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	9	12	15	8	14	9	9	8	17	8	16	16	8	10	11	2	13	15	7	9	7
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	2	34	20	35	16	14	30	29	23	13	15	11	18	4	21	16	26	5	20	21	19
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	30	2	10	14	27	28	4	38	5	19	12	13	14	23	6	19	5	23	12	13	14
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	16	13	23	19	24	38	33	13	32	25	24	24	27	29	23	25	27	22	27	24	23
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	24	30	25	31	33	27	42	35	30	24	37	35	36	30	33	39	24	31	33	34	35
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	33	42	39	42	39	31	22	39	26	34	35	29	34	33	37	35	36	33	32	36	37
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	17	9	13	12	21	15	7	23	7	16	17	14	11	24	9	8	10	20	9	11	12
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	37	35	28	37	37	24	36	34	28	28	34	27	37	21	31	34	25	37	25	33	33
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	40	41	40	38	35	33	25	25	37	35	38	36	35	36	38	33	39	39	30	35	38
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	38	37	37	41	40	34	35	36	38	38	39	39	39	38	40	40	40	38	35	40	40
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	23	40	41	40	42	41	40	41	43	39	42	42	43	40	42	41	43	40	41	43	42
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	28	6	2	6	4	5	13	1	2	2	1	2	1	1	1	5	2	3	2	1	3
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	42	43	43	43	43	37	39	43	34	42	41	41	42	37	41	38	42	41	42	42	43
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	26	28	24	22	25	29	21	22	22	40	28	26	26	27	34	24	21	29	31	31	26
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	29	33	30	29	29	26	19	18	33	33	33	32	33	28	30	30	32	30	24	29	31
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	20	22	22	24	32	23	41	27	31	29	25	28	25	25	26	31	23	26	22	27	27
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	41	31	32	27	28	19	14	21	27	26	30	25	20	32	27	26	28	32	17	26	25
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	19	16	17	15	17	22	20	19	24	18	20	22	17	19	17	21	19	25	14	19	20
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	39	32	34	28	30	35	29	30	39	36	36	34	32	31	35	28	34	35	23	32	34
25	William McKinley	Republican	21	14	19	11	23	18	24	20	21	20	21	23	19	22	18	15	18	27	11	20	21
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	6	7	3	5	1	2	2	12	1	4	3	1	2	6	4	4	4	6	3	4	2
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	14	36	29	30	18	20	32	24	36	22	23	30	21	18	25	23	31	18	28	23	24
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	8	8	9	16	8	8	15	37	9	10	8	5	9	11	10	10	12	4	29	10	8
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	43	38	36	34	36	39	37	26	40	43	43	43	40	42	43	37	41	43	39	41	41
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	25	24	38	21	26	30	12	28	41	30	32	37	31	17	28	32	33	28	19	28	29
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	10	26	31	33	19	43	43	40	42	32	26	38	41	13	29	36	37	14	40	38	36
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	5	1	1	2	2	1	5	2	3	3	2	4	3	16	3	1	3	10	4	2	1
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	35	15	14	20	15	6	11	15	6	7	7	15	7	8	8	6	9	17	8	6	9
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	12	17	21	10	9	11	8	5	20	17	11	20	13	9	7	9	7	19	5	7	10
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	13	19	4	13	12	7	27	6	10	6	14	7	15	35	13	17	11	11	16	14	11
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	15	3	16	1	5	10	28	9	12	12	9	12	5	34	12	43	15	21	37	16	16
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	18	20	26	36	38	25	34	33	14	37	22	19	24	43	24	11	29	16	43	37	30
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	27	25	35	17	22	36	31	17	35	23	31	33	30	15	32	27	30	34	26	25	28
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	31	39	27	39	20	40	38	31	25	21	29	21	29	7	36	29	35	13	36	30	32
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	34	5	5	7	31	21	3	14	11	31	19	18	23	26	20	13	8	36	13	17	18
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	11	27	33	23	34	32	26	16	29	27	27	31	28	20	22	14	22	24	18	22	22
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	22	11	8	25	11	3	10	4	18	11	10	10	10	41	15	18	14	9	34	15	13
43	George W. Bush	Republican	36	23	42	32	41	42	18	42	19	41	40	40	38	39	39	42	38	42	38	39	39
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	32	21	7	18	13	17	16	10	13	14	18	6	16	12	16	22	16	8	21	18	15
Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	PL	CAb	RC	CAp	HE	L	AC	WR	EAp	OA	Im	DA	Int	EAb	FPA	LA	IQ	AM	EV	O

2017 C-SPAN Presidential Historian Survey

Abbreviations

• PP = Public persuasion
• CL = Crisis leadership
• EM = Economic management
• MA = Moral authority
• IR = International relations
• AS = Administrative skills
• RC = Relations with Congress
• VSA = Vision/Setting an agenda
• PEJ = Pursued equal justice for all
• PCT = Performance within context of times
• O = Overall

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Source:^[45]

Seq.	President	Political party	PP	CL	EM	MA	IR	AS	RC	VSA	PEJ	PCT	O
1	George Washington	Independent	4	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	13	1	2
2	John Adams	Federalist	22	17	15	11	13	21	24	20	15	19	19
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	8	13	13	6	11	7	5	5	17	6	7
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	18	19	19	9	22	17	13	18	18	16	17
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	17	14	18	16	7	11	9	14	25	11	13
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	33	23	17	12	15	18	32	15	9	22	21
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	7	10	26	20	20	23	21	10	38	13	18
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	30	35	40	33	26	26	28	33	30	33	34
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	28	38	38	31	42	40	38	36	37	38	38
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	39	36	39	37	28	38	41	37	41	36	39
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	13	9	14	27	16	9	11	11	36	12	14
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	27	28	28	28	30	35	35	30	34	30	31
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	40	34	34	36	34	36	36	39	39	37	37
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	41	41	41	39	40	39	40	41	42	41	41
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	43	43	42	43	43	41	42	43	43	43	43
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	3	1	2	2	3	1	4	1	1	2	1
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	42	42	37	41	39	43	43	42	40	42	42
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	19	21	27	19	19	37	20	23	10	21	22
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	29	30	25	32	33	29	30	32	32	28	32
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	21	31	29	22	36	32	27	25	20	27	29
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	37	32	31	35	35	28	29	34	27	32	35
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	20	22	24	26	23	22	22	21	31	23	23
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	32	33	32	30	27	30	26	31	24	31	30
25	William McKinley	Republican	16	16	11	18	17	13	10	17	26	18	16
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	2	5	4	5	4	4	7	4	11	4	4
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	31	26	20	25	21	12	23	28	22	24	24
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	11	11	9	8	12	8	16	7	35	10	11
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	36	39	35	40	37	42	34	40	33	40	40
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	24	29	22	21	29	25	18	29	29	26	27
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	38	40	43	29	31	14	31	38	28	39	36
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	1	3	5	3	1	3	3	3	8	3	3
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	14	4	10	10	5	10	14	13	4	5	6
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	12	6	6	4	6	5	6	16	12	7	5
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	6	7	7	15	14	16	12	9	7	9	8
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	15	20	12	24	38	6	1	8	2	14	10
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	26	27	23	42	10	24	37	24	21	34	28
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	34	24	30	23	25	27	19	35	14	25	25
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	35	37	33	14	32	31	33	22	5	29	26
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	5	8	16	13	9	33	8	6	23	8	9
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	23	12	21	17	8	16	15	27	16	20	20
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	9	18	3	38	18	20	17	19	6	17	15
43	George W. Bush	Republican	25	25	36	34	41	34	25	26	19	35	33
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	10	15	8	7	24	19	39	12	3	15	12
Seq.	President	Political party	PP	CL	EM	MA	IR	AS	RC	VSA	PEJ	PCT	O

Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2018

On February 13, 2019, Siena released its 6th presidential poll.^[46]
The poll was initiated in 1982 and occurs one year into the term of each new president. It is currently a survey of 157 presidential scholars, across a range of leadership parameters.
The ranking gave the top five spots to George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), Abraham Lincoln, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson. This top five, described as Mt. Rushmore plus FDR, was consistent with prior surveys. Washington had been ranked fourth in all previous surveys, and FDR first.
Abbreviations

• Bg = Background
• Im = Imagination
• Int = Integrity
• IQ = Intelligence
• L = Luck
• WR = Willing to take risks
• AC = Ability to compromise
• EAb = Executive ability
• LA = Leadership ability
• CAb = Communication ability
• OA = Overall ability
• PL = Party leadership
• RC = Relations with Congress
• CAp = Court appointments
• HE = Handling of economy
• EAp = Executive appointments
• DA = Domestic accomplishments
• FPA = Foreign policy accomplishments
• AM = Avoid crucial mistakes
• EV = Experts' view
• O = Overall

• Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
• Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
• Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
• Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.

Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	Im	Int	IQ	L	WR	AC	EAb	LA	CAb	OA	PL	RC	CAp	HE	EAp	DA	FPA	AM	EV	O
1	George Washington	Independent	7	7	1	10	1	6	2	2	1	11	2	18	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	2	1
2	John Adams	Federalist	3	13	4	4	24	14	31	21	21	13	8	28	17	4	13	15	19	13	16	10	14
3	Thomas Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	2	2	14	1	8	5	14	6	6	4	4	5	5	7	20	4	6	9	7	5	5
4	James Madison	Democratic-Republican	4	6	7	3	16	15	6	13	17	10	6	9	10	6	14	7	11	19	11	8	7
5	James Monroe	Democratic-Republican	9	14	11	18	6	16	7	10	12	15	17	12	8	11	9	9	10	5	6	9	8
6	John Quincy Adams	Democratic-Republican	1	9	6	5	29	19	24	22	23	12	16	29	29	15	17	18	21	15	14	18	18
7	Andrew Jackson	Democratic	37	15	29	28	4	4	38	11	9	18	19	6	16	30	25	25	17	23	20	19	19
8	Martin Van Buren	Democratic	23	22	27	25	34	28	20	28	27	25	27	16	23	25	31	26	29	27	24	28	25
9	William Henry Harrison	Whig	22	38	28	37	44	32	41	38	29	31	37	36	37	42	41	40	42	44	37	39	39
10	John Tyler	Independent[30]	34	33	35	34	22	26	37	36	37	34	36	41	40	38	34	36	36	26	32	36	37
11	James K. Polk	Democratic	19	10	23	23	9	7	18	7	11	16	12	10	11	22	15	16	12	8	8	13	12
12	Zachary Taylor	Whig	30	26	22	32	37	24	26	26	25	32	32	35	32	37	27	33	27	30	26	30	30
13	Millard Fillmore	Whig	40	37	36	38	35	38	32	37	39	40	39	40	39	39	37	37	37	37	33	37	38
14	Franklin Pierce	Democratic	38	39	38	40	39	38	39	39	40	41	40	39	38	41	40	39	41	39	38	40	40
15	James Buchanan	Democratic	36	43	40	39	42	41	40	42	44	42	43	42	41	43	42	43	44	43	44	44	43
16	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	28	1	2	2	18	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	4	3	4	2	1	6	2	1	3
17	Andrew Johnson	Democratic[31]	42	42	41	42	40	34	43	43	43	44	42	44	43	44	43	42	43	41	43	43	44
18	Ulysses S. Grant	Republican	20	24	25	24	26	18	17	27	18	26	26	24	19	24	26	38	24	24	31	24	24
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	Republican	35	30	32	29	23	35	23	33	33	30	31	33	30	27	22	30	35	31	28	29	32
20	James A. Garfield	Republican	22	25	21	20	41	30	25	25	24	23	24	27	26	34	29	27	34	34	27	25	28
21	Chester A. Arthur	Republican	41	31	37	36	17	33	22	30	34	36	35	34	33	33	30	31	25	32	23	31	34
22/24	Grover Cleveland	Democratic	26	23	26	27	19	27	22	19	20	19	22	20	27	20	21	23	23	21	15	22	23
23	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	33	34	30	35	28	36	33	35	35	35	34	31	28	35	32	34	32	29	29	33	35
25	William McKinley	Republican	29	20	20	26	32	22	21	17	19	22	20	11	12	23	16	17	20	14	13	20	20
26	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	5	4	8	6	2	2	15	4	4	5	5	7	7	9	3	5	4	3	5	4	4
27	William Howard Taft	Republican	12	28	12	14	27	31	19	23	26	21	23	30	21	16	19	21	18	22	19	23	22
28	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	8	8	19	7	14	11	35	14	14	7	14	8	14	13	11	14	14	11	25	15	11
29	Warren G. Harding	Republican	39	41	42	43	33	40	34	40	41	39	41	38	35	36	35	41	38	36	39	41	41
30	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	32	36	17	33	13	39	27	32	38	37	33	26	24	31	24	32	33	35	22	32	31
31	Herbert Hoover	Republican	13	35	15	13	43	37	36	29	36	29	29	32	33	26	44	35	39	33	40	35	36
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	Democratic	6	3	16	12	5	3	4	3	3	2	3	1	3	2	2	3	3	1	4	3	2
33	Harry S. Truman	Democratic	31	16	9	21	12	8	12	8	10	14	10	14	15	17	8	10	7	4	9	7	9
34	Dwight D. Eisenhower	Republican	11	18	5	17	7	21	5	5	5	20	7	15	9	5	6	11	8	7	3	6	6
35	John F. Kennedy	Democratic	14	5	31	11	31	9	8	12	8	3	11	17	13	12	7	6	15	17	18	12	10
36	Lyndon B. Johnson	Democratic	15	11	34	22	25	10	9	9	13	17	9	3	2	8	12	8	5	40	35	17	16
37	Richard Nixon	Republican	16	21	43	16	36	12	30	24	28	27	25	22	34	32	23	28	22	16	42	38	29
38	Gerald Ford	Republican	18	32	10	30	30	29	11	31	30	33	30	25	25	21	33	24	31	28	21	27	27
39	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	25	19	3	15	38	27	29	32	32	24	28	37	36	19	38	22	28	25	34	26	26
40	Ronald Reagan	Republican	27	17	24	31	3	13	10	15	7	6	18	4	6	18	18	20	16	12	12	16	13
41	George H. W. Bush	Republican	10	27	18	19	20	27	13	20	22	28	21	21	20	29	28	19	26	10	17	21	21
42	Bill Clinton	Democratic	21	12	39	8	11	17	3	16	15	8	13	13	18	10	5	12	9	18	30	14	15
43	George W. Bush	Republican	17	29	33	41	21	20	28	34	31	38	38	19	22	28	36	29	30	38	36	34	33
44	Barack Obama	Democratic	24	11	13	9	15	23	16	18	16	9	15	23	31	14	10	13	13	20	10	11	17
45	Donald Trump	Republican	43	40	44	44	10	25	42	41	42	43	44	43	42	40	39	44	40	42	41	42	42
Seq.	President	Political party	Bg	Im	Int	IQ	L	WR	AC	EAb	LA	CAb	OA	PL	RC	CAp	HE	EAp	DA	FPA	AM	EV	O

Memorability of the presidents

In November 2014, Henry L. Roediger III and K. Andrew DeSoto published a study in the journal Science asking research subjects to name as many presidents as possible.^[47][48] They reported data from three generations as well as from an online survey conducted in 2014. The percentage of participants in the online survey sample who could name each president was the following:

1. Barack Obama (100%)
2. Bill Clinton (96%)
3. George W. Bush or George H. W. Bush (95%)
4. George Washington (94%)
5. Abraham Lincoln (88%)
6. John F. Kennedy (83%)
7. Richard Nixon (82%)
8. Jimmy Carter (79%)
9. Thomas Jefferson (72%)
10. Ronald Reagan (66%)
11. Gerald Ford (62%)
12. Franklin D. Roosevelt or Theodore Roosevelt (60%)
13. John Adams or John Quincy Adams (56%)
14. Dwight D. Eisenhower (54%)
15. Harry S. Truman (50%)
16. Andrew Jackson (47%)
17. Herbert Hoover (42%)
18. Andrew Johnson or Lyndon B. Johnson (41%)
19. William Howard Taft (39%)
20. James Madison (38%)
21. Ulysses S. Grant (38%)
22. James Monroe (30%)
23. Woodrow Wilson (29%)
24. Calvin Coolidge (22%)
25. James A. Garfield (19%)
26. James K. Polk (17%)
27. Warren G. Harding (16%)
28. William McKinley (15%)
29. John Tyler (12%)
30. James Buchanan (12%)
31. Grover Cleveland (11%)
32. William Henry Harrison or Benjamin Harrison (11%)
33. Martin Van Buren (11%)
34. Rutherford B. Hayes (10%)
35. Zachary Taylor (10%)
36. Millard Fillmore (8%)
37. Franklin Pierce (7%)
38. Chester A. Arthur (7%)

Criticism and alternatives

David H. Donald, noted biographer of Abraham Lincoln, relates that when he met John F. Kennedy in 1961, Kennedy voiced his deep dissatisfaction and resentment with historians who had rated some of his predecessors. Kennedy said: "No one has a right to grade a president—even poor James Buchanan—who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions".^[49] Historian and political scientist Julian E. Zelizer argues that traditional presidential rankings explain little concerning actual presidential history and that they are "weak mechanisms for evaluating what has taken place in the White House".^[50]
Ivan Eland's Recarving Rushmore (2008)

Libertarian political commentator Ivan Eland wrote a book titled Recarving Rushmore (2008; updated 2014) in which he wrote that historians' criteria are poor in their capacity to reflect presidents' actual services to the country. In the book, Eland chose to rate 40 presidents on the basis of whether their policies promoted prosperity, liberty and non-interventionism as well as modest executive roles for themselves—his final rankings varied significantly from those of most scholars.
Racial Equality Assessments

In 2002, Ron Walters, former director of the University of Maryland's African American Leadership Institute, stated that presidents ranked by how each one balanced the interests of majority interests and the interests of excluded groups was practical in respect to American debate on racial politics. presidents have traditionally been ranked on personal qualities and their leadership ability to solve problems that move the nation in a positive direction. Walters stated there was a qualitative difference between white and African-American intellectuals in evaluating presidents. In the 1996 New York Times poll by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., 31 white historians and one black historian ranked presidents on differing categories of greatness. In a survey done by professors Hanes Walton Jr. and Robert Smith and in their text book American Politics And The African American Quest For Universal Freedom, 44 African-American political scientists and historians ranked presidents in terms of racial attitudes and racial legislation proposed.^[51] Individual presidents' attitudes, policies and perspectives were historically ranked in five categories: White Supremacist; Racist; Racially Neutral; Racially Ambivalent; Antiracist.^[52]
Northwestern Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion Survey (2019)

In May 2019, the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, "in conjunction the Dr. Christina Greer of Fordham University, the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy’s conducted a poll of 113 academic researchers and asked them to rate the 14 modern presidents on both their overall leadership and rhetoric on diversity and inclusion using a scale ranging from 0 to 100." ^[53] Survey respondents were significantly more liberal than the national average, with "with only 13 percent of the respondents describing themselves as either moderate, slightly conservative, or conservative." However, "similar patterns of ratings [were stated to be found] across the ideological spectrum".^[53]
Overall (Performance + Diversity and Inclusion Score)

1.) Franklin Roosevelt (83/100)
2.) Barack Obama (77/100)
3.) Lyndon Johnson (69/100)
4.) Bill Clinton (62/100)
5.) John Kennedy (61/100)
6.) Harry Truman (57/100)
7.) Dwight Eisenhower (54.4/100)
8.) Ronald Reagan (54.1/100)
9.) Jimmy Carter (50/100)
10.) George H. W. Bush (49/100)
11.) Gerald Ford (39/100)
12.) George W. Bush (38/100)
13.) Richard Nixon (32/100)
14.) Donald Trump (11/100)
Diversity and Inclusion Leadership Score (Without Including Overall Leadership)

1.) Barack Obama (75/100)
2.) Bill Clinton (54/100)
3.) Jimmy Carter (43/100)
4.) George W. Bush (41/100)
5.) Lyndon Johnson (40/100)
6.) George H. W. Bush (34/100)
7.) Franklin Roosevelt (31/100)
8.) Gerald Ford (30/100)
9.) John F. Kennedy (28.4/100)
10.) Harry Truman (28/100)
11.) Ronald Reagan (27.8/100)
12.) Dwight Eisenhower (26/100)
13.) Richard Nixon (24/100)
14.) Donald Trump (9/100)
See also

• Historical rankings of Chancellors of Germany
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of Australia
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of Canada
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the Netherlands
• Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Footnotes

• ^ Quartiles were determined by splitting the data into an upper and lower half and then splitting these into the first two and last two quartiles, respectively. When splitting an odd number of values, the median was included in the upper half.

References

• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c} Maranell, Gary M. (June 1970). "The Evaluation of Presidents: An Extension of the Schlesinger Polls". The Journal of American History. 57 (1): 104–113. doi:10.2307/1900552. JSTOR 1900552.
• ^ William J. Ridings Jr. and Stuart B. McIver. Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. 2000. ISBN 0806521511.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Americans Say Reagan Is the Greatest U.S. President". Gallup.com. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
• ^ Skidmore. 2001.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Schlesinger, Arthur M. "Our Presidents: A Rating by 75 Historians". The New York Times. July 1962. pp. 12–13, 40–41, 43.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Rating the Presidents: Washington to Clinton". Retrieved March 25, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. 2000. ISBN 0806521511.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Presidential Leadership; The Rankings". Wall Street Journal Online. September 12, 2005. Archived from the original on February 7, 2006.
• ^ "About the Presidents Study". Retrieved September 24, 2019.
• ^ "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018". Retrieved September 24,2019.
• ^ "Historians Give Good Grades to Clinton Presidency in Siena College Survey". January 11, 1995. Archived June 28, 2006.
• ^ "FDR America's Greatest President". August 19, 2002. Archived February 10, 2007.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Experts: Bush Presidency Is A Failure; Little Chance To Improve Ranking". Archived May 27, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. Siena Research Institute. May 1, 2006.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents" Archived July 7, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Siena Research Institute. July 1, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Thomas, G. Scott (July 1, 2010). "Clean sweep for the Roosevelts". Business First of Buffalo. Retrieved September 1, 2010.
• ^ "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018". Retrieved September 24,2019.
• ^ "C-SPAN Releases Second Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership". C-SPAN. February 15, 2009.
• ^ "Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. February 17, 2017.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "C-SPAN Releases Third Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership". C-SPAN. February 17, 2017.
• ^ "Methodology: Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. February 17, 2017.
• ^ Griffin, Jeremy; Hines, Nico (October 28, 2008). "Who's the greatest? The Times US presidential rankings". The Times. London. Retrieved March 24, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Iwan Morgan. "UK Survey of US Presidents: Results and Analysis". Retrieved October 10, 2013.
• ^ "From Franklin Delano Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, Newsweek's 10 Best Presidents (Photos)". The Daily Beast. September 24, 2012. Retrieved April 13,2014.
• ^ HNN Staff (September 8, 2013). "Historians Give Barack Obama a B-". History News Network. Retrieved April 13, 2014.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Brandon Rottinghaus (February 13, 2015). "Measuring Obama against the great presidents". The Brookings Institution.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?". The New York Times. February 19, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2018.
• ^ "Lincoln Wins: Honest Abe tops new presidential survey". CNN. February 16, 2009. Retrieved October 30, 2010.
• ^ "Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
• ^ "Presidents 2018 Rank by Category" (PDF). Retrieved February 19, 2019.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d} Tyler was elected on the Whig ticket as Harrison's vice president, but Tyler became an independent after the Whigs expelled him from the party in 1841.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d} Johnson was a former War Democrat elected on the National Union ticket as Lincoln's vice president, but by 1868 the National Union Party disbanded.
• ^ Murray and Blessing. p. 135.
• ^ "Washington, Lincoln Most Popular Presidents: Nixon, Bush Least Popular - Rasmussen Reports™". Rasmussenreports.com. July 4, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
• ^ "Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest". Gallup. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
• ^ "JFK, Reagan, Clinton most popular recent ex-presidents". September 15, 2011.
• ^ "Kennedy and Reagan Lead List of Good Presidents for Americans". Angus Reid Public Opinion. Archived August 22, 2012, at the Wayback MachineRetrieved August 22, 2012.
• ^ "Americans Rate JFK as Top Modern President". Gallup. Archived from the original on August 1, 2016.
• ^ The weights were 5 for "Outstanding", 4 for "Above Average", 3 for "Average", 2 for "Below Average" and 1 for "Poor".
• ^ "National (US) Poll – July 2, 2014 – Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better". Quinnipiac University.
• ^ "Trump Starts In The Hole As U.S. Voters Disapprove, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Reagan, Obama Are Best Presidents In 70 Years". Quinnipiac University.
• ^ "Morning Consult National Tracking Poll February 09–10,2017". Politico.
• ^ "Poll: Trump and Obama Are America's Worst Presidents Since World War II". Morning Consult. February 15, 2017.
• ^ "QU Poll Release Detail". Quinnipiac University. March 7, 2018. Retrieved March 10, 2018.
• ^ "Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents". Siena College. July 1, 2010. Archived from the original on July 6, 2010. Retrieved May 19, 2017.
• ^ "All Presidents - C-SPAN Survey on Presidents 2017". C-SPAN. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
• ^ "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018".
• ^ Roediger, Henry L.; DeSoto, K. Andrew (November 28, 2014), "Forgetting the Presidents", Science, 346 (6213): 1106–1109, Bibcode:2014Sci...346.1106R, doi:10.1126/science.1259627, PMID 25430768
• ^ Carey, Benedict (November 27, 2014). "Study on Cultural Memory Confirms: Chester A. Arthur, We Hardly Knew Ye". The New York Times. Retrieved September 11, 2015.
• ^ Donald, David H. Lincoln. 1995. p. 13.
• ^ Zelizer (February 21, 2011). "What's wrong with presidential rankings". CNN Opinion.
• ^ Walters (July 8, 2002)."Presidency: How Do African-American Scholars Rank Presidents?". History News Network.
• ^ Walton Jr., Hanes; Smith, Robert C. (2000). American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. pp. 201–202.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Tillery Jr., Alvin (May 31, 2019). "The First-Ever Expert Survey on Presidential Leadership on Diversity and Inclusion" (PDF). Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy. Retrieved June 25, 2019.

Further reading

• Bailey, Thomas A. (1966). Presidential Greatness: The Image and the Man from George Washington to the Present. New York: Appleton-Century. → A non-quantitative appraisal by leading historian.
• Bose, Meena; Landis Mark (2003). The Uses and Abuses of Presidential Ratings. New York: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1590337943. → A collection of essays by presidential scholars.
• DeGregorio, William A. (1993). The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents (4th, rev., expanded, and up-dated ed.). New York: Barricade Books. ISBN 978-0942637922. → Contains the results of the 1962 and 1982 surveys.
• Eland, Ivan (2009). Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty. Oakland, California: Independent Institute. ISBN 978-1598130225.
• Faber, Charles; Faber, Richard (2000). The American Presidents Ranked by Performance. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Co. ISBN 978-0786407651.
• Felzenberg, Alvin S. (1997). "There You Go Again: Liberal Historians and the New York Times Deny Ronald Reagan His Due". Policy Review. 82: 51–54. ISSN 0146-5945.
• Holli, Melvin G. (1999). The American Mayor: The Best & the Worst Big-City Leaders. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0271018768.
• Merry, Robert W. Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians (2012).
• Miller, Nathan (1998). Star-Spangled Men America's Ten Worst Presidents. New York: Scribner. ISBN 978-0684836102.
• Murray, Robert K.; Blessing, Tim H. (1994). Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, from Washington Through Ronald Reagan (2., updated ed.). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0271010892.
• Nichols, Curt (2012). "The Presidential Ranking Game: Critical Review and Some New Discoveries". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 42 (2): 275–299. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2012.03966.x. ISSN 0360-4918.
• Pfiffner, James P. (2003). "Ranking the Presidents: Continuity and Volatility" (PDF). White House Studies. 3: 23. ISSN 1535-4768.
• Ridings Jr., William J.; McIver, Stuart B. (1997). Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing. ISBN 978-0806517995.
• Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (1997). "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton". Political Science Quarterly. 112 (2): 179–190. doi:10.2307/2657937. JSTOR 2657937.
• Skidmore, Max J. (2004). Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Co. ISBN 978-0786418206.
• Skidmore, Max J. (2001). "Ranking and Evaluating Presidents: The Case of Theodore Roosevelt". White House Studies. 1 (4): 495–505. ISSN 1535-4768.
• Taranto, James; Leo, Leonard (2004). Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House. New York: Wall Street Journal Books. ISBN 978-0743254335. → For Federalist Society surveys.
• Vedder, Richard; Gallaway, Lowell (2001). "Rating Presidential Performance". In Denson, John V. (ed.). Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 978-0945466291.

External links

• "Ranking Presidents: Utter Nonsense Or Useful Analysis?". 2001 column by John Dean.
• "List of presidential rankings". Historians rank the 42 men who have held the office. AP via MSNBC. February 16, 2009, poll.

hide v t e Lists related to the presidents and vice presidents of the United States
List of presidents List of vice presidents
Presidents	Age Autobiographies Burial places Death Historical rankings Lifespan timeline Number living Official vehicles Portraits Time in office
Professional careers	Approval rating Assassination attempts and plots Campaign slogans Control of Congress Doctrines Elections lost Inaugurations International trips Judicial appointments Libraries Military rank Military service Other offices held Pardons Previous experience Vetoes
Personal life	Coats of arms Deaths in office Education Facial hair Firsts Freemasons Multilingualism Net worth Nicknames Pets Home state Religious affiliation Residences Slave owners
Vice presidents	Age Burial places Coats of arms Education Number living Other offices held Place of primary affiliation Religious affiliation Tie-breaking votes Time in office
Succession	Acting President Designated survivor Line of succession
Elections	Electoral College margin Popular vote margin Summary Winner lost popular vote Contingent elections
Candidates	Democrat Republican Third party Green Libertarian Federalist Democratic-Republican National Republican/Whig African American Female Received at least one electoral vote Number of votes received Height Unsuccessful major party candidates Unsuccessful major party vice presidential candidates Lost their home state Firsts
Families	First families First ladies Second ladies Children
Namesakes, honors	Memorial sites U.S. postage stamp appearances Educational institution names Currency appearances U.S. county names U.S. Senate vice presidential bust collection
In fiction	Presidents actors Vice Presidents actors Candidates Line of succession
United States Portal Biography Portal Presidents of the United States

I agree.

[Risen]

Donald J. Trump—entering the SCRI survey for the first time—joined Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce among the bottom five US presidents. George W. Bush, who presidential scholars had rated among the bottom five in the previous 2010 survey, improved to a position in the third quartile.

Not necessarily a fact, given it is a survey. But too funny to ignore!

I agree.

Oh. Sorry.

[Astray]

Your mom.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Your mom.

Maternal insult

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search

We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away.

Hi, reader in the U.S., it seems you use Wikipedia a lot; that's great! For Wikipedia to remain free for people like you—people that use it every day—we need to ask. It's a little awkward, but this Friday we need your help. Time is running out in 2019 to help us. We’re a non-profit, we depend on donations averaging $16.36, and fewer than 2% of readers give. If you donate just $2.75, the price of a coffee, Wikipedia could keep thriving. Thank you.
Please select a payment method

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
  

MAYBE LATER


CLOSE

A maternal insult (also referred to as a "yo mama" joke) is a reference to a person's mother through the use of phrases such as "your mother" or other regional variants, frequently used to insult the target by way of their mother.^[1] Used as an insult, "your mother ..." preys on widespread sentiments of filial piety, making the insult particularly and globally offensive. "Your mother" can be combined with most types of insults, although suggestions of promiscuity are particularly common.^[2] Insults based on obesity, height, hairiness, laziness, incest, age, race, poverty, poor hygiene, unattractiveness, homosexuality, or stupidity may also be used. Compared to other types of insults, "your mother" insults are especially likely to incite violence.^[3] Slang variants such as "yo mama", "yo momma", "yer ma", "ya mum", "ur mom", "your mum", "ur mum", or "your mom" are sometimes used, depending on the local dialect. Insults involving "your mother" are commonly used when playing the Dozens.
Although the phrase has a long history of including a description portion, such as the old "your mother wears combat boots", the phrase "yo mama" by itself, without any qualifiers, has become commonly used as an all-purpose insult^[1] or an expression of defiance.

Contents

• 1Historic examples
• 2See also
• 3References
• 4External links

Historic examples

In the Bible, King Joram is greeted by the rebel Jehu with a hostile expression concerning Joram's mother:

When Joram saw Jehu, he said, "Is it peace, Jehu?"

And he answered, "What peace, so long as the harlotries of your mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?"^[4]

William Shakespeare used such a device in Act I Scene 1 of Timon of Athens, implying that a character's mother is a "bitch":

Painter: "Y'are a dog."

Apemantus: "Thy mother's of my generation. What's she, if I be a dog?"

Also in Act IV, Scene II of Titus Andronicus, Aaron taunts his lover's sons:

Demetrius: "Villain, what hast thou done?"

Aaron: "That which thou canst not undo."
Chiron: "Thou hast undone our mother."
Aaron: "Villain, I have done thy mother."

[Methais]

We ask you, humbly, to help.
Consider donating to support Wikipedia.

Page semi-protected
[B]Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
This article is about the online encyclopedia. For Wikipedia's home page, see Main Page. For Wikipedia's visitor introduction, see Wikipedia:About. For other uses, see Wikipedia (disambiguation).
"The Free Encyclopedia" redirects here. For other encyclopedias, see Lists of encyclopedias.
Wikipedia
An incomplete sphere made of large, white, jigsaw puzzle pieces. Each puzzle piece contains one glyph from a different writing system, with each glyph written in black.
The Wikipedia wordmark which displays the name Wikipedia, written in all caps. The W and the A are the same height and both are taller than the other letters, which are also all the same height.
The logo of Wikipedia, a globe featuring glyphs from various writing systems
Screenshot
Type of site
Online encyclopedia
Available in 307 languages
Owner Wikimedia Foundation
Created by Jimmy Wales
Larry Sanger[1]
Website www.wikipedia.org Edit this at Wikidata
Alexa rank Negative increase 9 (Global, November 2019)
Commercial No
Registration Optional[note 1]
Users >315,147 active users[note 2] and >85,634,144 registered users
1,145 administrators (English)
Launched January 15, 2001; 18 years ago
Current status Active
Content license
CC Attribution / Share-Alike 3.0
Most text is also dual-licensed under GFDL; media licensing varies
Written in LAMP platform[2]
OCLC number 52075003
We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away.
Hi, reader in the U.S., it seems you use Wikipedia a lot; that's great! It's a little awkward to ask, but this Friday we need your help. People around the world rely on Wikipedia like you do. We’re a non-profit and we don't have salespeople. We depend on donations averaging $16.36, and fewer than 2% of readers give. If you donate just $2.75, the price of a coffee, Wikipedia could keep thriving. Thank you.
Please select a payment method



MAYBE LATER CLOSE
Wikipedia (/ˌwɪkɪˈpiːdiə/ (About this soundlisten) wik-ih-PEE-dee-ə or /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ (About this soundlisten) wik-ee-PEE-dee-ə) is a multilingual online encyclopedia created and maintained as an open collaboration project[3] by a community of volunteer editors using a wiki-based editing system.[4] It is the largest and most popular general reference work on the World Wide Web,[5][6][7] and is one of the most popular websites ranked by Alexa as of October 2019.[8] It features exclusively free content and no commercial ads, and is owned and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization funded primarily through donations.[9][10][11][12]

Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.[13] Sanger coined its name,[14][15] as a portmanteau of "wiki" (the Hawaiian word for "quick"[16]) and "encyclopedia". Initially an English-language encyclopedia, versions of Wikipedia in other languages were quickly developed. With at least 5,978,428 articles,[note 3] 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[17] and by February 2014 it had reached 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors per month.[18]

In 2005, Nature published a peer review comparing 42 hard science articles from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia and found that Wikipedia's level of accuracy approached that of Britannica,[19] although critics suggested that it might not have fared so well in a similar study of a random sampling of all articles or one focused on social science or contentious social issues.[20][21] The following year, Time magazine stated that the open-door policy of allowing anyone to edit had made Wikipedia the biggest and possibly the best encyclopedia in the world, and was a testament to the vision of Jimmy Wales.[22]

Wikipedia has been criticized for exhibiting systemic bias, for presenting a mixture of "truth, half truth, and some falsehoods",[23] and for being subject to manipulation and spin in controversial topics.[24] In addition, Wikipedia has gender bias, particularly on its English-language site, where the dominant majority of editors are male. However, Edit-a-thons have been held to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.[25][26] Facebook announced that by 2017 it would help readers detect fake news by suggesting links to related Wikipedia articles. YouTube announced a similar plan in 2018.[27]


Contents
1 History
1.1 Nupedia
1.2 Launch and early growth
1.3 Milestones
2 Openness
2.1 Restrictions
2.2 Review of changes
2.3 Vandalism
2.4 Edit warring
3 Policies and laws
3.1 Content policies and guidelines
4 Governance
4.1 Administrators
4.2 Dispute resolution
5 Community
5.1 Studies
5.2 Diversity
6 Language editions
6.1 English Wikipedia editor decline
7 Reception
7.1 Accuracy of content
7.2 Discouragement in education
7.3 Quality of writing
7.4 Coverage of topics and systemic bias
7.5 Explicit content
7.6 Privacy
7.7 Sexism
8 Operation
8.1 Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia movement affiliates
8.2 Software operations and support
8.3 Automated editing
8.4 Hardware operations and support
8.5 Internal research and operational development
8.6 Internal news publications
9 Access to content
9.1 Content licensing
9.2 Methods of access
10 Cultural impact
10.1 Trusted source to combat fake news
10.2 Readership
10.3 Cultural significance
10.4 Sister projects – Wikimedia
10.5 Publishing
10.6 Research use
11 Related projects
12 See also
13 Notes
14 References
15 Further reading
15.1 Academic studies
15.2 Books
15.3 Book review-related articles
15.4 Learning resources
15.5 Other media coverage
16 External links
History
Main article: History of Wikipedia


Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger
Nupedia
Main article: Nupedia
Logo reading "Nupedia.com the free encyclopedia" in blue with large initial "N"
Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project called Nupedia
Other collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before Wikipedia, but none were as successful.[28] 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.[29] It was founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of Bomis, a web portal company. Its main figures were Bomis CEO Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia.[30][31] Nupedia was initially licensed under its own Nupedia Open Content License, but even before Wikipedia was founded, Nupedia switched to the GNU Free Documentation License at the urging of Richard Stallman.[32] Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[33][34] while Sanger is credited with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[35] On January 10, 2001, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[36]

Launch and early growth
The domains wikipedia.com and wikipedia.org were registered on January 12, 2001[37] and January 13, 2001[38] respectively, and Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001,[29] as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[39] and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[33] Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view"[40] was codified in its first few months. Otherwise, there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated independently of Nupedia.[33] Originally, Bomis intended to make Wikipedia a business for profit.[41]


The Wikipedia Page on December 17, 2001
Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. Language editions were also created, with a total of 161 by the end of 2004.[42] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing the 1408 Yongle Encyclopedia, which had held the record for almost 600 years.[43]

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 2002.[44] These moves encouraged Wales to announce that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and to change Wikipedia's domain from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org.[45] Brion Vibber applied the change on August 15, 2002.[46]

Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of new articles and of contributors, appears to have peaked around early 2007.[47] Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800.[48] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center attributed this slowing of growth to the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change.[49] 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.[50][51][52]


File:Wikipedia Edit 2014.webm
A promotional video of the Wikimedia Foundation that encourages viewers to edit Wikipedia, mostly reviewing 2014 via Wikipedia content
In November 2009, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.[53][54] The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.[55] Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study.[56] Two years later, in 2011, Wales acknowledged the presence of a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, Wales also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable".[57] A 2013 article titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" in MIT's Technology Review questioned this claim. The article revealed that since 2007, Wikipedia had lost a third of its volunteer editors, and those still there have focused increasingly on minutiae.[58] In July 2012, The Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also in decline.[59] In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis".[60]

Milestones
In January 2007, Wikipedia entered for the first time the top-ten list of the most popular websites in the US, 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 2006, when the rank was number 33, with Wikipedia receiving around 18.3 million unique visitors.[61] As of September 2019, Wikipedia has rank 9[8] among websites in terms of popularity according to Alexa Internet. In 2014, it received eight billion pageviews every month.[62] On February 9, 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia has 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month, "according to the ratings firm comScore."[18]



Wikipedia blackout protest against SOPA on January 18, 2012
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the United States Congress—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)—by blacking out its pages for 24 hours.[63] More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced Wikipedia content.[64][65]

Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that accumulated improvements piecemeal through "stigmergic accumulation".[66][67]

On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for The Economic Times indicated that not only had Wikipedia's growth stalled, it "had lost nearly ten percent of its page views last year. There was a decline of about two billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by twelve percent, those of German version slid by 17 percent and the Japanese version lost nine percent."[68] Varma added that, "While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's Knowledge Graphs project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users."[68] When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society indicated that he suspected much of the page view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need to click [any further]."[68]

By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was ranked fifth in the most popular websites globally.[69]

In January 2013, 274301 Wikipedia, an asteroid, was named after Wikipedia; in October 2014, Wikipedia was honored with the Wikipedia Monument; and, in July 2015, Wikipedia became available as 7,473 books for $500,000. In 2019, a species of flowering plant was named Viola wikipedia.[70]

In April 2019, an Israeli lunar lander, Beresheet, crash landed on the surface of the Moon carrying a copy of nearly all of the English Wikipedia engraved on thin nickel plates; experts say the plates likely survived the crash.[71][72]

In June 2019, scientists reported that all 16 GB of article text from the English Wikipedia have been encoded into synthetic DNA.[73]

On November 17, 2019, Christina Koch made the first confirmed edit to Wikipedia from space while aboard the International Space Station.[74]

Openness

Number of English Wikipedia articles[75]

English Wikipedia editors with >100 edits per month[76]

Differences between versions of an article are highlighted.
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principle[note 4][77] regarding the security of its content.[77] It started almost entirely open—anyone could create articles, and any Wikipedia article could be edited by any reader, even those who did not have a Wikipedia 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.

Restrictions
Due to the increasing popularity of Wikipedia, some editions, including the English version, have introduced editing restrictions in some cases. For instance, on the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article.[78] On the English Wikipedia, among others, some particularly controversial, sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to some degree.[79][80] 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.[81] A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make changes.[82]

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,[83] which have passed certain reviews. Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012.[84] Under this system, new and unregistered users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are reviewed by established users before they are published.[85]


The editing interface of Wikipedia
Review of changes
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.[note 5][86] On most articles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's history page. Anyone can view the latest changes 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.[87]

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".[88]

Vandalism
Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia
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.[89] 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.[90]

White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium.
American journalist John Seigenthaler (1927–2014), subject of the Seigenthaler incident.
Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes.[91][92] However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair.[93]

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.[93] The article remained uncorrected for four months.[93] 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.[94][95] After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[93] This incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.[96]

Edit warring
Wikipedians often have disputes regarding content, which may result in repeatedly making opposite changes to an article, known as "edit warring".[97][98] The process is a resource-consuming scenario where no useful knowledge is added.[99] This practice is also criticized as creating a competitive,[100] conflict based[101] editing culture associated with traditional masculine gender roles,[102] which contributes to the gender bias on Wikipedia.

Special interest groups have engaged in edit wars to advance their own political interests. Defending Israeli settlements in the West Bank, numerous pro-occupation groups have launched "Zionist editing" campaigns.[103] In 2010, the then director general of the Yesha Council and former Israeli Cabinet Minister Naftali Bennett described their goal "as not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to include our point of view".[104]

Policies and laws

External video
Jimbo at Fosdem cropped.jpg
Wikimania, 60 Minutes, CBS, 20 minutes, April 5, 2015, co-founder Jimmy Wales at Fosdem
Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, copyright laws) of the United States and of the US state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and guidelines intended to appropriately shape content. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.[105] Editors can enforce these 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 for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent.[83]

Content policies and guidelines
According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-like.[106] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[107] which generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject. Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized.[108] It must not present 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.[109] This can at times lead to the removal of information that, though valid, is not properly sourced.[110] Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[111] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article. This is known as neutral point of view (NPOV).

Governance
Further information: Wikipedia:Administration
Wikipedia's initial anarchy integrated democratic and hierarchical elements over time.[112][113] An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor, nor by the subject of the article.[114]

Administrators
Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with "administrator",[115][116] 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 people 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).[117][118]

Fewer editors become administrators than in years past, in part because the process of vetting potential Wikipedia administrators has become more rigorous.[119]

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

Dispute resolution
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,[note 6] or seek outside input through third opinion requests or by initiating a more general community discussion known as a "request for comment".

Arbitration Committee
Main article: Arbitration Committee
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,[120] 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.[121]

Community
Main article: Wikipedia community
File:Wikimania - the Wikimentary.webm
Video of Wikimania 2005 – an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, was held in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from August 4 to 8.
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.[122]

File:Editing Hoxne Hoard at the British Museum.ogv
Wikipedians and British Museum curators collaborate on the article Hoxne Hoard in June 2010
Wikipedia's community has been described as cult-like,[123] although not always with entirely negative connotations.[124] The project's preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of credentials, has been referred to as "anti-elitism".[125]

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.[126]

Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.[127] As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked on the project.[128] 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".[129] In 2008, a Slate magazine article reported that: "According to researchers in Palo Alto, one percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits."[130] 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.[131]

The English Wikipedia has 5,978,428 articles, 37,775,087 registered editors, and 137,201 active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made one or more edits in the past 30 days.

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".[132] Editors who do not log in are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,[132] 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",[133] but the contribution histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their IP addresses cannot be attributed to a particular editor with certainty.

Studies
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".[134] 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."[129] 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".[129]

A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others,[135][136] 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.[137] According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".[138]

Diversity
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 percent of Wikipedia editors were female.[139] 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.[140] 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 was because identifying as a woman may expose oneself to "ugly, intimidating behavior."[141] Data has shown that Africans are underrepresented among Wikipedia editors.[142]

Language editions
Main article: List of Wikipedias
There are currently 307 language editions of Wikipedia (also called language versions, or simply Wikipedias). As of December 2019, the six largest, in order of article count, are the English, Cebuano, Swedish, German, French, and Dutch Wikipedias.[143] The second and third largest Wikipedias owe their position to the article-creating bot Lsjbot, which as of 2013 had created about half the articles in the Swedish Wikipedia, and most of the articles in the Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias. The latter are both languages of the Philippines.

In addition to the top six, ten other Wikipedias have over one million articles each (Russian, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Waray-Waray, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic and Portuguese), six more have over 500,000 articles (Ukrainian, Persian, Catalan, Serbian, Bokmål and Indonesian), 40 more have over 100,000 articles, and 84 more have over 10,000 articles.[144][145] The largest, the English Wikipedia, has over 5.9 million articles. As of January 2019, according to Alexa, the English subdomain (en.wikipedia.org; English Wikipedia) receives approximately 57% of Wikipedia's cumulative traffic, with the remaining split among the other languages (Russian: 9%; Chinese: 6%; Japanese: 6%; Spanish: 5%).[8]

Distribution of the 51,542,106 articles in different language editions (as of December 5, 2019)[146]

English (11.6%)
Cebuano (10.4%)
Swedish (7.3%)
German (4.6%)
French (4.2%)
Dutch (3.8%)
Russian (3.1%)
Italian (3%)
Spanish (3%)
Polish (2.7%)
Waray (2.5%)
Vietnamese (2.4%)
Japanese (2.3%)
Chinese (2.1%)
Other (37%)
Logarithmic graph of the 20 largest language editions of Wikipedia
(as of 5 December 2019)[147]
(millions of articles)
0.1 0.3 1 3

English 5,978,428
Cebuano 5,378,789
Swedish 3,744,691
German 2,369,142
French 2,158,772
Dutch 1,983,751
Russian 1,580,853
Italian 1,567,400
Spanish 1,559,898
Polish 1,370,677
Waray 1,263,825
Vietnamese 1,237,722
Japanese 1,178,594
Chinese 1,083,357
Arabic 1,016,152
Portuguese 1,015,397
Ukrainian 957,668
Persian 701,220
Catalan 630,533
Serbian 626,783
The unit for the numbers in bars is articles.


A graph for pageviews of Turkish Wikipedia shows a large drop of roughly 80% immediately after the block of Wikipedia in Turkey was imposed in 2017.
Since Wikipedia is based on the Web and therefore worldwide, contributors to the 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)[148] or points of view.[149]

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.[150][151][152]

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".[153] 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 its projects (Wikipedia and others).[154] For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia,[155] and it maintains a list of articles every Wikipedia should have.[156] The list concerns basic content by subject: biography, history, geography, society, culture, science, technology, and mathematics. 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 be available only in English, even when they meet notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects.


Estimation of contributions shares from different regions in the world to different Wikipedia editions
Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in most editions, in part because those editions do not allow fully automated translation of articles.[157] Articles available in more than one language may offer "interwiki links", which link to the counterpart articles in other editions.

A study published by PLoS ONE in 2012 also estimated the share of contributions to different editions of Wikipedia from different regions of the world. It reported that the proportion of the edits made from North America was 51% for the English Wikipedia, and 25% for the simple English Wikipedia.[158] The Wikimedia Foundation hopes to increase the number of editors in the Global South to 37% by 2015.[159]

English Wikipedia editor decline
On March 1, 2014, The Economist, in an article titled "The Future of Wikipedia", cited a trend analysis concerning data published by Wikimedia stating that "[t]he number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years."[160] The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was cited by The Economist as substantially in contrast to statistics for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia). The Economist reported that the number of contributors with an average of five or more edits per month was relatively constant since 2008 for Wikipedia in other languages at approximately 42,000 editors within narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down. The number of active editors in English Wikipedia, by sharp comparison, was cited as peaking in 2007 at approximately 50,000 and dropping to 30,000 by the start of 2014.

Should attrition continue unabated at the quoted trend rate of approximately 20,000 editors lost within a seven-year stretch, by 2021 there will be only 10,000 active editors on English Wikipedia.[160] In contrast, the trend analysis published in The Economist presents Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) as successful in retaining their active editors on a renewable and sustained basis, with their numbers remaining relatively constant at approximately 42,000.[160] No comment was made concerning which of the differentiated edit policy standards from Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) would provide a possible alternative to English Wikipedia for effectively ameliorating substantial editor attrition rates on the English-language Wikipedia.[161]

Reception
See also: Academic studies about Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia
Ambox current red.svg
This section needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2018)
Several Wikipedians have criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation, which includes over 50 policies and nearly 150,000 words as of 2014.[162][163]

Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias. In 2010, columnist and journalist Edwin Black criticized Wikipedia for being a mixture of "truth, half truth, and some falsehoods".[23] Articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized Wikipedia's Undue Weight policy, concluding that the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather focus on all the major viewpoints on the subject and give less attention to minor ones, creates omissions that can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[164][165][166]

Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black noted (in 2010 and 2011 respectively) how articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic.[23][167] A 2008 article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is subject to manipulation and spin.[24]

In 2006, the Wikipedia Watch criticism website listed dozens of examples of plagiarism in the English Wikipedia.[168]

Accuracy of content
Main article: Reliability of Wikipedia
External audio
The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1, Ideas with Paul Kennedy, CBC, January 15, 2014
Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica are carefully and deliberately written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy.[169] However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica by the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."[19] Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."[20] Others raised similar critiques.[21] The findings by Nature were disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[170][171] and in response, Nature gave a rebuttal of the points raised by Britannica.[172] In addition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others have examined the sample size and selection method used in the Nature effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in Nature's manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported confidence intervals), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small sample size, 42 or 4 × 101 articles compared, vs >105 and >106 set sizes for Britannica and the English Wikipedia, respectively).[173]

As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.[174] Concerns have been raised by PC World in 2009 regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[175] the insertion of false information,[176] vandalism, and similar problems.

Economist Tyler Cowen wrote: "If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the median refereed journal article on economics was more likely to be true, after a not so long think I would opt for Wikipedia." He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal articles and relevant information is omitted from news reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found on Internet sites, and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them.[177]

Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.[178] Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.[179] Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.[180] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has claimed that Wikipedia has largely avoided the problem of "fake news" because the Wikipedia community regularly debates the quality of sources in articles.[181]

External video
Inside Wikipedia – Attack of the PR Industry, Deutsche Welle, 7:13 mins[182]
Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, and various forms of paid advocacy seen as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable online encyclopedia.[86][183] In response to paid advocacy editing and undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article in The Wall Street Journal, to have strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.[184] The article stated that: "Beginning Monday [from the date of the article, June 16, 2014], changes in Wikipedia's terms of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement. Katherine Maher, the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's chief communications officer, said the changes address a sentiment among volunteer editors that, 'we're not an advertising service; we're an encyclopedia.'"[184][185][186][187][188] These issues, among others, had been parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.[189]

A Harvard law textbook, Legal Research in a Nutshell (2011), cites Wikipedia as a "general source" that "can be a real boon" in "coming up to speed in the law governing a situation" and, "while not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more in-depth resources".[190]

Discouragement in education
Most university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[191] some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.[192][193] Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.[194] Wales once (2006 or earlier) said he receives about ten emails weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia; he told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia," he said.[195]

In February 2007, an article in The Harvard Crimson newspaper reported that a few of the professors at Harvard University were including Wikipedia articles in their syllabi, although without realizing the articles might change.[196] In June 2007, former president of the American Library Association Michael Gorman condemned Wikipedia, along with Google,[197] stating that academics who endorse the use of Wikipedia are "the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything".

Medical information

See also: Health information on Wikipedia
On March 5, 2014, Julie Beck writing for The Atlantic magazine in an article titled "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia", stated that "Fifty percent of physicians look up conditions on the (Wikipedia) site, and some are editing articles themselves to improve the quality of available information."[198] Beck continued to detail in this article new programs of Amin Azzam at the University of San Francisco to offer medical school courses to medical students for learning to edit and improve Wikipedia articles on health-related issues, as well as internal quality control programs within Wikipedia organized by James Heilman to improve a group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance up to Wikipedia's highest standard of articles using its Featured Article and Good Article peer review evaluation process.[198] In a May 7, 2014, follow-up article in The Atlantic titled "Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?", Julie Beck quotes WikiProject Medicine's James Heilman as stating: "Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality reference."[199] Beck added that: "Wikipedia has its own peer review process before articles can be classified as 'good' or 'featured.' Heilman, who has participated in that process before, says 'less than one percent' of Wikipedia's medical articles have passed."[199]

Quality of writing
Quality dimensions of web 2.0 portals, encyclopedias and Wikipedia
Quality dimensions of web 2.0 portals, encyclopedias and Wikipedia[200]
In 2008, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that the quality of a Wikipedia article would suffer rather than gain from adding more writers when the article lacked appropriate explicit or implicit coordination.[201] For instance, when contributors rewrite small portions of an entry rather than making full-length revisions, high- and low-quality content may be intermingled within an entry. Roy Rosenzweig, a history professor, stated that American National Biography Online outperformed Wikipedia in terms of its "clear and engaging prose", which, he said, was an important aspect of good historical writing.[202] Contrasting Wikipedia's treatment of Abraham Lincoln to that of Civil War historian James McPherson in American National Biography Online, he said that both were essentially accurate and covered the major episodes in Lincoln's life, but praised "McPherson's richer contextualization [...] his artful use of quotations to capture Lincoln's voice [...] and [...] his ability to convey a profound message in a handful of words." By contrast, he gives an example of Wikipedia's prose that he finds "both verbose and dull". Rosenzweig also criticized the "waffling—encouraged by the NPOV policy—[which] means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history". While generally praising the article on William Clarke Quantrill, he quoted its conclusion as an example of such "waffling", which then stated: "Some historians [...] remember him as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while others continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero."[202]

Other critics have made similar charges that, even if Wikipedia articles are factually accurate, they are often written in a poor, almost unreadable style. Frequent Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski commented, "Even when a Wikipedia entry is 100 percent factually correct, and those facts have been carefully chosen, it all too often reads as if it has been translated from one language to another then into a third, passing an illiterate translator at each stage."[203] A study of Wikipedia articles on cancer was conducted in 2010 by Yaacov Lawrence of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University. The study was limited to those articles that could be found in the Physician Data Query and excluded those written at the "start" class or "stub" class level. Lawrence found the articles accurate but not very readable, and thought that "Wikipedia's lack of readability (to non-college readers) may reflect its varied origins and haphazard editing".[204] The Economist argued that better-written articles tend to be more reliable: "inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete information".[205]

To assess Wikipedia articles various quality measures related to credibility, completeness, objectivity, readability, relevance, style and timeliness can be used.[206]

Coverage of topics and systemic bias
See also: Notability in the English Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia § Systemic bias in coverage
Ambox current red.svg
Parts of this article (those related to d:Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia) need to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2017)

Shares of over 39 million Wikipedia articles in main categories in 55 most developed language versions as of April 2019[200]
Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has terabytes of disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed encyclopedia.[207] The exact degree and manner of coverage on Wikipedia is under constant review by its editors, and disagreements are not uncommon (see deletionism and inclusionism).[208][209] Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic. The 'Wikipedia is not censored' policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of images of Muhammad in the English edition of its Muhammad article, citing this policy. The presence of politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in Wikipedia has led to the censorship of Wikipedia by national authorities in China[210] and Pakistan,[211] amongst other countries.


Pie chart of Wikipedia content by subject as of January 2008[212]
A 2008 study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and Palo Alto Research Center gave a distribution of topics as well as growth (from July 2006 to January 2008) in each field:[212]

Culture and the arts: 30% (210%)
Biographies and persons: 15% (97%)
Geography and places: 14% (52%)
Society and social sciences: 12% (83%)
History and events: 11% (143%)
Natural and physical sciences: 9% (213%)
Technology and the applied sciences: 4% (−6%)
Religions and belief systems: 2% (38%)
Health: 2% (42%)
Mathematics and logic: 1% (146%)
Thought and philosophy: 1% (160%)
These numbers refer only to the quantity of articles: it is possible for one topic to contain a large number of short articles and another to contain a small number of large ones. Through its "Wikipedia Loves Libraries" program, Wikipedia has partnered with major public libraries such as the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts to expand its coverage of underrepresented subjects and articles.[213]

A 2011 study conducted by researchers at the University of Minnesota indicated that male and female editors focus on different coverage topics. There was a greater concentration of females in the People and Arts category, while males focus more on Geography and Science.[214]

Coverage of topics and selection bias
Research conducted by Mark Graham of the Oxford Internet Institute in 2009 indicated that the geographic distribution of article topics is highly uneven. Africa is most underrepresented.[215] Across 30 language editions of Wikipedia, historical articles and sections are generally Eurocentric and focused on recent events.[216]

An editorial in The Guardian in 2014 claimed that more effort went into providing references for a list of female porn actors than a list of women writers.[217] Data has also shown that Africa-related material often faces omission; a knowledge gap that a July 2018 Wikimedia conference in Cape Town sought to address.[142]

Systemic bias
When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, systemic bias may arise, due to the demographic backgrounds of the editors. In 2011, Wales claimed that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, citing for example "biographies of famous women through history and issues surrounding early childcare".[57] The October 22, 2013, essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's Technology Review titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and policy creep on the downward trend in the number of editors.[58]

Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally,[vague] for example favoring certain nationalities, ethnicities or majority religions.[218] It may more specifically follow the biases of Internet culture, inclining to being young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases of its own may include over-emphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events.[218]

Taha Yasseri of the University of Oxford, in 2013, studied the statistical trends of systemic bias at Wikipedia introduced by editing conflicts and their resolution.[219][220] His research examined the counterproductive work behavior of edit warring. Yasseri contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of counterproductive behavior at Wikipedia and relied instead on the statistical measurement of detecting "reverting/reverted pairs" or "mutually reverting edit pairs". Such a "mutually reverting edit pair" is defined where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to revert the first editor in the "mutually reverting edit pairs". The results were tabulated for several language versions of Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia's three largest conflict rates belonged to the articles George W. Bush, Anarchism and Muhammad.[220] By comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the Oxford study were for the articles covering (i) Croatia, (ii) Scientology and (iii) 9/11 conspiracy theories.[220]

Researchers from Washington University developed a statistical model to measure systematic bias in the behavior of Wikipedia's users regarding controversial topics. The authors focused on behavioral changes of the encyclopedia's administrators after assuming the post, writing that systematic bias occurred after the fact.[221][222]

Explicit content
See also: Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia and Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons
"Wikipedia censorship" redirects here. For the government censorship of Wikipedia, see Censorship of Wikipedia. For Wikipedia's policy concerning censorship, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored
Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information of graphic content. Articles depicting what some critics have called objectionable content (such as Feces, Cadaver, Human penis, Vulva, and Nudity) contain graphic pictures and detailed information easily available to anyone with access to the internet, including children.

The site also includes sexual content such as images and videos of masturbation and ejaculation, illustrations of zoophilia, and photos from hardcore pornographic films in its articles. It also has non-sexual photographs of nude children.

The Wikipedia article about Virgin Killer—a 1976 album from German heavy metal band Scorpions—features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl. The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer was blocked for four days by most Internet service providers in the United Kingdom after the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) decided the album cover was a potentially illegal indecent image and added the article's URL to a "blacklist" it supplies to British internet service providers.[223]

In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on Wikimedia Commons contained child pornography, and were in violation of US federal obscenity law.[224][225] Sanger later clarified that the images, which were related to pedophilia and one about lolicon, were not of real children, but said that they constituted "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", under the PROTECT Act of 2003.[226] That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are obscene under American law.[226] Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.[227] Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation,[228] saying that Wikipedia did not have "material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it."[228] Following the complaint by Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete had been made hastily, Wales voluntarily gave up some of the powers he had held up to that time as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing-list that this action was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted".[229] Critics, including Wikipediocracy, noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.[230]

Privacy
One privacy concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure" in the eyes of the law.[231][note 7] 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.

In January 2006, 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, 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned, with the court rejecting the notion that Tron's right to privacy or that of his parents was being violated.[232]

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.[233]

Sexism
Main article: Gender bias on Wikipedia
Wikipedia has been described as harboring a battleground culture of sexism and harassment.[234][235] The perceived toxic attitudes and tolerance of violent and abusive language are also reasons put forth for the gender gap in Wikipedia editors.[236] In 2014, a female editor who requested a separate space on Wikipedia to discuss improving civility had her proposal referred to by a male editor using the words "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one".[234]

Operation
Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia movement affiliates
Main article: Wikimedia Foundation
Katherine Maher in 2016. She is seen with light skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. She is seen wearing a black shirt.
Katherine Maher is the third executive director at Wikimedia, following the departure of Lila Tretikov in 2016.
Wikipedia is hosted and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related projects such as Wiktionary and Wikibooks. The foundation relies on public contributions and grants to fund its mission.[237] The foundation's 2013 IRS Form 990 shows revenue of $39.7 million and expenses of almost $29 million, with assets of $37.2 million and liabilities of about $2.3 million.[238]

In May 2014, Wikimedia Foundation named Lila Tretikov as its second executive director, taking over for Sue Gardner.[239] The Wall Street Journal reported on May 1, 2014, that Tretikov's information technology background from her years at University of California offers Wikipedia an opportunity to develop in more concentrated directions guided by her often repeated position statement that, "Information, like air, wants to be free."[240][241] The same Wall Street Journal article reported these directions of development according to an interview with spokesman Jay Walsh of Wikimedia, who "said Tretikov would address that issue (paid advocacy) as a priority. 'We are really pushing toward more transparency ... We are reinforcing that paid advocacy is not welcome.' Initiatives to involve greater diversity of contributors, better mobile support of Wikipedia, new geo-location tools to find local content more easily, and more tools for users in the second and third world are also priorities, Walsh said."[240]

Following the departure of Tretikov from Wikipedia due to issues concerning the use of the "superprotection" feature which some language versions of Wikipedia have adopted, Katherine Maher became the third executive director the Wikimedia Foundation in June 2016.[242] Maher has stated that one of her priorities would be the issue of editor harassment endemic to Wikipedia as identified by the Wikipedia board in December. Maher stated regarding the harassment issue that: "It establishes a sense within the community that this is a priority ... (and that correction requires that) it has to be more than words."[243]

Wikipedia is also supported by many organizations and groups that are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation but independently run, called Wikimedia movement affiliates. These include Wikimedia chapters (which are national or sub-national organizations, such as Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimédia France), thematic organizations (such as Amical Wikimedia for the Catalan language community), and user groups. These affiliates participate in the promotion, development, and funding of Wikipedia.

Software operations and support
See also: MediaWiki
The operation of Wikipedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free and open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database system.[244] The software incorporates programming features such as a macro language, variables, a transclusion system for templates, and URL redirection. MediaWiki is licensed under the GNU General Public License and it is used by all Wikimedia projects, as well as many other wiki projects. Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker.

Several MediaWiki extensions are installed[245] to extend the functionality of the MediaWiki software.

In April 2005, a Lucene extension[246][247] was added to MediaWiki's built-in search and Wikipedia switched from MySQL to Lucene for searching. The site currently uses Lucene Search 2.1,[248][needs update] which is written in Java and based on Lucene library 2.3.[249]

In July 2013, after extensive beta testing, a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) extension, VisualEditor, was opened to public use.[250][251][252][253] It was met with much rejection and criticism, and was described as "slow and buggy".[254] The feature was changed from opt-out to opt-in afterward.

Automated editing
Computer programs called bots have often been used 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.[255][256][257] One controversial contributor creating articles with his bot was reported to create up to 10,000 articles on the Swedish Wikipedia on certain days.[258] Additionally, there are bots designed to automatically notify editors when they make common editing errors (such as unmatched quotes or unmatched parentheses).[259] Edits falsely identified by bots as the work of a banned editor can be restored by other editors. An anti-vandal bot is programmed to detect and revert vandalism quickly.[256] Bots are able to indicate edits from particular accounts or IP address ranges, as occurred at the time of the shooting down of the MH17 jet incident in July 2014 when it was reported edits were made via IPs controlled by the Russian government.[260] Bots on Wikipedia must be approved before activation.[261]

According to Andrew Lih, the current expansion of Wikipedia to millions of articles would be difficult to envision without the use of such bots.[262]

Hardware operations and support
See also: Wikimedia Foundation § Hardware
Wikipedia receives between 25,000 and 60,000 page requests per second, depending on time of day.[263][needs update] As of 2019, page requests are first passed to a front-end layer of Varnish caching servers.[264] Further statistics, based on a publicly available 3-month Wikipedia access trace, are available.[265] Requests that cannot be served from the Varnish cache are sent to load-balancing servers running the Linux Virtual Server software, which in turn pass them to one of the Apache web servers for page rendering from the database. The web servers deliver pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the language editions of Wikipedia. To increase speed further, rendered pages are cached in a distributed memory cache until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses.

Diagram showing flow of data between Wikipedia's servers. Twenty database servers talk to hundreds of Apache servers in the backend; the Apache servers talk to fifty squids in the frontend.
Overview of system architecture as of October 2015
Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of Linux servers (mainly Ubuntu).[266][267] As of December 2009, there were 300 in Florida and 44 in Amsterdam.[268] By January 22, 2013, Wikipedia had migrated its primary data center to an Equinix facility in Ashburn, Virginia.[269][270] in 2017, Wikipedia had installed a caching cluster in an Equinix facility in Singapore, the first of its kind in Asia.[271]

Internal research and operational development
In accordance with growing amounts of incoming donations exceeding seven digits in 2013 as recently reported,[58] the Foundation has reached a threshold of assets which qualify its consideration under the principles of industrial organization economics to indicate the need for the re-investment of donations into the internal research and development of the Foundation.[272] Two of the recent projects of such internal research and development have been the creation of a Visual Editor and a largely under-utilized "Thank" tab which were developed for the purpose of ameliorating issues of editor attrition, which have met with limited success.[58][254] The estimates for reinvestment by industrial organizations into internal research and development was studied by Adam Jaffe, who recorded that the range of 4% to 25% annually was to be recommended, with high end technology requiring the higher level of support for internal reinvestment.[273] At the 2013 level of contributions for Wikimedia presently documented as 45 million dollars, the computed budget level recommended by Jaffe and Caballero for reinvestment into internal research and development is between 1.8 million and 11.3 million dollars annually.[273] In 2016, the level of contributions were reported by Bloomberg News as being at $77 million annually, updating the Jaffe estimates for the higher level of support to between $3.08 million and $19.2 million annually.[273]

Internal news publications
Community-produced news publications include the English Wikipedia's The Signpost, founded in 2005 by Michael Snow, an attorney, Wikipedia administrator and former chair of the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees.[274] It covers news and events from the site, as well as major events from other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikimedia Commons. Similar publications are the German-language Kurier, and the Portuguese-language Correio da Wikipédia. Other past and present community news publications on English Wikipedia include the "Wikiworld" web comic, the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, and newsletters of specific WikiProjects like The Bugle from WikiProject Military History and the monthly newsletter from The Guild of Copy Editors. There are also a number of publications from the Wikimedia Foundation and multilingual publications such as the Wikimedia Blog and This Month in Education.

Access to content
Content licensing
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.[275] 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.[276] 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 relicense its content to CC BY-SA 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.[277][278][279][280]

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 content 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.[281]

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.[282][283]

Methods of access
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 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 Reference.com and Answers.com. 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 iOS devices (see Wikipedia apps). (See also Mobile access.)
Search engines – Some web search engines make special use of Wikipedia content when displaying search results: examples include Bing (via technology gained from Powerset)[284] and DuckDuckGo.
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.[285][286] The Polish-language version contains nearly 240,000 articles.[287] There are German- and Spanish-language versions as well.[288][289] 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.[290] The project is available online; an equivalent print encyclopedia would require roughly 20 volumes.
Printed books – There are efforts to put a select subset of Wikipedia's articles into printed book form.[291][292] Since 2009, tens of thousands of print-on-demand books that reproduced English, German, Russian and French Wikipedia articles have been produced by the American company Books LLC and by three Mauritian subsidiaries of the German publisher VDM.[293]
Semantic Web – The website DBpedia, begun in 2007, extracts data from the infoboxes and category declarations of the English-language Wikipedia. Wikimedia has created the Wikidata project with a similar objective of storing the basic facts from each page of Wikipedia and the other WMF wikis and make it available in a queriable semantic format, RDF. This is still under development. As of February 2014 it has 15,000,000 items and 1,000 properties for describing them.
Obtaining the full contents of Wikipedia for reuse presents challenges, since direct cloning via a web crawler is discouraged.[294] Wikipedia publishes "dumps" of its contents, but these are text-only; as of 2007 there was no dump available of Wikipedia's images.[295]

Several languages of Wikipedia also maintain a reference desk, where volunteers answer questions from the general public. According to a study by Pnina Shachaf in the Journal of Documentation, the quality of the Wikipedia reference desk is comparable to a standard library reference desk, with an accuracy of 55 percent.[296]

Mobile access
See also: Help:Mobile access

The mobile version of the English Wikipedia's main page
Wikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit content using any standard web browser through a fixed Internet connection. 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.[18] 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."[18] 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. One principal concern cited by The New York Times for the "worry" is for Wikipedia to effectively address attrition issues with the number of editors which the online encyclopedia attracts to edit and maintain its content in a mobile access environment.[18]

Bloomberg Businessweek reported in July 2014 that Google's Android mobile apps have dominated the largest share of global smartphone shipments for 2013 with 78.6% of market share over their next closest competitor in iOS with 15.2% of the market.[297] At the time of the Tretikov appointment and her posted web interview with Sue Gardner in May 2014, Wikimedia representatives made a technical announcement concerning the number of mobile access systems in the market seeking access to Wikipedia. Directly after the posted web interview, the representatives stated that Wikimedia would be applying an all-inclusive approach to accommodate as many mobile access systems as possible in its efforts for expanding general mobile access, including BlackBerry and the Windows Phone system, making market share a secondary issue.[241] The latest version of the Android app for Wikipedia was released on July 23, 2014, to generally positive reviews, scoring over four of a possible five in a poll of approximately 200,000 users downloading from Google.[298] The latest version for iOS was released on April 3, 2013, to similar reviews.[299]

Access to Wikipedia from mobile phones was possible as early as 2004, through the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), via the Wapedia service. In June 2007 Wikipedia launched en.mobile.wikipedia.org, an official website for wireless devices. In 2009 a newer mobile service was officially released,[300] located at en.m.wikipedia.org, which caters to more advanced mobile devices such as the iPhone, Android-based devices or WebOS-based devices. Several other methods of mobile access to Wikipedia have emerged. Many devices and applications optimize or enhance the display of Wikipedia content for mobile devices, while some also incorporate additional features such as use of Wikipedia metadata (See Wikipedia:Metadata), such as geoinformation.[301][302]

Wikipedia Zero was an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to expand the reach of the encyclopedia to the developing countries.[303] It was discontinued in February 2018.[304]

Andrew Lih and Andrew Brown both maintain editing Wikipedia with smart phones is difficult and this discourages new potential contributors. Several years running the number of Wikipedia editors has been falling and Tom Simonite of MIT Technology Review claims the bureaucratic structure and rules are a factor in this. Simonite alleges some Wikipedians use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and those editors have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.[58] Lih alleges there is serious disagreement among existing contributors how to resolve this. Lih fears for Wikipedia's long term future while Brown fears problems with Wikipedia will remain and rival encyclopedias will not replace it.[305][306]

Cultural impact
Trusted source to combat fake news
In 2017–18, after a barrage of false news reports, both Facebook and YouTube announced they would rely on Wikipedia to help their users evaluate reports and reject false news. Noam Cohen, writing in The Washington Post states, "YouTube’s reliance on Wikipedia to set the record straight builds on the thinking of another fact-challenged platform, the Facebook social network, which announced last year that Wikipedia would help its users root out 'fake news'."[27] In answer to the question of 'how engaged are visitors to the site?' Alexa records the daily pageviews per visitor as 3.04 and the daily time on site as 4.01 minutes.[8]

Readership
In February 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites, stating "With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month [...] Wikipedia trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors."[18]

In addition to logistic growth in the number of its articles,[307] Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.[308] About 50 percent of search engine traffic to Wikipedia comes from Google,[309] a good portion of which is related to academic research.[310] The number of readers of Wikipedia worldwide reached 365 million at the end of 2009.[311] The Pew Internet and American Life project found that one third of US Internet users consulted Wikipedia.[312] In 2011 Business Insider gave Wikipedia a valuation of $4 billion if it ran advertisements.[313]

According to "Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011", the average age of Wikipedia readers is 36, with a rough parity between genders. Almost half of Wikipedia readers visit the site more than five times a month, and a similar number of readers specifically look for Wikipedia in search engine results. About 47 percent of Wikipedia readers do not realize that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization.[314]

Cultural significance
Main article: Wikipedia in culture

Wikipedia Monument in Słubice, Poland
Wikipedia's content has also been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases.[315][316][317] The Parliament of Canada's website refers to Wikipedia's article on same-sex marriage in the "related links" section of its "further reading" list for the Civil Marriage Act.[318] The encyclopedia's assertions are increasingly used as a source by organizations such as the US federal courts and the World Intellectual Property Organization[319]—though mainly for supporting information rather than information decisive to a case.[320] Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some US intelligence agency reports.[321] In December 2008, the scientific journal RNA Biology launched a new section for descriptions of families of RNA molecules and requires authors who contribute to the section to also submit a draft article on the RNA family for publication in Wikipedia.[322]

Wikipedia has also been used as a source in journalism,[323][324] often without attribution, and several reporters have been dismissed for plagiarizing from Wikipedia.[325][326][327]

In 2006, Time magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation (along with YouTube, Reddit, MySpace, and Facebook[328]) in the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by millions of people worldwide.

In July 2007, Wikipedia was the focus of a 30-minute documentary on BBC Radio 4[329] which argued that, with increased usage and awareness, the number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the word is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar (Google, Facebook, YouTube) that they no longer need explanation.

On September 28, 2007, Italian politician Franco Grillini raised a parliamentary question with the minister of cultural resources and activities about the necessity of freedom of panorama. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Wikipedia, "the seventh most consulted website", to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues.[330]

File:Wikipedia, an introduction - Erasmus Prize 2015.webm
Wikipedia, an introduction – Erasmus Prize 2015

Jimmy Wales receiving the Quadriga A Mission of Enlightenment award
On September 16, 2007, The Washington Post reported that Wikipedia had become a focal point in the 2008 US election campaign, saying: "Type a candidate's name into Google, and among the first results is a Wikipedia page, making those entries arguably as important as any ad in defining a candidate. Already, the presidential entries are being edited, dissected and debated countless times each day."[331] An October 2007 Reuters article, titled "Wikipedia page the latest status symbol", reported the recent phenomenon of how having a Wikipedia article vindicates one's notability.[332]

Active participation also has an impact. Law students have been assigned to write Wikipedia articles as an exercise in clear and succinct writing for an uninitiated audience.[333]

A working group led by Peter Stone (formed as a part of the Stanford-based project One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence) in its report called Wikipedia "the best-known example of crowdsourcing ... that far exceeds traditionally-compiled information sources, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, in scale and depth."[334]

In a 2017 opinion piece for Wired, Hossein Derakhshan describes Wikipedia as "one of the last remaining pillars of the open and decentralized web" and contrasted its existence as a text-based source of knowledge with social media and social networking services, the latter having "since colonized the web for television's values." For Derakhshan, Wikipedia's goal as an encyclopedia represents the Age of Enlightenment tradition of rationality triumphing over emotions, a trend which he considers "endangered" due to the "gradual shift from a typographic culture to a photographic one, which in turn mean[s] a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment." Rather than "sapere aude" (lit. 'dare to know'), social networks have led to a culture of "[d]are not to care to know." This is while Wikipedia faces "a more concerning problem" than funding, namely "a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website." Consequently, the challenge for Wikipedia and those who use it is to "save Wikipedia and its promise of a free and open collection of all human knowledge amid the conquest of new and old television—how to collect and preserve knowledge when nobody cares to know."[335]

Awards

Wikipedia team visiting the Parliament of Asturias

Wikipedians meeting after the Asturias awards ceremony
Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004.[336] The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities of the annual Prix Ars Electronica contest; this came with a €10,000 (£6,588; $12,700) grant and an invitation to present at the PAE Cyberarts Festival in Austria later that year. The second was a Judges' Webby Award for the "community" category.[337] Wikipedia was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby award.

In 2007, readers of brandchannel.com voted Wikipedia as the fourth-highest brand ranking, receiving 15 percent of the votes in answer to the question "Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?"[338]

In September 2008, Wikipedia received Quadriga A Mission of Enlightenment award of Werkstatt Deutschland along with Boris Tadić, Eckart Höfling, and Peter Gabriel. The award was presented to Wales by David Weinberger.[339]

In 2015, Wikipedia was awarded both the annual Erasmus Prize, which recognizes exceptional contributions to culture, society or social sciences,[340] and the Spanish Princess of Asturias Award on International Cooperation.[341] Speaking at the Asturian Parliament in Oviedo, the city that hosts the awards ceremony, Jimmy Wales praised the work of the Asturian language Wikipedia users.[342] The night of the ceremony, members of the Wikimedia Foundation held a meeting with Wikipedians from all parts of Spain, including the local Asturian community.

Satire
See also: Category:Parodies of Wikipedia.
Many parodies target Wikipedia's openness and susceptibility to inserted inaccuracies, with characters vandalizing or modifying the online encyclopedia project's articles.

Comedian Stephen Colbert has parodied or referenced Wikipedia on numerous episodes of his show The Colbert Report and coined the related term wikiality, meaning "together we can create a reality that we all agree on—the reality we just agreed on".[189] Another example can be found in "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence", a July 2006 front-page article in The Onion,[343] as well as the 2010 The Onion article "'L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874 Times Today".[344]

In an episode of the television comedy The Office U.S., which aired in April 2007, an incompetent office manager (Michael Scott) is shown relying on a hypothetical Wikipedia article for information on negotiation tactics in order to assist him in negotiating lesser pay for an employee.[345] Viewers of the show tried to add the episode's mention of the page as a section of the actual Wikipedia article on negotiation, but this effort was prevented by other users on the article's talk page.[346]

"My Number One Doctor", a 2007 episode of the television show Scrubs, played on the perception that Wikipedia is an unreliable reference tool with a scene in which Dr. Perry Cox reacts to a patient who says that a Wikipedia article indicates that the raw food diet reverses the effects of bone cancer by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article also wrote the Battlestar Galactica episode guide.[347]

In 2008, the comedic website CollegeHumor produced a video sketch named "Professor Wikipedia", in which the fictitious Professor Wikipedia instructs a class with a medley of unverifiable and occasionally absurd statements.[348]

The Dilbert comic strip from May 8, 2009, features a character supporting an improbable claim by saying "Give me ten minutes and then check Wikipedia."[349]

In July 2009, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a comedy series called Bigipedia, which was set on a website which was a parody of Wikipedia. Some of the sketches were directly inspired by Wikipedia and its articles.[350]

In 2010, comedian Daniel Tosh encouraged viewers of his show, Tosh.0, to visit the show's Wikipedia article and edit it at will. On a later episode, he commented on the edits to the article, most of them offensive, which had been made by the audience and had prompted the article to be locked from editing.[351][352]

On August 23, 2013, the New Yorker website published a cartoon with this caption: "Dammit, Manning, have you considered the pronoun war that this is going to start on your Wikipedia page?"[353] The cartoon referred to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning), an American activist, politician, and former United States Army soldier and a trans woman.

In December 2015, John Julius Norwich stated, in a letter published in The Times newspaper, that as an historian he resorted to Wikipedia "at least a dozen times a day", and had never yet caught it out. He described it as "a work of reference as useful as any in existence", with so wide a range that it is almost impossible to find a person, place or thing that it has left uncovered, and that he could never have written his last two books without it.[354][355]

Sister projects – Wikimedia
Main article: Wikimedia project
Wikipedia has also spawned several sister projects, which are also wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation. These other Wikimedia projects include Wiktionary, a dictionary project launched in December 2002,[356] Wikiquote, a collection of quotations created a week after Wikimedia launched, Wikibooks, a collection of collaboratively written free textbooks and annotated texts, Wikimedia Commons, a site devoted to free-knowledge multimedia, Wikinews, for citizen journalism, and Wikiversity, a project for the creation of free learning materials and the provision of online learning activities.[357] Another sister project of Wikipedia, Wikispecies, is a catalogue of species. In 2012 Wikivoyage, an editable travel guide, and Wikidata, an editable knowledge base, launched.

Publishing

A group of Wikimedians of the Wikimedia DC chapter at the 2013 DC Wikimedia annual meeting standing in front of the Encyclopædia Britannica (back left) at the US National Archives
The most obvious economic effect of Wikipedia has been the death of commercial encyclopedias, especially the printed versions, e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica, which were unable to compete with a product that is essentially free.[358][359][360] Nicholas Carr wrote a 2005 essay, "The amorality of Web 2.0", that criticized websites with user-generated content, like Wikipedia, for possibly leading to professional (and, in his view, superior) content producers' going out of business, because "free trumps quality all the time". Carr wrote: "Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening."[361] Others dispute the notion that Wikipedia, or similar efforts, will entirely displace traditional publications. For instance, Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine, wrote in Nature that the "wisdom of crowds" approach of Wikipedia will not displace top scientific journals, with their rigorous peer review process.[362]

There is also an ongoing debate about the influence of Wikipedia on the biography publishing business. "The worry is that, if you can get all that information from Wikipedia, what's left for biography?" said Kathryn Hughes, professor of life writing at the University of East Anglia and author of The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton and George Eliot: the Last Victorian.[363]

Research use
Wikipedia has been widely used as a corpus for linguistic research in computational linguistics, information retrieval and natural language processing. In particular, it commonly serves as a target knowledge base for the entity linking problem, which is then called "wikification",[364] and to the related problem of word sense disambiguation.[365] Methods similar to wikification can in turn be used to find "missing" links in Wikipedia.[366]

In 2015, French researchers Dr José Lages of the University of Franche-Comté in Besançon and Dima Shepelyansky of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse published a global university ranking based on Wikipedia scholarly citations.[367][368][369] They used PageRank "followed by the number of appearances in the 24 different language editions of Wikipedia (descending order) and the century in which they were founded (ascending order)."[369]

A 2017 MIT study suggests that words used on Wikipedia articles end up in scientific publications.[370][371]

A 2018 Charles University study concluded that Wikipedia is the most used OER for students of environmental studies (used by 95% of students) and argued that educational institutions should focus their attention on it (for example by supporting Wikipedians in residence).[372]

Studies related to Wikipedia has been using machine learning and artificial intelligence to support various operations. One of the most important areas—automatic detection of vandalism[373][374] and data quality assessment in Wikipedia,[375] which may include different measures for articles and infoboxes.[206]

Related projects
A number of interactive multimedia encyclopedias incorporating entries written by the public existed long before Wikipedia was founded. The first of these was the 1986 BBC Domesday Project, which included text (entered on BBC Micro computers) and photographs from over 1 million contributors in the UK, and covered the geography, art, and culture of the UK. This was the first interactive multimedia encyclopedia (and was also the first major multimedia document connected through internal links), with the majority of articles being accessible through an interactive map of the UK. The user interface and part of the content of the Domesday Project were emulated on a website until 2008.[376]

Several free-content, collaborative encyclopedias were created around the same period as Wikipedia (e.g. Everything2),[377] with many later being merged into the project (e.g. GNE).[378] One of the most successful early online encyclopedias incorporating entries by the public was h2g2, which was created by Douglas Adams in 1999. The h2g2 encyclopedia is relatively light-hearted, focusing on articles which are both witty and informative.

Subsequent collaborative knowledge websites have drawn inspiration from Wikipedia. Some, such as Susning.nu, Enciclopedia Libre, Hudong, and Baidu Baike likewise employ no formal review process, although some like Conservapedia are not as open. Others use more traditional peer review, such as Encyclopedia of Life and the online wiki encyclopedias Scholarpedia and Citizendium. The latter was started by Sanger in an attempt to create a reliable alternative to Wikipedia.[379][380]

See also
icon Internet portal
Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia
Democratization of knowledge
Interpedia, an early proposal for a collaborative Internet encyclopedia
List of online encyclopedias
List of Wikipedia controversies
Network effect
Outline of Wikipedia – guide to the subject of Wikipedia presented as a tree structured list of its subtopics; for an outline of the contents of Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines
Print Wikipedia art project to visualize how big Wikipedia is. In cooperation with Wikimedia foundation.
QRpedia – multilingual, mobile interface to Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review
Notes
Registration is required for certain tasks such as editing protected pages, creating pages in the English Wikipedia, and uploading files.
To be considered active, a user must make at least one edit or other action in a given month.
As of 17:40, Thursday, December 5, 2019 (UTC).
The procrastination principle dictates that you should wait for problems to arise before solving them.
Revisions with libelous content, criminal threats, or copyright infringements may be removed completely.
See for example the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard or Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, created to address content falling under their respective areas.
See "Libel" by David McHam for the legal distinction.
References
Sidener, Jonathan (December 6, 2004). "Everyone's Encyclopedia". U-T San Diego. Archived from the original on January 14, 2016. Retrieved October 15, 2006.
Chapman, Roger (September 6, 2011). "Top 40 Website Programming Languages". roadchap.com. Archived from the original on September 22, 2013. Retrieved September 6, 2011.
Mark McNeil (October 4, 2011). "Wikipedia Makes A House Call To Mac". The Hamilton Spectator.
Poe, Marshall (September 2006). "The Hive". The Atlantic Monthly.
Bill Tancer (May 1, 2007). "Look Who's Using Wikipedia". Time. Retrieved December 1, 2007. The sheer volume of content [...] is partly responsible for the site's dominance as an online reference. When compared to the top 3,200 educational reference sites in the US, Wikipedia is No. 1, capturing 24.3% of all visits to the category. Cf. Bill Tancer (Global Manager, Hitwise), "Wikipedia, Search and School Homework" Archived March 25, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Hitwise, March 1, 2007.
Alex Woodson (July 8, 2007). "Wikipedia remains go-to site for online news". Reuters. Retrieved December 16, 2007. Online encyclopedia Wikipedia has added about 20 million unique monthly visitors in the past year, making it the top online news and information destination, according to Nielsen//NetRatings.
"comScore MMX Ranks Top 50 US Web Properties for August 2012". comScore. September 12, 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013.
"Wikipedia.org Traffic, Demographics and Competitors". www.alexa.com. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
Dewey, Caitlin (December 2, 2015). "Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours?". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 10, 2019.
"Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights – BBC News". BBC. May 10, 2010. Retrieved June 28, 2016.
Vogel, Peter S. (October 10, 2012). "The Mysterious Workings of Wikis: Who Owns What?". Ecommerce Times. Retrieved June 28, 2016.
Mullin, Joe (January 10, 2014). "Wikimedia Foundation employee ousted over paid editing". Ars Technica. Retrieved June 28, 2016.
Shin, Annys (January 5, 2017). "Wikipedia was born in 2001. And the world got a bit truthier". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 22, 2019.
Mike Miliard (March 1, 2008). "Wikipediots: Who Are These Devoted, Even Obsessive Contributors to Wikipedia?". Salt Lake City Weekly. Retrieved December 18, 2008.
Sidener, Jonathan (October 9, 2006). "Wikipedia family feud rooted in San Diego". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on November 11, 2016. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
"Wiki". Hawaiian Dictionary (Revised and enlarged ed.). University of Hawaii Press. 1986.
"Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales on 60 Minutes". CBS News. Retrieved April 6, 2015.
Cohen, Noam (February 9, 2014). "Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen". The New York Times.
Jim Giles (December 2005). "Internet encyclopedias go head to head". Nature. 438 (7070): 900–901. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..900G. doi:10.1038/438900a. PMID 16355180.(subscription required) Note: The study was cited in several news articles; e.g.:
"Wikipedia survives research test". BBC News. December 15, 2005.
Reagle, pp. 165–166.
Orlowski, Andrew (December 16, 2005). "Wikipedia science 31% more cronky than Britannica's Excellent for Klingon science, though". The Register. Retrieved February 25, 2019.
"The 2006 Time 100". Time. May 8, 2006. Retrieved November 11, 2017.
Black, Edwin (April 19, 2010) Wikipedia – The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge Archived September 9, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, History News Network Retrieved October 21, 2014
J. Petrilli, Michael (Spring 2008/Vol. 8, No. 2) Wikipedia or Wickedpedia? Archived November 21, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, Education Next Retrieved October 22, 2014
Curtis, Cara (2019). "This physicist has written over 500 biographies of women scientists on Wikipedia". thenextweb.com. The Next Web.
Wade, Jessica (2019). "This is why I've written 500 biographies of female scientists on Wikipedia". independent.co.uk. The Independent.
Cohen, Noam (April 7, 2018). "Conspiracy videos? Fake news? Enter Wikipedia, the 'good cop' of the Internet". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 14, 2018.
"The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?". Nieman Lab. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
Kock, N., Jung, Y., & Syn, T. (2016). Wikipedia and e-Collaboration Research: Opportunities and Challenges. (PDF) Archived September 27, 2016, at the Wayback Machine International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC), 12(2), 1–8.
Jonathan Sidener (December 6, 2004). "Everyone's Encyclopedia". U-T San Diego. Archived from the original on October 11, 2007. Retrieved October 15, 2006.
Meyers, Peter (September 20, 2001). "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You". The New York Times. Retrieved November 22, 2007. 'I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph,' said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales.
Richard M. Stallman (June 20, 2007). "The Free Encyclopedia Project". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved January 4, 2008.
Sanger, Larry (April 18, 2005). "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir". Slashdot. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Sanger, Larry (January 17, 2001). "Wikipedia Is Up!". Archived from the original on May 6, 2001. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
"Wikipedia-l: LinkBacks?". Retrieved February 20, 2007.
Sanger, Larry (January 10, 2001). "Let's Make a Wiki". Internet Archive. Archived from the original on April 14, 2003. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
"WHOIS domain registration information results for wikipedia.com from Network Solutions". September 27, 2007. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved August 31, 2018.
"WHOIS domain registration information results for wikipedia.org from Network Solutions". September 27, 2007. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved August 31, 2018.
"Wikipedia: HomePage". Archived from the original on March 31, 2001. Retrieved March 31, 2001.
"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (January 21, 2007).
Finkelstein, Seth (September 25, 2008). "Read me first: Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says". The Guardian. London.
"Multilingual statistics". Wikipedia. March 30, 2005. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
"Encyclopedias and Dictionaries". Encyclopædia Britannica. 18 (15th ed.). 2007. pp. 257–286.
"[long] Enciclopedia Libre: msg#00008". Osdir. Archived from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Clay Shirky (February 28, 2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. The Penguin Press via Amazon Online Reader. p. 273. ISBN 978-1-59420-153-0. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermai...st/003982.html
Bobbie Johnson (August 12, 2009). "Wikipedia approaches its limits". The Guardian. London. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth
The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia (PDF). The International Symposium on Wikis. Orlando, Florida. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 11, 2011.
Evgeny Morozov (November–December 2009). "Edit This Page; Is it the end of Wikipedia". Boston Review.
Cohen, Noam (March 28, 2009). "Wikipedia – Exploring Fact City". The New York Times. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
Austin Gibbons, David Vetrano, Susan Biancani (2012). Wikipedia: Nowhere to grow Archived July 18, 2014, at the Wayback Machine open access
Jenny Kleeman (November 26, 2009). "Wikipedia falling victim to a war of words". The Guardian. London. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
"Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis". Archived from the original (PDF) on April 3, 2012.
Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages, The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2009.
Barnett, Emma (November 26, 2009). "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales denies site is 'losing' thousands of volunteer editors". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
Kevin Rawlinson (August 8, 2011). "Wikipedia seeks women to balance its 'geeky' editors". The Independent. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved November 30, 2013.
"3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins". The Atlantic. July 16, 2012.
Ward, Katherine. New York Magazine, issue of November 25, 2013, p. 18.
"Wikipedia Breaks Into US Top 10 Sites". PCWorld. February 17, 2007.
"Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report – Wikipedia Page Views Per Country". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March 8, 2015.
Netburn, Deborah (January 19, 2012). "Wikipedia: SOPA protest led eight million to look up reps in Congress". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 6, 2012.
"Wikipedia joins blackout protest at US anti-piracy moves". BBC News. January 18, 2012. Retrieved January 19, 2012.
"SOPA/Blackoutpage". Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on June 22, 2018. Retrieved January 19, 2012.
Jeff Loveland and Joseph Reagle (January 15, 2013). "Wikipedia and encyclopedic production. New Media & Society. Sage Journals". New Media & Society. 15 (8): 1294. doi:10.1177/1461444812470428.
Rebecca J. Rosen (January 30, 2013). "What If the Great Wikipedia 'Revolution' Was Actually a Reversion? • The Atlantic". Retrieved February 9, 2013.
Varma, Subodh (January 20, 2014). "Google eating into Wikipedia page views?". The Economic Times. Times Internet Limited. Retrieved February 10, 2014.
"Alexa Top 500 Global Sites". Alexa Internet. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
Watson, J.M. (2019). "Lest we forget. A new identity and status for a Viola of section Andinium W. Becker; named for an old and treasured friend and companion. Plus another ..." (PDF). International Rock Gardener (117): 47–.
Oberhaus, Daniel (August 5, 2019). "A Crashed Israeli Lunar Lander Spilled Tardigrades On The Moon". Wired. Retrieved August 6, 2019.
Resnick, Brian (August 6, 2019). "Tardigrades, the toughest animals on Earth, have crash-landed on the moon - The tardigrade conquest of the solar system has begun". Vox. Retrieved August 6, 2019.
Shankland, Stephen (June 29, 2019). "Startup packs all 16GB of Wikipedia onto DNA strands to demonstrate new storage tech - Biological molecules will last a lot longer than the latest computer storage technology, Catalog believes". CNET. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
"List of spacewalks since 2015: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
"Wikipedia Statistics (English)". stats.wikimedia.org.
"Wikipedia Statistics (English)" Check |url= value (help). stats.wikimedia.org.
Zittrain, Jonathan (2008). The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It – Chapter 6: The Lessons of Wikipedia. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12487-3. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Registration notes
Protection Policy
Hafner, Katie (June 17, 2006). "Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy". The New York Times. Retrieved December 5, 2016.
English Wikipedia's protection policy
English Wikipedia's full protection policy
Birken, P. (December 14, 2008). "Bericht Gesichtete Versionen". Wikide-l (Mailing list) (in German). Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
William Henderson (December 10, 2012). "Wikipedia Has Figured Out A New Way To Stop Vandals In Their Tracks". Business Insider.
Frewin, Jonathan (June 15, 2010). "Wikipedia unlocks divisive pages for editing". BBC News. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
Kleinz, Torsten (February 2005). "World of Knowledge" (PDF). Linux Magazine. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 25, 2007. Retrieved July 13, 2007. The Wikipedia's open structure makes it a target for trolls and vandals who malevolently add incorrect information to articles, get other people tied up in endless discussions, and generally do everything to draw attention to themselves.
Wikipedia:New pages patrol
Andrea Ciffolilli, "Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia" Archived December 6, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, First Monday December 2003.
West, Andrew G.; Chang, Jian; Venkatasubramanian, Krishna; Sokolsky, Oleg; Lee, Insup (2011). Link Spamming Wikipedia for Profit. 8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse, and Spam Conference. pp. 152–161. doi:10.1145/2030376.2030394.
Vandalism. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 6, 2012.
Fernanda B. Viégas; Martin Wattenberg; Kushal Dave (2004). Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with History Flow Visualizations (PDF). Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). pp. 575–582. doi:10.1145/985921.985953. ISBN 978-1-58113-702-6. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 25, 2006. Retrieved January 24, 2007.
Reid Priedhorsky; Jilin Chen; Shyong (Tony) K. Lam; Katherine Panciera; Loren Terveen; John Riedl (November 4, 2007). "Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia" (PDF). Association for Computing Machinery GROUP '07 Conference Proceedings; GroupLens Research, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 25, 2007. Retrieved October 13, 2007.
Seigenthaler, John (November 29, 2005). "A False Wikipedia 'biography'". USA Today. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Friedman, Thomas L. (2007). The World is Flat. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. p. 124. ISBN 978-0-374-29278-2.
Buchanan, Brian (November 17, 2006). "Founder shares cautionary tale of libel in cyberspace". archive.firstamendmentcenter.org. Archived from the original on December 21, 2012. Retrieved November 17, 2012.
Helm, Burt (December 13, 2005). "Wikipedia: "A Work in Progress"". BusinessWeek. Archived from the original on July 8, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
Dispute Resolution
Coldewey, Devin (June 21, 2012). "Wikipedia is editorial warzone, says study". Technology. NBC News. Archived from the original on August 22, 2014. Retrieved October 29, 2012.
Kalyanasundaram, Arun; Wei, Wei; Carley, Kathleen M.; Herbsleb, James D. (December 2015). "An agent-based model of edit wars in Wikipedia: How and when is consensus reached". 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). Huntington Beach, CA, USA: IEEE: 276–287. doi:10.1109/WSC.2015.7408171. ISBN 9781467397438.
Suh, Bongwon; Convertino, Gregorio; Chi, Ed H.; Pirolli, Peter (2009). "The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia". Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration - WikiSym '09. Orlando, Florida: ACM Press: 1. doi:10.1145/1641309.1641322. ISBN 9781605587301.
Torres, Nicole (June 2, 2016). "Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia?". Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
Bear, Julia B.; Collier, Benjamin (March 2016). "Where are the Women in Wikipedia? Understanding the Different Psychological Experiences of Men and Women in Wikipedia". Sex Roles. 74 (5–6): 254–265. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y. ISSN 0360-0025.
Kiss, Rachel Shabi Jemima (August 18, 2010). "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
"The Right's Latest Weapon: 'Zionist Editing' on Wikipedia". Haaretz. August 18, 2010. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
"Who's behind Wikipedia?". PC World. February 6, 2008. Archived from the original on February 9, 2008. Retrieved February 7, 2008.
What Wikipedia is not. Retrieved April 1, 2010. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide."
Notability. Retrieved February 13, 2008. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
No original research. February 13, 2008. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought."
Verifiability. February 13, 2008. "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
Cohen, Noam (August 9, 2011). "For inclusive mission, Wikipedia is told that written word goes only so far". International Herald Tribune. p. 18.(subscription required)
Neutral point of view. February 13, 2008. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias."
Sanger, Larry (April 18, 2005). "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir". Slashdot. Dice.
Kostakis, Vasilis (March 2010). "Identifying and understanding the problems of Wikipedia's peer governance: The case of inclusionists versus deletionists". First Monday. 15 (3).
Ownership of articles
Wikipedia:Administrators
Mehegan, David (February 13, 2006). "Many contributors, common cause". Boston Globe. Retrieved March 25, 2007.
"Wikipedia:Administrators". October 3, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2009.
"Wikipedia:RfA_Review/Reflect". January 22, 2017. Retrieved September 24, 2009.
Meyer, Robinson (July 16, 2012). "3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 2, 2012.
David A. Hoffman; Salil K. Mehra (2009). "Wikitruth through Wikiorder". Emory Law Journal. 59 (1): 181. SSRN 1354424.
David A. Hoffman; Salil K. Mehra (2009). "Wikitruth through Wikiorder". Emory Law Journal. 59 (1): 151–210. SSRN 1354424.
Fernanda B. Viégas; Martin M. Wattenberg; Jesse Kriss; Frank van Ham (January 3, 2007). "Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia" (PDF). Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research. Retrieved June 27, 2008.
Arthur, Charles (December 15, 2005). "Log on and join in, but beware the web cults". The Guardian. London. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Lu Stout, Kristie (August 4, 2003). "Wikipedia: The know-it-all Web site". CNN. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Larry Sanger (December 31, 2004). "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism". Kuro5hin, Op–Ed. There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups [...] that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you [...] demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship", attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. [...] The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem [...] which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist, it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.)
T. Kriplean, I. Beschastnikh, et al. (2008). "Articulations of wikiwork". Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in Wikipedia through barnstars. Proceedings of the ACM. p. 47. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460573. ISBN 978-1-60558-007-4. (Subscription required.)
Jean Goodwin (2009). "The Authority of Wikipedia" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 22, 2009. Retrieved January 31, 2011. Wikipedia's commitment to anonymity/pseudonymity thus imposes a sort of epistemic agnosticism on its readers
Kittur, Aniket (2007). "Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie". Viktoria Institute. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.212.8218.
Blodget, Henry (January 3, 2009). "Who The Hell Writes Wikipedia, Anyway?". Business Insider.
Wilson, Chris (February 22, 2008). "The Wisdom of the Chaperones". Slate. Retrieved August 13, 2014.
Swartz, Aaron (September 4, 2006). "Raw Thought: Who Writes Wikipedia?". Archived from the original on August 3, 2014. Retrieved February 23, 2008.
Goldman, Eric. "Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its Consequences". 8. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law.
Noveck, Beth Simone. "Wikipedia and the Future of Legal Education". 57. Journal of Legal Education.
"Wikipedia "Good Samaritans" Are on the Money". Scientific American. October 19, 2007. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Yair Amichai–Hamburger, Naama Lamdan, Rinat Madiel, Tsahi Hayat, Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members, CyberPsychology & Behavior, December 1, 2008, 11 (6): 679–681; doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0225.
"Wikipedians are 'closed' and 'disagreeable'". New Scientist. Retrieved July 13, 2010. (Subscription required.)
"The Misunderstood Personality Profile of Wikipedia Members". psychologytoday.com. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
Giles, Jim (August 4, 2009). "After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust?". New Scientist.
Cohen, Noam. "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved October 28, 2013.
"OCAD to 'Storm Wikipedia' this fall". CBC News. August 27, 2013. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
Dimitra Kessenides (December 26, 2017). Bloomberg News Weekly, "Is Wikipedia 'Woke'". p. 73.
"The startling numbers behind Africa's Wikipedia knowledge gaps". memeburn.com. June 21, 2018.
"Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias". English Wikipedia. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
"Statistics". English Wikipedia. October 4, 2018. Retrieved June 21, 2008.
List of Wikipedias
List of Wikipedias – Meta
"List of Wikipedias". Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
"Spelling". Manual of Style. Wikipedia. September 26, 2018. Retrieved May 19, 2007.
"Countering systemic bias". July 15, 2018. Retrieved May 19, 2007.
"Fair use". Meta-Wiki. Retrieved July 14, 2007.
"Images on Wikipedia". Retrieved July 14, 2007.
Fernanda B. Viégas (January 3, 2007). "The Visual Side of Wikipedia" (PDF). Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research. Retrieved October 30, 2007.
Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <Wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>
"Meta-Wiki". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March 24, 2009.
"Meta-Wiki Statistics". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March 24, 2008.
"List of articles every Wikipedia should have". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March 24, 2008.
"Wikipedia: Translation". English Wikipedia. September 27, 2018. Retrieved February 3, 2007.
Yasseri, Taha; Sumi, Robert; Kertész, János (January 17, 2012). "Circadian Patterns of Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A Demographic Analysis". PLoS ONE. 7 (1): e30091. arXiv:1109.1746. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...730091Y. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030091. PMC 3260192. PMID 22272279.
"Wikimedia Foundation 2011–12 Annual Plan" (PDF). Wikimedia Foundation. p. 8. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
"The future of Wikipedia: WikiPeaks?". The Economist. March 1, 2014. Retrieved March 11, 2014.
Andrew Lih. Wikipedia. Alternative edit policies at Wikipedia in other languages.
Jemielniak, Dariusz (June 22, 2014). "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia". Slate. Retrieved August 18, 2014.
D. Jemielniak, Common Knowledge, Stanford University Press, 2014.
Messer-Kruse, Timothy (February 12, 2012) The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia Archived December 18, 2016, at the Wayback Machine The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved March 27, 2014
Colón-Aguirre, Monica & Fleming-May, Rachel A. (October 11, 2012) "You Just Type in What You Are Looking For": Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia Archived April 19, 2016, at the Wayback Machine (p. 392) The Journal of Academic Librarianship Retrieved March 27, 2014
Bowling Green News (February 27, 2012) Wikipedia experience sparks national debate Archived August 27, 2016, at the Wayback Machine Bowling Green State University Retrieved March 27, 2014
Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds | Oliver Kamm – Times Online (archive version 2011-08-14) (Author's own copy Archived September 5, 2016, at the Wayback Machine)
"Plagiarism by Wikipedia editors". Wikipedia Watch. October 27, 2006. Archived from the original on November 25, 2009.
"Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up". Wired. Associated Press. December 15, 2005. Retrieved August 8, 2015.
Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature Archived July 9, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, Encyclopædia Britannica, March 2006
"Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response" (PDF). Retrieved July 13, 2010.
"Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica". Nature. March 30, 2006. Archived from the original on May 15, 2017. Retrieved February 25, 2018.
See author acknowledged comments in response to the citation of the Nature study, at PLoS ONE, 2014, "Citation of fundamentally flawed Nature quality 'study' ", In response to T. Yasseri et al. (2012) Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia, Published June 20, 2012, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038869, see "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 16, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2014., accessed July 21, 2014.
"Wikipedia:General disclaimer". English Wikipedia. September 18, 2018. Retrieved April 22, 2008.
Public Information Research, Wikipedia Watch
Raphel, JR (August 26, 2009). "The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders". PC World. Retrieved September 2, 2009.
Cowen, Tyler (March 14, 2008). "Cooked Books". The New Republic. Archived from the original on March 18, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Stacy Schiff (July 31, 2006). "Know It All". The New Yorker.
Danah Boyd (January 4, 2005). "Academia and Wikipedia". Many 2 Many: A Group Weblog on Social Software. Corante. Archived from the original on March 16, 2006. Retrieved December 18, 2008. [The author, Danah Boyd, describes herself as] an expert on social media[,] [...] a doctoral student in the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley [,] and a fellow at the Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet & Society [at Harvard Law School.]
Robert McHenry, "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia" Archived January 16, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, Tech Central Station, November 15, 2004.
"Wikipedia Founder Says Internet Users Are Adrift In The 'Fake News' Era". NPR.org. Archived from the original on June 25, 2018. Retrieved May 1, 2018.
"Inside Wikipedia – Attack of the PR Industry". Deutsche Welle. June 30, 2014. Retrieved July 2, 2014.
"Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version)". Citizendium. Archived from the original on October 11, 2006. Retrieved October 10, 2006.
Elder, Jeff (June 16, 2014). "Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing". The Wall Street Journal.
Ahrens, Frank (July 9, 2006). "Death by Wikipedia: The Kenneth Lay Chronicles". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 1, 2006.
Kane, Margaret (January 30, 2006). "Politicians notice Wikipedia". CNET. Retrieved January 28, 2007.
Bergstein, Brian (January 23, 2007). "Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit". NBC News. Retrieved February 1, 2007.
Hafner, Katie (August 19, 2007). "Lifting Corporate Fingerprints From the Editing of Wikipedia". The New York Times. p. 1. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Stephen Colbert (July 30, 2006). "Wikiality". Retrieved October 8, 2015.
Cohen, Morris; Olson, Kent (2010). Legal Research in a Nutshell (10th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: Thomson Reuters. pp. 32–34. ISBN 978-0-314-26408-4.
"Wide World of Wikipedia". The Emory Wheel. April 21, 2006. Archived from the original on November 7, 2007. Retrieved October 17, 2007.
Waters, N.L. (2007). "Why you can't cite Wikipedia in my class". Communications of the ACM. 50 (9): 15. Bibcode:1985CACM...28...22S. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.380.4996. doi:10.1145/1284621.1284635.
Jaschik, Scott (January 26, 2007). "A Stand Against Wikipedia". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
Helm, Burt (December 14, 2005). "Wikipedia: 'A Work in Progress'". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Archived from the original on April 21, 2012. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
"Jimmy Wales", Biography Resource Center Online. (Gale, 2006.)
Child, Maxwell L., "Professors Split on Wiki Debate" Archived December 20, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, The Harvard Crimson, February 26, 2007.
Chloe Stothart. "Web threatens learning ethos" Archived December 21, 2012, at the Wayback Machine The Times Higher Education Supplement, 2007, 1799 (June 22), p. 2.
Julie Beck. "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia". The Atlantic, March 5, 2014.
Green, Emma (May 7, 2014). "Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text? – Julie Beck". The Atlantic. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
Lewoniewski, Włodzimierz; Węcel, Krzysztof; Abramowicz, Witold (2019). "Multilingual Ranking of Wikipedia Articles with Quality and Popularity Assessment in Different Topics". Computers. 8 (3): 60. doi:10.3390/computers8030060.
Kittur, Aniket; Kraut, Robert E. (2008). "Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in Wikipedia: quality through coordination". Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. New York: ACM. pp. 37–46. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460572. ISBN 978-1-60558-007-4.[permanent dead link]
Roy Rosenzweig (June 2006). "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past". The Journal of American History. 93 (1): 117–146. doi:10.2307/4486062. JSTOR 4486062. Archived from the original on April 25, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2006. (Center for History and New Media.)
Andrew Orlowski (October 18, 2005). "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems". The Register. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
"Cancer information on Wikipedia is accurate, but not very readable, study finds". Science Daily. June 2, 2010. Retrieved December 31, 2010.
"Fact or fiction? Wikipedia's variety of contributors is not only a strength". The Economist. March 10, 2007. Retrieved December 31, 2010.
Lewoniewski, Włodzimierz (2019). Measures for Quality Assessment of Articles and Infoboxes in Multilingual Wikipedia. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. 339. pp. 619–633. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04849-5_53. ISBN 978-3-030-04849-5.
Wikipedia:PAPER
"The battle for Wikipedia's soul". The Economist. March 6, 2008. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved March 7, 2008.
Douglas, Ian (November 10, 2007). "Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved November 23, 2010.
Sophie Taylor (April 5, 2008). "China allows access to English Wikipedia". Reuters. Retrieved July 29, 2008.
Bruilliard, Karin (May 21, 2010). "Pakistan blocks YouTube a day after shutdown of Facebook over Muhammad issue". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
Kittur, A., Chi, E. H., and Suh, B. 2009. What's in Wikipedia? Mapping Topics and Conflict Using Socially Annotated Category Structure Archived April 13, 2016, at the Wayback Machine In Proceedings of the 27th international Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, Massachusetts, April 4–9, 2009). CHI '09. ACM, New York, 1509–1512.
Petrusich, Amanda (October 20, 2011). "Wikipedia's Deep Dive Into a Library Collection". The New York Times. Retrieved October 28, 2011.
Lam, Shyong (Tony) K.; Anuradha Uduwage; Zhenhua Dong; Shilad Sen; David R. Musicant; Loren Terveen; John Riedl (October 3–5, 2011). "WP: Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym 2011: 4.
Mark Graham, Mapping the Geographies of Wikipedia Content, Zerogeography.net (November 12, 2009).
Strohmaier, Markus (March 6, 2017). "Multilingual historical narratives on Wikipedia". GESIS Data Archive. doi:10.7802/1411. Wikipedia narratives about national histories (i) are skewed towards more recent events (recency bias) and (ii) are distributed unevenly across the continents with significant focus on the history of European countries (Eurocentric bias).
The Guardian 2014 (London) The Guardian view on Wikipedia: evolving truth Archived November 12, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
Quilter, Laura (October 24, 2012). "Systemic Bias in Wikipedia: What It Looks Like, and How to Deal with It". University of Massachusetts – Amherst. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
"Edit Wars Reveal the 10 Most Controversial Topics on Wikipedia", MIT Technology Review, July 17, 2013.
Yasseri, Taha; Spoerri, Anselm; Graham, Mark; Kertesz, Janos (May 23, 2013), The Most Controversial Topics in Wikipedia: A Multilingual and Geographical Analysis by Taha Yasseri, Anselm Spoerri, Mark Graham, Janos Kertesz :: SSRN, arXiv:1305.5566, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2269392, SSRN 2269392
Das, Sanmay; Allen, Lavoie; Malik, Magdon-Ismail (November 1, 2013). "Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: How Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion". CIKM '13 Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management. San Francisco, California: ACM. pp. 1097–1106. doi:10.1145/2505515.2505566. ISBN 978-1-4503-2263-8.
Das, Sanmay; Allen, Lavoie; Malik, Magdon-Ismail (December 24, 2016). "Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: How Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion". ACM Transactions on the Web. 10 (4): 24. doi:10.1145/3001937.
Metz, Cade (December 7, 2008). "Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover". The Register. Retrieved May 10, 2009.
"Wikipedia rejects child porn accusation". The Sydney Morning Herald. April 29, 2010. Archived from the original on September 2, 2017. Retrieved May 14, 2017.
Farrell, Nick (April 29, 2010). "Wikipedia denies child abuse allegations: Co-founder grassed the outfit to the FBI". The Inquirer. Retrieved October 9, 2010.
Metz, Cade (April 9, 2010). "Wikifounder reports Wikiparent to FBI over 'child porn'". The Register. Retrieved April 19, 2010.
"Wikipedia blasts co-founder's accusations of child porn on website". The Economic Times. India. April 29, 2010. Retrieved April 29, 2010.
Agence France-Presse (April 29, 2010). "Wikipedia rejects child porn accusation". The Sydney Morning Herald.
"Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights". BBC News. May 10, 2010. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
Gray, Lila (September 17, 2013). "Wikipedia Gives Porn a Break". XBIZ.com. Retrieved November 10, 2013.
Andrew McStay, 2014, Privacy and Philosophy: New Media and Affective Protocol Archived April 14, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, New York Peter Lang.
Heise Archived September 13, 2012, at the Wayback Machine – Gericht weist einstweilige Verfügung gegen Wikimedia Deutschland ab (update), by Torsten Kleinz, February 9, 2006.
"IT Service Management Software". OTRS.com. Archived from the original on October 30, 2013. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
Paling, Emma (October 21, 2015). "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women". The Atlantic. Retrieved October 24, 2015.
Auerbach, David (December 11, 2014). "Encyclopedia Frown". Slate. Retrieved October 24, 2015.
"In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny". Christian Science Monitor. August 2013.
"Wikimedia Foundation – Financial Statements – June 30, 2011 and 2010" (PDF). Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
"Wikimedia Foundation IRS Form 990" (PDF). Retrieved October 14, 2014.
"Press releases/WMF announces new ED Lila Tretikov". Wikimedia Foundation. May 31, 2018. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
Jeff Elder, The Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2014, "Wikipedia's New Chief: From Soviet Union to World's Sixth-Largest Site".
Noam Cohen (May 1, 2014). "Media: Open-Source Software Specialist Selected as Executive Director of Wikipedia". The New York Times.
Dimitra Kessenides. Bloomberg News Weekly. December 26, 2016. "Is Wikipedia 'Woke'".
Dimitra Kessenides. Bloomberg News Weekly. December 26, 2016, p. 74. "Is Wikipedia 'Woke'".
Mark Bergsma. "Wikimedia Architecture" (PDF). Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 3, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2008.
"Version: Installed extensions". September 28, 2018.. Retrieved August 18, 2014.
Michael Snow (December 29, 2016). "Lucene search: Internal search function returns to service". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved February 26, 2009.
Brion Vibber. "[Wikitech-l] Lucene search". Retrieved February 26, 2009.
"Extension:Lucene-search". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved August 31, 2009.
"mediawiki – Revision 55688: /branches/lucene-search-2.1/lib". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved August 31, 2009.
Emil Protalinski (July 2, 2013). "Wikimedia rolls out WYSIWYG visual editor for logged-in users accessing Wikipedia articles in English". The Next Web. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
Curtis, Sophie (July 23, 2013). "Wikipedia introduces new features to entice editors". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved August 18, 2013.
L. M. (December 13, 2011). "Changes at Wikipedia: Seeing things". The Economist. Retrieved July 28, 2013.
Lucian Parfeni (July 2, 2013). "Wikipedia's New VisualEditor Is the Best Update in Years and You Can Make It Better". Softpedia. Retrieved July 30, 2013.
Orlowski, Andrew (August 1, 2013). "Wikipedians say no to Jimmy's 'buggy' WYSIWYG editor". The Register. Retrieved August 18, 2013.
Wikipedia Bot Information
Daniel Nasaw (July 24, 2012). "Meet the 'bots' that edit Wikipedia". BBC News.
Halliday, Josh; Arthur, Charles (July 26, 2012). "Boot up: The Wikipedia vandalism police, Apple analysts, and more". The Guardian. Retrieved September 5, 2012.
Jervell, Ellen Emmerentze (July 13, 2014). "For This Author, 10,000 Wikipedia Articles Is a Good Day's Work". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 18, 2014.
"Wikipedia signpost: Abuse Filter is enabled". English Wikipedia. March 23, 2009. Retrieved July 13, 2010.
Aljazeera, July 21, 2014, "MH17 Wikipedia entry edited from Russian Government IP Address". "MH17 Wikipedia entry edited from Russian government IP address". July 21, 2014. Archived from the original on November 16, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2014.
Wikipedia's policy on bots
Andrew Lih (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution, chapter Then came the Bots, pp. 99–106.
"Monthly request statistics", Wikimedia. Retrieved October 31, 2008.[dead link]
"Varnish - Wikitech". wikitech.wikimedia.org. Retrieved May 12, 2019.
Guido Urdaneta, Guillaume Pierre and Maarten van Steen. "Wikipedia Workload Analysis for Decentralized Hosting". Elsevier Computer Networks 53 (11), pp. 1830–1845, June 2009. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
Weiss, Todd R. (October 9, 2008). "Wikipedia simplifies IT infrastructure by moving to one Linux vendor". Computerworld. Retrieved November 1, 2008.
Paul, Ryan (October 9, 2008). "Wikipedia adopts Ubuntu for its server infrastructure". Ars Technica. Retrieved November 1, 2008.
"Server roles at wikitech.wikimedia.org". Archived from the original on January 16, 2013. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
Palmier, Guillaume. "Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia". WMF. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
Verge, Jason (January 14, 2013). "It's Official: Ashburn is Wikipedia's New Home". Data Center Knowledge. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
"⚓ T156028 Name Asia Cache DC site". Wikimedia Phabricator. Retrieved May 12, 2019.
Frederic M. Scherer and David Ross, [1970] 1990. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 3rd ed. Houghton-Mifflin. SSRN 1496716 and 1st ed. review extract.
• Google Scholar search of Frederic M. Scherer
Patents, Citations, and Innovations, by Adam B. Jaffe, Manuel Trajtenberg, pp. 89–153.
Cohen, Noam (March 5, 2007). "A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side". The New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2008.
Wikipedia:Copyrights
Walter Vermeir (2007). "Resolution:License update". Wikizine. Retrieved December 4, 2007.
Wikimedia
"Licensing update/Questions and Answers". Wikimedia Meta. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
"Licensing_update/Timeline". Wikimedia Meta. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved April 5, 2009.
"Wikimedia community approves license migration". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved May 21, 2009.
Cohen, Noam (July 19, 2009). "Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". New York Times. Retrieved March 9, 2013.
"Wikipedia cleared in French defamation case". Reuters. November 2, 2007. Retrieved November 2, 2007.
Anderson, Nate (May 2, 2008). "Dumb idea: suing Wikipedia for calling you "dumb"". Ars Technica. Retrieved May 4, 2008.
"With Bing Reference". Retrieved September 9, 2014.[dead link]
"Wikipedia on DVD" Archived June 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine Linterweb. Retrieved June 1, 2007. "Linterweb is authorized to make a commercial use of the Wikipedia trademark restricted to the selling of the Encyclopedia CDs and DVDs".
"Wikipedia 0.5 Available on a CD-ROM" Archived May 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine Wikipedia on DVD. Linterweb. "The DVD or CD-ROM version 0.5 was commercially available for purchase." Retrieved June 1, 2007.
"Polish Wikipedia on DVD". Retrieved December 26, 2008.
"WikipediaVD". July 31, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
"CDPedia (Python Argentina)". Retrieved July 7, 2011.
Wikipedia CD Selection. Retrieved September 8, 2009.
"Wikipedia turned into book". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. June 16, 2009. Archived from the original on September 9, 2009. Retrieved September 8, 2009.
"Wikipedia Selection for Schools". Archived from the original on August 4, 2012. Retrieved July 14, 2012.
Thiel, Thomas (September 27, 2010). "Wikipedia und Amazon: Der Marketplace soll es richten". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (in German). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Archived from the original on November 26, 2010. Retrieved December 6, 2010.
Wikipedia policies on data download
Data dumps: Downloading Images, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
"Wikipedia Reference Desk". Retrieved September 9, 2014.
Brad Stone, "How Google's Android chief, Sundar Pichai, became the most powerful man in mobile", June 30 – July 6, 2014, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, pp. 47–51.
"Wikipedia – Android Apps on Google Play". Play.Google.com. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
"Wikipedia Mobile on the App Store on iTunes". iTunes.Apple.com. August 4, 2014. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
"Wikimedia Mobile is Officially Launched". Wikimedia Technical Blog. June 30, 2009. Retrieved July 22, 2009.
"Local Points Of Interest In Wikipedia". May 15, 2011. Retrieved May 15, 2011.
"iPhone Gems: Wikipedia Apps". November 30, 2008. Retrieved July 22, 2008.
Ellis, Justin (January 17, 2013). "Wikipedia plans to expand mobile access around the globe with new funding". NiemanLab. Nieman Journalism Lab. Retrieved April 22, 2013.
"Building for the future of Wikimedia with a new approach to partnerships – Wikimedia Blog". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved May 12, 2019.
Andrew Lih (June 20, 2015). "Can Wikipedia Survive?".
Andrew Brown (June 25, 2015). "Wikipedia editors are a dying breed. The reason? Mobile". The Guardian.
"Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth". July 31, 2018. Retrieved December 22, 2007.
"694 Million People Currently Use the Internet Worldwide According To comScore Networks". comScore. May 4, 2006. Archived from the original on July 30, 2008. Retrieved December 16, 2007. Wikipedia has emerged as a site that continues to increase in popularity, both globally and in the US
"Google Traffic To Wikipedia up 166% Year over Year". Hitwise. February 16, 2007. Archived from the original on December 14, 2007. Retrieved December 22, 2007.
"Wikipedia and Academic Research". Hitwise. October 17, 2006. Archived from the original on October 29, 2006. Retrieved February 6, 2008.
West, Stuart. "Wikipedia's Evolving Impact: slideshow presentation at TED2010" (PDF). Retrieved October 23, 2015.
Rainie, Lee; Bill Tancer (December 15, 2007). "Wikipedia users" (PDF). Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Research Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 6, 2008. Retrieved December 15, 2007. 36% of online American adults consult Wikipedia. It is particularly popular with the well-educated and current college-age students.
SAI (October 7, 2011). "The World's Most Valuable Startups". Business Insider. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
"Research:Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011/Results – Meta". Wikimedia. February 6, 2012. Retrieved April 16, 2014.
"Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media". Wikipedia. July 4, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
"Bourgeois et al. v. Peters et al." (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 3, 2007. Retrieved February 6, 2007.
Sharma, Raghav (February 19, 2009), Wikipedian Justice, SSRN 1346311
"LEGISinfo – House Government Bill C-38 (38–1)". Retrieved September 9, 2014.
Arias, Martha L. (January 29, 2007). "Wikipedia: The Free Online Encyclopedia and its Use as Court Source". Internet Business Law Services. Archived from the original on May 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2008. (The name "World Intellectual Property Office" should however read "World Intellectual Property Organization" in this source.)
Cohen, Noam (January 29, 2007). "Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Aftergood, Steven (March 21, 2007). "The Wikipedia Factor in US Intelligence". Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy. Retrieved April 14, 2007.
Butler, Declan (December 16, 2008). "Publish in Wikipedia or perish". Nature News. doi:10.1038/news.2008.1312.
Shaw, Donna (February–March 2008). "Wikipedia in the Newsroom". American Journalism Review. Retrieved February 11, 2008.
Lexington (September 24, 2011). "Classlessness in America: The uses and abuses of an enduring myth". The Economist. Retrieved September 27, 2011. Socialist Labour Party of America [...] though it can trace its history as far back as 1876, when it was known as the Workingmen's Party, no less an authority than Wikipedia pronounces it "moribund".
"Shizuoka newspaper plagiarized Wikipedia article". Japan News Review. July 5, 2007. Archived from the original on March 12, 2014.
"Express-News staffer resigns after plagiarism in column is discovered". Archived from the original on October 15, 2007. Retrieved January 31, 2007., San Antonio Express-News, January 9, 2007.
Frank Bridgewater. "Inquiry prompts reporter's dismissal". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Retrieved September 9, 2014.
Grossman, Lev (December 13, 2006). "Time's Person of the Year: You". Time. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
"Radio 4 documentary, BBC". 2007. Retrieved April 24, 2016.
"Comunicato stampa. On. Franco Grillini. Wikipedia. Interrogazione a Rutelli. Con "diritto di panorama" promuovere arte e architettura contemporanea italiana. Rivedere con urgenza legge copyright" [Press release. Honorable Franco Grillini. Wikipedia. Interview with Rutelli about the "right to view" promoting contemporary art and architecture of Italy. Review with urgency copyright law] (in Italian). October 12, 2007. Archived from the original on March 30, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17, 2007). "On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Jennifer Ablan (October 22, 2007). "Wikipedia page the latest status symbol". Reuters. Retrieved October 24, 2007.
Witzleb, Normann (2009). "Engaging with the World: Students of Comparative Law Write for Wikipedia". 19 (1 and 2). Legal Education Review: 83–98.
"AI Research Trends". One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100). Stanford University. Retrieved September 3, 2016.
Derakhshan, Hossein (October 19, 2017). "How Social Media Endangers Knowledge". Business. Wired. Condé Nast. eISSN 1078-3148. ISSN 1059-1028. Archived from the original on October 22, 2018. Retrieved October 22, 2018.
"Trophy box", Meta-Wiki (March 28, 2005).
"Webby Awards 2004". The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences. 2004. Archived from the original on July 22, 2011.
Zumpano, Anthony (January 29, 2007). "Similar Search Results: Google Wins". Interbrand. Archived from the original on February 20, 2007. Retrieved January 28, 2007.
"Die Quadriga – Award 2008". Archived from the original on September 15, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
"Erasmus Prize – Praemium Erasmianum". Praemium Erasmianum Foundation. Retrieved January 15, 2015.
"Premio Princesa de Asturias de Cooperación Internacional 2015". Fundación Princesa de Asturias. Retrieved June 17, 2015.
"Los fundadores de Wikipedia destacan la versión en asturiano" [The founders of Wikipedia highlight the Asturian version] (in Spanish). La Nueva España. Retrieved October 20, 2015.
"Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence". The Onion. July 26, 2006. Retrieved October 15, 2006.
"'L.A. Law' Wikipedia Page Viewed 874 Times Today". The Onion. November 24, 2010.
"The Office: The Negotiation, 3.19". April 5, 2007. Retrieved December 27, 2014.
"'Office' fans, inspired by Michael Scott, flock to edit Wikipedia". USA Today. April 12, 2007. Retrieved December 12, 2014.
Bakken, Janae. "My Number One Doctor"; Scrubs; ABC; December 6, 2007.
"Professor Wikipedia – CollegeHumor Video". CollegeHumor. November 17, 2009. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
"Dilbert comic strip for 05/08/2009 from the official Dilbert comic strips archive". Universal Uclick. May 8, 2009. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
"Interview With Nick Doody and Matt Kirshen". British Comedy Guide. Retrieved July 31, 2009.
"Your Wikipedia Entries". Tosh.0. February 3, 2010. Retrieved September 9, 2014.
"Wikipedia Updates". Tosh.0. February 3, 2010. Retrieved September 9, 2014.
Emily Flake (August 23, 2013). "Manning/Wikipedia cartoon". Archived from the original on October 12, 2014. Retrieved August 26, 2013.
"The obstacles to reforming our prisons – The Times". The Times. December 14, 2015. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
"john julius norwich -Search – The Times". thetimes.co.uk. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
"Announcement of Wiktionary's creation". meta.wikimedia.org. Retrieved July 14, 2012.
"Our projects", Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved January 24, 2007.
Bosman, Julie (March 13, 2012). "After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses". The New York Times. Retrieved January 26, 2015.
"Encyclopedia Britannica Dies At The Hands Of Wikipedia, Gizmocrazed.com (with statista infographic from NYTimes.com)". Gizmocrazed.com. March 20, 2012. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
Christopher Caldwell (journalist) (June 14, 2013). "A chapter in the Enlightenment closes". ft.com. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Bertelsmann did not resort to euphemism this week when it announced the end of the Brockhaus encyclopedia brand. Brockhaus had been publishing reference books for two centuries when the media group bought it in 2008. [...] The internet has finished off Brockhaus altogether. [...] What Germans like is Wikipedia.
"The amorality of Web 2.0". Rough Type. October 3, 2005. Retrieved July 15, 2006.
"Technical solutions: Wisdom of the crowds". Nature. Retrieved October 10, 2006.
Alison Flood (February 7, 2013). "Alison Flood: Should traditional biography be buried alongside Shakespeare's breakfast?". The Guardian. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
Rada Mihalcea and Andras Csomai (2007). Wikify! Linking Documents to Encyclopedic Knowledge Archived February 18, 2016, at the Wayback Machine Proc. CIKM.
David Milne and Ian H. Witten (2008). Learning to link with Wikipedia. Proc. CIKM.
Sisay Fissaha Adafre and [Maarten de Rijke] (2005). Discovering missing links in Wikipedia Archived July 17, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Proc. LinkKDD.
"Wikipedia-Mining Algorithm Reveals World's Most Influential Universities: An algorithm's list of the most influential universities contains some surprising entries". MIT Technology Review. December 7, 2015. Retrieved December 27, 2015.
Marmow Shaw, Jessica (December 10, 2015). "Harvard is only the 3rd most influential university in the world, according to this list". MarketWatch. Retrieved December 27, 2015.
Bothwell, Ellie (December 15, 2015). "Wikipedia Ranking of World Universities: the top 100. List ranks institutions by search engine results and Wikipedia appearances". Times Higher Education. Retrieved December 27, 2015.
Wikipedia has become a science reference source even though scientists don’t cite it Archived February 10, 2018, at the Wayback Machine Science News, 2018
Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial Archived December 21, 2017, at the Wayback Machine SSRN, 2017
Petiška, Eduard (December 10, 2018). "Spíše Wikipedie než učebnice: Vzorce využívání otevřených vzdělávacích zdrojů studenty environmentálních oborů". Envigogika (in Czech). 13 (2). doi:10.14712/18023061.569. ISSN 1802-3061.
Sarabadani, A., Halfaker, A., & Taraborelli, D. (2017). Building automated vandalism detection tools for Wikidata. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion (pp. 1647–1654). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
Potthast, M., Stein, B., & Gerling, R. (2008). Automatic vandalism detection in Wikipedia. In European conference on information retrieval (pp. 663–668). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Asthana, S., & Halfaker, A. (2018). With Few Eyes, All Hoaxes are Deep. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 21.
Heart Internet. "Website discussing the emulator of the Domesday Project User Interface". Retrieved September 9, 2014.
Frauenfelder, Mark (November 21, 2000). "The next generation of online encyclopedias". CNN.com. Archived from the original on August 14, 2004.
The Free Encyclopedia Project gnu.org ( Archived January 3, 2012, at WebCite)
Orlowski, Andrew (September 18, 2006). "Wikipedia founder forks Wikipedia, More experts, less fiddling?". The Register. Retrieved June 27, 2007. Larry Sanger describes the Citizendium project as a "progressive or gradual fork", with the major difference that experts have the final say over edits.
Lyman, Jay (September 20, 2006). "Wikipedia Co-Founder Planning New Expert-Authored Site". LinuxInsider. Retrieved June 27, 2007.
Further reading
Academic studies
Main article: Academic studies about Wikipedia
Leitch, Thomas (2014). Wikipedia U: Knowledge, authority, and a liberal education in the digital age. ISBN 978-1-4214-1535-2.
Jensen, Richard (October 2012). "Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812" (PDF). The Journal of Military History. 76 (4): 523–556.
Yasseri, Taha; Robert Sumi; János Kertész (2012). Szolnoki, Attila (ed.). "Circadian Patterns of Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A Demographic Analysis". PLoS ONE. 7 (1): e30091. arXiv:1109.1746. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...7E0091Y. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030091. PMC 3260192. PMID 22272279.
Goldman, Eric (2010). "Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its Consequences". Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law. 8. SSRN 1458162. (A blog post by the author.)
Nielsen, Finn (August 2007). "Scientific Citations in Wikipedia". First Monday. 12 (8). arXiv:0805.1154. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.246.4536. doi:10.5210/fm.v12i8.1997. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
Pfeil, Ulrike; Panayiotis Zaphiris; Chee Siang Ang (2006). "Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of Wikipedia". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 12 (1): 88. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00316.x. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Priedhorsky, Reid, Jilin Chen, Shyong (Tony) K. Lam, Katherine Panciera, Loren Terveen, and John Riedl (2007). "Creating, destroying, and restoring value in wikipedia". Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Conference on supporting group work – GROUP '07. pp. 259–268. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.123.7456. doi:10.1145/1316624.1316663. ISBN 978-1-59593-845-9.
Reagle, Joseph (2007). Do as I Do: Authorial Leadership in Wikipedia (PDF). WikiSym '07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis. Montreal, Canada: ACM. hdl:2047/d20002876. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Rijshouwer, Emiel (2019). Organizing Democracy. Power concentration and self-organization in the evolution of Wikipedia (PhD, Erasmus University Rotterdam). hdl:1765/113937. ISBN 978-9402813715. OCLC 1081174169. (Open access)
Rosenzweig, Roy. Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past. (Originally published in The Journal of American History 93.1 (June 2006): 117–146.)
Wilkinson, Dennis M.; Bernardo A. Huberman (April 2007). "Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia". First Monday. 12 (4). arXiv:cs/0702140. Bibcode:2007cs........2140W. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.342.6933. doi:10.5210/fm.v12i4.1763. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
Aaron Halfaker; R. Stuart Geiger; Jonathan T. Morgan; John Riedl (2012). "The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community". American Behavioral Scientist. 57 (5): 664. doi:10.1177/0002764212469365.
Maggio Lauren, Willinsky John, Steinberg Ryan, Mietchan Daniel, Wass Joseph, Dong Ting. "Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia" (2017).
Books
Main article: List of books about Wikipedia
Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (2008). How Wikipedia Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It. San Francisco: No Starch Press. ISBN 978-1-59327-176-3.
Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia – The Missing Manual. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-0-596-51516-4. (See book review by Baker, as listed hereafter.)
Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia Reader's Guide. Sebastopol: Pogue Press. ISBN 978-0-596-52174-5.
Dalby, Andrew (2009). The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality. Siduri. ISBN 978-0-9562052-0-9.
Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014). Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-8944-8.
Keen, Andrew (2007). The Cult of the Amateur. Doubleday/Currency. ISBN 978-0-385-52080-5. (Substantial criticisms of Wikipedia and other web 2.0 projects.)
Listen to:
Keen, Andrew (June 16, 2007). "Does the Internet Undermine Culture?". National Public Radio, US. The NPR interview with A. Keen, Weekend Edition Saturday, June 16, 2007.
Lih, Andrew (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 978-1-4013-0371-6.
O'Sullivan, Dan (2009). Wikipedia: a new community of practice?. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-7433-7.
Sheizaf Rafaeli & Yaron Ariel (2008). "Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia". In Barak, A. (ed.). Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 243–267.
Reagle, Joseph Michael Jr. (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: the MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01447-2. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
Book review-related articles
Baker, Nicholson. "The Charms of Wikipedia". The New York Review of Books, March 20, 2008. Retrieved December 17, 2008. (Book rev. of The Missing Manual, by John Broughton, as listed previously.)
Crovitz, L. Gordon. "Wikipedia's Old-Fashioned Revolution: The online encyclopedia is fast becoming the best." (Originally published in Wall Street Journal online – April 6, 2009.)
Postrel, Virginia, "Who Killed Wikipedia? : A hardened corps of volunteer editors is the only force protecting Wikipedia. They might also be killing it", Pacific Standard magazine, November/December 2014 issue.
Learning resources
Wikiversity list of learning resources. (Includes related courses, Web-based seminars, slides, lecture notes, text books, quizzes, glossaries, etc.)
The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1: A Wiki is a Kind of Bus, Ideas, with Paul Kennedy, CBC Radio One, originally broadcast January 15, 2014. Webpage includes a link to the archived audio program (also found here). The radio documentary discusses Wikipedia's history, development and its place within the broader scope of the trend to democratized knowledge. It also includes interviews with several key Wikipedia staff and contributors, including Kat Walsh and Sue Gardner (audio, 53:58, Flash required).
Other media coverage
See also: List of films about Wikipedia
Balke, Jeff (March 2008). "For Music Fans: Wikipedia; MySpace". Houston Chronicle. Broken Record (blog). Retrieved December 17, 2008.
Borland, John (August 14, 2007). "See Who's Editing Wikipedia – Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign". Wired. Archived from the original on November 16, 2015. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
Dee, Jonathan (July 1, 2007). "All the News That's Fit to Print Out". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
Giles, Jim (September 20, 2007). "Wikipedia 2.0 – Now with Added Trust". New Scientist. Retrieved January 14, 2008.
Miliard, Mike (December 2, 2007). "Wikipedia Rules". The Phoenix. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
Poe, Marshall (September 1, 2006). "The Hive". The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved March 22, 2008.
Rosenwald, Michael S. (October 23, 2009). "Gatekeeper of D.C.'s entry: Road to city's Wikipedia page goes through a DuPont Circle bedroom". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
Runciman, David (May 28, 2009). "Like Boiling a Frog". London Review of Books. Retrieved June 3, 2009.
Taylor, Chris (May 29, 2005). "It's a Wiki, Wiki World". Time. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
"Technological Quarterly: Brain Scan: The Free-knowledge Fundamentalist". The Economist. June 5, 2008. Retrieved June 5, 2008. Jimmy Wales changed the world with Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What will he do next?
"Is Wikipedia Cracking Up?" The Independent, February 3, 2009.
"Wikipedia probe into paid-for 'sockpuppet' entries", BBC News, October 21, 2013.
"The Decline of Wikipedia", MIT Technology Review, October 22, 2013
"Edits to Wikipedia pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo traced to 1 Police Plaza" (March 2015), Capital
Angola's Wikipedia Pirates Are Exposing Problems (March 2016), Motherboard
"Dark Side of Wikipedia". Archived from the original on August 4, 2016. Retrieved April 17, 2016. Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, April 17, 2016. (Includes video.)
Wales, Jimmy (December 9, 2016). "How Wikipedia Works". cato.org. Cato Institute. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, discusses the site, how it’s treated by governments, and how it’s fueled by its users.
External links
Wikipedia
at Wikipedia's sister projects
Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Wikimedia Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Travel guide from Wikivoyage
Resources from Wikiversity
Data from Wikidata
Discussion from Meta-Wiki
Documentation from MediaWiki
Official website (Mobile) – multilingual portal (contains links to all language editions) (wikipedia.com still redirects here)
Wikipedia at Curlie
"Wikipedia collected news and commentary". The Guardian. Edit this at Wikidata
Wikipedia topic page at The New York Times
Video of TED talk by Jimmy Wales on the birth of Wikipedia
vte
Wikipedia
Overview
(Outline)
CensorshipConflict-of-interest editingCriticism gender biasideological biasracial biasDeletionism and inclusionismMediaWikiNotabilityReliabilityVandalis mPredictions of the project's end
Community
AdministratorsAfroCrowdArbitration CommitteeCitation neededEdit-a-thon"Ignore all rules" policyList of WikipediasThe SignpostWikipedian in residenceWikiConference North AmericaWikimaniaWikiProjectWomen in Red
People
Florence DevouardSue GardnerJames HeilmanKatherine MaherMagnus ManskeErik MöllerIra Brad MatetskyLarry SangerMaría SefidariLila TretikovJimmy WalesWikipediansWikimedian of the Year
History
BomisLogoControversies U.S. Congressional staff editsEssjay controversySeigenthaler biography incidentHenryk Batuta hoaxJar'Edo Wens hoaxInternet Watch FoundationScientologyItalian Wikipedia blackoutEnglish Wikipedia blackoutHillsborough Wikipedia postsMyWikiBizLsjbotVisualEditorArt+Feminism#1Lib1 Ref
Honors
2008 Quadriga awardWikipedia Monument2015 Erasmus Prize2015 Princess of Asturias Award
References
and analysis
CulturalBibliographyFilmsAcademic studiesListen to WikipediaWiki-WatchWikipediocracyWikiScannerWikipedia Review
Mobile access
AppsQRpediaWapediaWikiNodesWikipedia ZeroWikiwand
Content use
Books LLCBoundless (company)DBpediaDeletionpediaKiwixWikiReaderScienc e informationHealth information
Similar projects
InterpediaNupediaCitizendiumEnciclopedia Libre Universal en EspañolEveripediaVeropediaList of online encyclopediasList of wikis
Related
Wikimedia FoundationWikimedia movementThe Iraq War: A Historiography of Wikipedia ChangelogsPrint WikipediaMagna Carta (An Embroidery)274301 WikipediaViola wikipedia
List-Class article ListCategory Category
vte
Wikis
vte
Wikimedia Foundation
vte
List of Wikipedias by article count
Authority control Edit this at Wikidata
BIBSYS: 8030646BNF: cb165741116 (data)GND: 7545251-0ISNI: 0000 0004 4914 788XLCCN: no2008072801NKC: kn20090528031NLI: 001395032NSK: 000625468SELIBR: 319345SUDOC: 11109383XVIAF: 195846295WorldCat Identities (via VIAF): 195846295
Categories: 2001 establishments in the United StatesWikipediaAdvertising-free websitesInternet properties established in 2001Social information processingOpen-source intelligence
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadView sourceView historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Meta-Wiki
Wikibooks
Wikiquote
Wikiversity
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Español
Français
한국어
Italiano
Русский
Tagalog
Tiếng Việt
中文
274 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 5 December 2019, at 14:17 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersStatisticsCookie statementMobile viewWikimedia FoundationPowered by MediaWiki




NOW YOU KNOW!

[Murrandii]

vendredi 6 décembre 2019 12h33

-4°c








ACTUALITÉ
ENQUÊTES
SPORTS
SPECTACLES
ARGENT
MONDE
VIE
PORTE-MONNAIE
MAISON EXTRA
ÉVASION
GUIDE DE L'AUTO
OPINIONS
BLOGUES



EN DIRECT









Le Journal de Québec
8
La députée solidaire Catherine Dorion rejette l’idée que ses frasques font ombrage aux réalisations de ses collègues et à ses propres dossiers.
Bilan de la session automnale
Catherine Dorion ne changera pas d’approche


D’autres directions territoriales du ministère des Transports du Québec devront payer des firmes privées
Ministère des Transports
Encore des millions pour compter les lampadaires

1
Ex-administrateur d’un important créancier de Groupe Capitales Médias, le ministre nie s’être lui-même placé en conflit d’intérêts.
Groupe Capitales Médias
Fitzgibbon nie être lui-même en conflit d’intérêts

1
Un homme a ouvert le feu dans une base navale en Floride, trois jours après une attaque similaire à Pearl Harbor.
Le tireur est mort
3 morts dans une fusillade sur une base en Floride




La police enquête sur une série de méfaits commis dans la nuit de jeudi à vendredi dans le secteur du Vieux-Port, à Québec.
PHOTOS | Vieux-Port
Des méfaits dans la rue Saint-Paul


Jacques Duchesneau est très émotif lorsqu’il revient sur le tragique drame survenu à Polytechnique Montréal, il y a exactement 30 ans.
Commémoration du 6 décembre 1989
Un «voyage au bout de l’enfer»


«Nous ne pouvons pas attendre plus longtemps» car «des gens souffrent ou meurent en raison de l’urgence climatique», a martelé la jeune militante.
COP25
«Nous ne pouvons pas attendre plus longtemps»


La SQDC a réalisé des profits nets de 1,5 million de dollars au cours de sa première année d’activité, sur des revenus de 179,7 M$.
Cannabis
Des profits de 1,5 M$ depuis un an pour la SQDC

39
Trudeau vs Trump: on se calme!
Jonathan
Trudeau

24
Québec solidaire et le Parti québécois ont dénoncé l’«arrogance» et le «mépris» du gouvernement Legault à l’endroit des partis d’opposition.
Québec solidaire | Parti québécois
Le «mépris» du gouvernement Legault dénoncé

3
Soyez aux aguets avant d’avaler la (souvent coûteuse) pilule, nous met en garde un troublant documentaire.
Troublant documentaire
Régimes «miracles»: trop beaux pour être vrais

3
Les parents pourront obtenir une réduction du tarif rétroactive au début de l’année scolaire.
Tewkesbury
Frais de garde: petite victoire pour un père

4
La tempête de pluie et de vent qui a déferlé sur le Québec les 31 octobre et 1er novembre derniers a coûté pas moins de 30 M$ à Hydro-Québec.
Tempête automnale
Une facture de 30 M$ pour Hydro-Québec


Le Montréalais veut retirer son plaidoyer de culpabilité de meurtre.
Justice
Il tue son bébé et se présente en victime

6
Le cauchemar de Jonathan Roberge
Sophie
Durocher


Les élus de Saint-Augustin s’apprêtent à assouplir les règles de zonage et de lotissement autour du lac Saint-Augustin.
Autour du lac Saint-Augustin
De nouvelles constructions seront permises

22
Incapable de trouver des employés, le MTQ a dû confier cette tâche en sous-traitance.
Manque de ressources au MTQ
1,8 M$ pour compter des lampadaires

3
La tuerie de Polytechnique il y a aujourd’hui 30 ans a constitué un tournant dans l’histoire du Québec.
Tuerie antiféministe de Polytechnique
Il y a 30 ans, l’horreur frappait Montréal


Des histoires
à écouter
Écoutez nos séries balados


L’Indice de l’humeur Léger
63.1
L’indice mesure l’évolution de l’humeur de la population.
Calculez votre indice
Votre humeur




Si l’accusé à haut risque Sylvain Fournier se retrouvait «dans un contexte extérieur au milieu hospitalier», nul ne sait comment il réagirait
Meurtre d'un touriste français
Il garde son étiquette d'«accusé à haut risque»

42
L’ancien grand patron de GCM aurait reçu 2 millions$ en salaires en l’espace de quatre ans.
Groupe Capitales Médias
Salaire de 500 000$ par année pour Martin Cauchon

2
Le patrimoine débâti
Antoine
Robitaille


Offre spéciale d'abonnement
Combo PAPIER et ÉDITION ÉLECTRONIQUE
18,53 $
/ mois
un rabais de 47%


* Taxes Incluses

Ce que Polytechnique m'a appris
Léolane
Kemner

1
Le jeune homme est allé galamment chercher sa copine après sa leçon.
Route 138
Un couple tué après un cours de conduite


L’attaquant vedette des Capitals de Washington Alex Ovechkin a révélé ce qu’il ferait s’il bat le record de buts marqués de Wayne Gretzky.
s’il bat le record de Gretzky
«Vous n’allez probablement plus jamais me voir»

6
Voici la statue du hockeyeur Joe Malone, surnommé «le fantôme», qui rejoindra les légendes du hockey dans l’allée commémorative au Centre Vidéotron.
Allée commémorative des légendes
Le «fantôme» Joe Malone ressuscité

5
Cayden Primeau repousse 32 tirs, mais le Canadien s’incline 3 à 2.
réveil tardif
Primeau repousse 32 tirs, le CH s’incline 3 à 2

10
Appel au «devoir de mémoire» lors d'une cérémonie de remise de médaille à titre posthume aux 14 femmes assassinées lors de l'attentat à Polytechnique.
[EN IMAGES] Tragédie de Polytechnique
Cérémonie à l’Assemblée en mémoire des victimes


Le boxeur québécois David Lemieux a fait le poids vendredi, à la veille de son combat contre l’Ukrainien Max Bursak à Montréal.
combat demain
Le boxeur québécois David Lemieux a fait le poids

10
Le gouvernement Trudeau réussira à se maintenir au pouvoir en raison de l'appui du Bloc.
Discours du Trône
Trudeau passera le test malgré les critiques


Lorsqu’il fait froid, c’est si réconfortant une bonne fondue au fromage.
La recette de Geneviève
Fondue aux fromages québécois allégés

46
La facture d’électricité va grimper beaucoup plus vite après l’adoption de la loi 34.
Énergie | Hydro-Québec
Plus cher de 560 millions de dollars

7
Dominique Anglade a livré un vibrant hommage à ses parents, fauchés par le terrible séisme qui frappé Haïti il y a près de 10 ans.
Vidéo | Séisme en Haïti
Un témoignage émouvant de Dominique Anglade


Deux épreuves de la Coupe du monde seront présentées sur les Plaines en mars 2020.
Ski de fond
Les meilleurs fondeurs de retour à Québec

Caricature
Ygreck


Choisissez des accessoires de service qui assureront la réussite de ce cocktail dînatoire, que vous souhaiterez répéter à d’autres occasions...
Accessoires de cuisine
Formule cocktail dînatoire


Les Méchants Raisins vous servent leur palmarès des meilleurs champagnes et mousseux, juste à temps pour les célébrations des prochaines semaines.
Les Méchants Raisins
Des bulles pour les Fêtes


Ça bouge fort chez Nissan, les acheteurs s’ennuieraient-ils des petites citadines? Le journaliste du Guide de l'auto Antoine Joubert nous en parle.
vidéo
En studio : la Nissan Versa fera t-elle un retour?


Le défenseur P.K. Subban croit toujours que son équipe peut renverser la vapeur.
Devils du New Jersey
Bas-fonds du classement: Subban y croit toujours


Bissie présentait une cardiopathie mettant ses jours en danger.
ex-petite siamoise camerounaise
Succès de l’opération du coeur pour Bissie


Le directeur général des Penguins de Pittsburgh, Jim Rutherford, est très franc concernant les difficultés éprouvées par Alex Galchenyuk.
LNH
Les Penguins n’ont pas confiance en Galchenyuk



Actualité
Faits divers
Politique
Nos routes en déroute
Santé
Cannabis
Éducation
Transports
Québec
Environnement
Consommation
Société
Archives


24
Québec solidaire et le Parti québécois ont dénoncé l’«arrogance» et le «mépris» du gouvernement Legault à l’endroit des partis d’opposition.
Québec solidaire | Parti québécois
Le «mépris» du gouvernement Legault dénoncé




La police enquête sur une série de méfaits commis dans la nuit de jeudi à vendredi dans le secteur du Vieux-Port, à Québec.
PHOTOS | Vieux-Port
Des méfaits dans la rue Saint-Paul


La SQDC a réalisé des profits nets de 1,5 million $ au cours de sa première année d’activité sur des revenus de 179,7 millions $.
Cannabis
Des profits de 1,5 M$ depuis un an pour la SQDC

3
Les parents pourront obtenir une réduction du tarif rétroactive au début de l’année scolaire.
Tewkesbury
Frais de garde: petite victoire pour un père

10
Appel au «devoir de mémoire» lors d'une cérémonie de remise de médaille à titre posthume aux 14 femmes assassinées lors de l'attentat à Polytechnique.
[EN IMAGES] Tragédie de Polytechnique
Cérémonie à l’Assemblée en mémoire des victimes

8
La députée solidaire Catherine Dorion rejette l’idée que ses frasques font ombrage aux réalisations de ses collègues et à ses propres dossiers.
Bilan de la session automnale
Catherine Dorion ne changera pas d’approche


Les élus de Saint-Augustin s’apprêtent à assouplir les règles de zonage et de lotissement autour du lac Saint-Augustin.
Autour du lac Saint-Augustin
De nouvelles constructions seront permises


-4°c
à Quebec
Météo complète et prévisions
7
Dominique Anglade a livré un vibrant hommage à ses parents, fauchés par le terrible séisme qui frappé Haïti il y a près de 10 ans.
Vidéo | Séisme en Haïti
Un témoignage émouvant de Dominique Anglade


Deux automobilistes ont été arrêtés cette semaine pour conduite avec facultés affaiblies, à Québec et à Lévis.
Région de Québec
Barrages routiers: deux automobilistes arrêtés

5
Le président de l'AMVQ a critiqué le gouvernement pour ne pas avoir accordé de place à la prévention et l’éducation dans sa nouvelle législation.
Morsures de chiens
Il faut miser davantage sur la prévention

1
Ex-administrateur d’un important créancier de Groupe Capitales Médias, le ministre nie s’être lui-même placé en conflit d’intérêts.
Groupe Capitales Médias
Fitzgibbon nie être lui-même en conflit d’intérêts

4
Ces jeunes, souvent trimbalés d’une famille d’accueil à une autre, n’ont parfois qu’un sac à ordures pour transporter leurs effets personnels.
DPJ
Une élève amasse des sacs pour les jeunes


Le Service des enquêtes sur les crimes majeurs de la SQ a arrêté un ex-enseignant de la Côte-Nord pour des infractions à caractère sexuel.
Infractions à caractère sexuel
Un ex-enseignant de la Côte-Nord arrêté de nouveau



Trudeau a réitéré l’engagement de son gouvernement à bannir les armes d’assaut et appelé à en faire plus pour contrer les violences.
Tuerie de Polytechnique
Les violences contre les femmes persistent au pays


Si l’accusé à haut risque Sylvain Fournier se retrouvait «dans un contexte extérieur au milieu hospitalier», nul ne sait comment il réagirait
Meurtre d'un touriste français
Il garde son étiquette d'«accusé à haut risque»

22
Incapable de trouver des employés, le MTQ a dû confier cette tâche en sous-traitance.
Manque de ressources au MTQ
1,8 M$ pour compter des lampadaires


4
Le ministre des Finances, Éric Girard, a déposé son projet de loi visant à resserrer l’encadrement des agences d’évaluation de crédit.
Vols de données personnelles
Dépôt du projet de loi sur les agences de crédit


Jacques Duchesneau est très émotif lorsqu’il revient sur le tragique drame survenu à Polytechnique Montréal, il y a exactement 30 ans.
Commémoration du 6 décembre 1989
Un «voyage au bout de l’enfer»

3
Charette a commis un outrage en omettant de déposer le plan stratégique du Conseil du Fonds vert alors que la loi l'y obligeait, dit Paradis.
Conseil du Fonds vert | Plan stratégique
Benoit Charette a commis un outrage

3
Un incendie a entraîné la mort de près de 300 bêtes en plus de causer de lourds dommages dans une ferme à Upton, en Montérégie.
Montérégie
Près de 300 veaux périssent dans un incendie

6
Voici la statue du hockeyeur Joe Malone, surnommé «le fantôme», qui rejoindra les légendes du hockey dans l’allée commémorative au Centre Vidéotron.
Allée commémorative des légendes
Le «fantôme» Joe Malone ressuscité

13
Les Québécois vivront un nouveau référendum en 2022, cette fois sur la réforme du mode de scrutin.
Réforme du mode de scrutin
Une campagne référendaire de cinq mois

1
Avec son nouveau restaurant Madame Chose aux Galeries de la Capitale, le groupe Restos Plaisirs tient ses promesses.
Photos | Galeries de la Capitale
Découvrez le concept éclaté du resto Madame Chose

8
Pierre Fitzgibbon promet de ne pas se venger si jamais Desjardins maintient sa décision de ne pas soutenir la relance de GCM.
Groupe Capitales Médias
Fitzgibbon ne se vengera pas de Desjardins

2
Un homme de 36 ans se trouve dans un état critique après avoir été happé par un véhicule, jeudi soir, à Saint-Lin–Laurentides, dans Lanaudière.
Saint-Lin-Laurentides
Un piéton perd la vie


L’histoire de la ville de Québec
Pierre
Gingras

4
Une femme qui travaillait dans un centre animalier où elle a été attaquée par un chien agressif dénonce le manque de formation du personnel.
centres animaliers | Chiens dangereux
Elle veut plus de formation pour les employés

31
Ferrandez, l’eugéniste
Nathalie
Elgrably-Lévy

21
Sales temps
Denise
Bombardier

1
Bien que du travail reste à faire, des étudiantes de Polytechnique constatent le progrès réalisé 30 ans après le féminicide.
Polytechnique Montréal
Quelle place accorde-t-on aux femmes aujourd’hui?

4
On devine que les stratèges libéraux ne misent pas sur l’Ouest pour remporter la prochaine bataille électorale.
Guillaume St-Pierre
Justin Trudeau: garder le cap malgré la grogne

39
Trudeau vs Trump: on se calme!
Jonathan
Trudeau

2
Le patrimoine débâti
Antoine
Robitaille

6
Pour sortir enfin du déni
Josée
Legault


Plusieurs incendies de forêts en Australie ont fusionné en un seul et unique «mégafeu» qui brûle désormais de façon incontrôlée au nord de Sydney.
Australie
Des incendies fusionnent en un «mégafeu»


Sports
Canadien
Hockey
Opinions
Remparts
Football
Soccer
La Zone payante
Combats
Courses
Rouge et or
Baseball
Les Capitales
Tennis
Golf
Plein air, chasse et pêche
Ski
Autres sports
Archives

5
Cayden Primeau repousse 32 tirs, mais le Canadien s’incline 3 à 2.
réveil tardif
Primeau repousse 32 tirs, le CH s’incline 3 à 2


L’ex-femme du défenseur des Sénateurs d’Ottawa Nikita Zaitsev l’accuse d’avoir kidnappé leurs enfants, vendredi matin.
LNH | Sénateurs
[VIDÉO] Nikita Zaitsev aurait kidnappé ses enfants


Deux épreuves de la Coupe du monde seront présentées sur les Plaines en mars 2020.
Ski de fond
Les meilleurs fondeurs de retour à Québec

10
Ayant déjà maille à partir avec les arbitres pour des infractions banales, on peut imaginer que Claude Julien n’a pas accepté que les officiels ne sév
Selon Claude Julien
Mise en échec sur Kotkaniemi: «Un coup salaud»



L’équipe a connu un départ canon et trône au sommet du classement général.
LHJMQ
Le Phœnix se dévoile enfin


L’étudiant en médecine Mathieu Massé-Pelletier avait accepté une offre pour jouer dans la NCAA.
NCAA
Football: une commotion met fin à son rêve sportif


Le boxeur québécois David Lemieux a fait le poids vendredi, à la veille de son combat contre l’Ukrainien Max Bursak à Montréal.
combat demain
Le boxeur québécois David Lemieux a fait le poids

6
Voici la statue du hockeyeur Joe Malone, surnommé «le fantôme», qui rejoindra les légendes du hockey dans l’allée commémorative au Centre Vidéotron.
Allée commémorative des légendes
Le «fantôme» Joe Malone ressuscité


Le défenseur P.K. Subban croit toujours que son équipe peut renverser la vapeur.
Devils du New Jersey
Bas-fonds du classement: Subban y croit toujours


Le directeur général des Penguins de Pittsburgh, Jim Rutherford, est très franc concernant les difficultés éprouvées par Alex Galchenyuk.
LNH
Les Penguins n’ont pas confiance en Galchenyuk

1
Les Coyotes de l’Arizona seraient l’une des équipes les plus actives afin de faire l’acquisition de l’attaquant des Devils du New Jersey Taylor Hall.
LNH
Taylor Hall avec les Coyotes?


Le Canadien de Montréal sera de retour au boulot, vendredi soir, alors qu’ils rendent visite aux Rangers de New York.
Canadien
Guerre de tranchées à prévoir face aux Rangers


Lorsqu’une équipe est en mesure de produire et d’aligner les victoires en l’absence de deux piliers, c’est une bonne indication de sa profondeur.
Avalanche | Canadien
Sérieux candidat pour le Calder


Annonce, jeudi, d’une entente entre la Ville, l’organisation des Flames et l’organisme Calgary Stampede.
Flames de Calgary
Entente signée pour un nouvel aréna


Le jeune attaquant du Canadien de Montréal Jesperi Kotkaniemi souffrirait d'une commotion cérébrale.
Zadorov pas suspendu
Kotkaniemi souffrirait d'une commotion cérébrale


Le Drakkar tentera de rebondir à la suite de sa dernière contre-performance, vendredi soir, quand il recevra les Islanders de Charlottetown
LHJMQ
Le Drakkar veut se racheter face aux Islanders


Environ 3750 skieurs, marcheurs et coureurs sont attendus cette fin de semaine pour la 19e édition du 24h Tremblant.
24h Tremblant
3750 skieurs, marcheurs et coureurs attendus

2
Entre ses poteaux, Primeau est resté de glace, calme et solide.
Avalanche | Canadien
Cayden Primeau a répondu à l’appel


Yves Ulysse fils s’est incliné par décision unanime des juges contre le Vénézuélien Ismael Barroso, jeudi soir à Costa Mesa, en Californie.
Boxe
Yves Ulysse fils perd son titre


Le Canadien visitera les Rangers de New York vendredi soir.
Canadien | Rangers
L'avant-match du CH


L’attaquant n’a laissé aucune chance de remontée aux Tigres de Victoriaville alors qu’il a marqué trois buts pour les Wildcats.
LHJMQ
Jeremy McKenna trop fort pour les Tigres

1
Les Rangers de New York ont arraché un gain de 3 à 2 aux Blue Jackets, à Columbus.
Rangers – Blue Jackets
Artemi Panarin frustre son ancienne équipe


Russell Westbrook a connu un fort match pour les Rockets de Houston, qui ont vaincu les Raptors de Toronto par la marque de 119 à 109.
Basket
Les Raptors s’inclinent à domicile


Le Centre Georges-Vézina est une forteresse difficile à prendre.
LHJMQ | Saguenéens
Intraitables à la maison


L’Océanic poursuit son périple de quatre matchs en cinq jours en Abitibi.
Hockey | Océanic
«Une bonne performance» qui donne le ton au voyage


Selon son contrat, Beckham a encore quatre saisons à disputer à Cleveland. Lui-même a admis ses torts dans le cadre d'une saison difficile.
Saison difficile
Odell Beckham fils ne veut pas parler de son futur


Le Russe Arslanbek Makhmudov (9-0-0, 9 K.-O.) a su démontrer assez clairement qu’il possédait une force de frappe au-dessus de la moyenne.
Boxe
Un combat parmi les géants en 2020 pour Makhmudov?


L’Américain effectuera son grand retour au Scotiabank Arena de Toronto dans moins d’une semaine.
Autres sports
Kawhi Leonard à Toronto pour un match


Kirsten Moore-Towers et Michael Marinaro ont pris le sixième et dernier rang au Grand Prix de patinage artistique de Turin.
Patinage artistique
Moore-Towers et Marinaro sixièmes à Turin








Suivez-nous
Gestionnaire d'abonnements
Contactez-nous
Profil des lecteurs

ACTUALITÉ
Faits divers et judiciaire
Politique
Monde
Santé
Éducation
Transports
Environnement
Consommation
Société
Québec
ENQUÊTES
Construction
Santé
Fiscalité
Affaires policières
Le Québec dans le rouge
Le bordel informatique
Syndicalisme
Transports
SPORTS
Hockey
Canadiens
Football
Baseball
Plein air, chasse et pêche
Combats
Courses
Tennis
Soccer
Golf
Ski
Autres sports
Remparts
Les Capitales
Rouge et Or
Opinions
SPECTACLES
Célébrités
Cinéma
Télévision
Musique
Spectacles
Théâtre
Sorties
Humour
Opinions
LE SAC DE CHIPS
Épicé
Croustillant
Touchant
Vidéo virale
Incroyable
OPINIONS
Toutes nos chroniques
ARGENT
Dans vos poches
Où vont vos impôts
Entreprises
Opinions
Bourse
BLOGUES
Tous nos blogues
VACANCES
Destinations
Coin nature
Revues
Aubaines
VIE
Santé
Saveurs
Techno
Psycho
Famille
Mode beauté
Courrier de Louise
Rencontres
Coup de coeur
Focus
Livres
Joggeuse urbaine
Touriste chez soi
WEEKEND
Actualité
Musique
Cinéma
Télé
Théâtre
Livres
MÉTÉO
CONCOURS
FASCICULES
SERVICES D'ARCHIVES
NETIQUETTE
VIE PRIVÉE
CONDITIONS D'UTILISATION

plan du site
REGISTRE DES PUBLICITÉS ÉLECTORALES FÉDÉRALES © 2019 TOUS DROITS RÉSERVÉS. LE JOURNAL DE QUEBEC EST PUBLIÉ PAR MÉDIA QMI INC.

[Methais]

vendredi 6 décembre 2019 12h33

-4°c








ACTUALITÉ
ENQUÊTES
SPORTS
SPECTACLES
ARGENT
MONDE
VIE
PORTE-MONNAIE
MAISON EXTRA
ÉVASION
GUIDE DE L'AUTO
OPINIONS
BLOGUES



EN DIRECT









Le Journal de Québec
8
La députée solidaire Catherine Dorion rejette l’idée que ses frasques font ombrage aux réalisations de ses collègues et à ses propres dossiers.
Bilan de la session automnale
Catherine Dorion ne changera pas d’approche


D’autres directions territoriales du ministère des Transports du Québec devront payer des firmes privées
Ministère des Transports
Encore des millions pour compter les lampadaires

1
Ex-administrateur d’un important créancier de Groupe Capitales Médias, le ministre nie s’être lui-même placé en conflit d’intérêts.
Groupe Capitales Médias
Fitzgibbon nie être lui-même en conflit d’intérêts

1
Un homme a ouvert le feu dans une base navale en Floride, trois jours après une attaque similaire à Pearl Harbor.
Le tireur est mort
3 morts dans une fusillade sur une base en Floride




La police enquête sur une série de méfaits commis dans la nuit de jeudi à vendredi dans le secteur du Vieux-Port, à Québec.
PHOTOS | Vieux-Port
Des méfaits dans la rue Saint-Paul


Jacques Duchesneau est très émotif lorsqu’il revient sur le tragique drame survenu à Polytechnique Montréal, il y a exactement 30 ans.
Commémoration du 6 décembre 1989
Un «voyage au bout de l’enfer»


«Nous ne pouvons pas attendre plus longtemps» car «des gens souffrent ou meurent en raison de l’urgence climatique», a martelé la jeune militante.
COP25
«Nous ne pouvons pas attendre plus longtemps»


La SQDC a réalisé des profits nets de 1,5 million de dollars au cours de sa première année d’activité, sur des revenus de 179,7 M$.
Cannabis
Des profits de 1,5 M$ depuis un an pour la SQDC

39
Trudeau vs Trump: on se calme!
Jonathan
Trudeau

24
Québec solidaire et le Parti québécois ont dénoncé l’«arrogance» et le «mépris» du gouvernement Legault à l’endroit des partis d’opposition.
Québec solidaire | Parti québécois
Le «mépris» du gouvernement Legault dénoncé

3
Soyez aux aguets avant d’avaler la (souvent coûteuse) pilule, nous met en garde un troublant documentaire.
Troublant documentaire
Régimes «miracles»: trop beaux pour être vrais

3
Les parents pourront obtenir une réduction du tarif rétroactive au début de l’année scolaire.
Tewkesbury
Frais de garde: petite victoire pour un père

4
La tempête de pluie et de vent qui a déferlé sur le Québec les 31 octobre et 1er novembre derniers a coûté pas moins de 30 M$ à Hydro-Québec.
Tempête automnale
Une facture de 30 M$ pour Hydro-Québec


Le Montréalais veut retirer son plaidoyer de culpabilité de meurtre.
Justice
Il tue son bébé et se présente en victime

6
Le cauchemar de Jonathan Roberge
Sophie
Durocher


Les élus de Saint-Augustin s’apprêtent à assouplir les règles de zonage et de lotissement autour du lac Saint-Augustin.
Autour du lac Saint-Augustin
De nouvelles constructions seront permises

22
Incapable de trouver des employés, le MTQ a dû confier cette tâche en sous-traitance.
Manque de ressources au MTQ
1,8 M$ pour compter des lampadaires

3
La tuerie de Polytechnique il y a aujourd’hui 30 ans a constitué un tournant dans l’histoire du Québec.
Tuerie antiféministe de Polytechnique
Il y a 30 ans, l’horreur frappait Montréal


Des histoires
à écouter
Écoutez nos séries balados


L’Indice de l’humeur Léger
63.1
L’indice mesure l’évolution de l’humeur de la population.
Calculez votre indice
Votre humeur




Si l’accusé à haut risque Sylvain Fournier se retrouvait «dans un contexte extérieur au milieu hospitalier», nul ne sait comment il réagirait
Meurtre d'un touriste français
Il garde son étiquette d'«accusé à haut risque»

42
L’ancien grand patron de GCM aurait reçu 2 millions$ en salaires en l’espace de quatre ans.
Groupe Capitales Médias
Salaire de 500 000$ par année pour Martin Cauchon

2
Le patrimoine débâti
Antoine
Robitaille


Offre spéciale d'abonnement
Combo PAPIER et ÉDITION ÉLECTRONIQUE
18,53 $
/ mois
un rabais de 47%


* Taxes Incluses

Ce que Polytechnique m'a appris
Léolane
Kemner

1
Le jeune homme est allé galamment chercher sa copine après sa leçon.
Route 138
Un couple tué après un cours de conduite


L’attaquant vedette des Capitals de Washington Alex Ovechkin a révélé ce qu’il ferait s’il bat le record de buts marqués de Wayne Gretzky.
s’il bat le record de Gretzky
«Vous n’allez probablement plus jamais me voir»

6
Voici la statue du hockeyeur Joe Malone, surnommé «le fantôme», qui rejoindra les légendes du hockey dans l’allée commémorative au Centre Vidéotron.
Allée commémorative des légendes
Le «fantôme» Joe Malone ressuscité

5
Cayden Primeau repousse 32 tirs, mais le Canadien s’incline 3 à 2.
réveil tardif
Primeau repousse 32 tirs, le CH s’incline 3 à 2

10
Appel au «devoir de mémoire» lors d'une cérémonie de remise de médaille à titre posthume aux 14 femmes assassinées lors de l'attentat à Polytechnique.
[EN IMAGES] Tragédie de Polytechnique
Cérémonie à l’Assemblée en mémoire des victimes


Le boxeur québécois David Lemieux a fait le poids vendredi, à la veille de son combat contre l’Ukrainien Max Bursak à Montréal.
combat demain
Le boxeur québécois David Lemieux a fait le poids

10
Le gouvernement Trudeau réussira à se maintenir au pouvoir en raison de l'appui du Bloc.
Discours du Trône
Trudeau passera le test malgré les critiques


Lorsqu’il fait froid, c’est si réconfortant une bonne fondue au fromage.
La recette de Geneviève
Fondue aux fromages québécois allégés

46
La facture d’électricité va grimper beaucoup plus vite après l’adoption de la loi 34.
Énergie | Hydro-Québec
Plus cher de 560 millions de dollars

7
Dominique Anglade a livré un vibrant hommage à ses parents, fauchés par le terrible séisme qui frappé Haïti il y a près de 10 ans.
Vidéo | Séisme en Haïti
Un témoignage émouvant de Dominique Anglade


Deux épreuves de la Coupe du monde seront présentées sur les Plaines en mars 2020.
Ski de fond
Les meilleurs fondeurs de retour à Québec

Caricature
Ygreck


Choisissez des accessoires de service qui assureront la réussite de ce cocktail dînatoire, que vous souhaiterez répéter à d’autres occasions...
Accessoires de cuisine
Formule cocktail dînatoire


Les Méchants Raisins vous servent leur palmarès des meilleurs champagnes et mousseux, juste à temps pour les célébrations des prochaines semaines.
Les Méchants Raisins
Des bulles pour les Fêtes


Ça bouge fort chez Nissan, les acheteurs s’ennuieraient-ils des petites citadines? Le journaliste du Guide de l'auto Antoine Joubert nous en parle.
vidéo
En studio : la Nissan Versa fera t-elle un retour?


Le défenseur P.K. Subban croit toujours que son équipe peut renverser la vapeur.
Devils du New Jersey
Bas-fonds du classement: Subban y croit toujours


Bissie présentait une cardiopathie mettant ses jours en danger.
ex-petite siamoise camerounaise
Succès de l’opération du coeur pour Bissie


Le directeur général des Penguins de Pittsburgh, Jim Rutherford, est très franc concernant les difficultés éprouvées par Alex Galchenyuk.
LNH
Les Penguins n’ont pas confiance en Galchenyuk



Actualité
Faits divers
Politique
Nos routes en déroute
Santé
Cannabis
Éducation
Transports
Québec
Environnement
Consommation
Société
Archives


24
Québec solidaire et le Parti québécois ont dénoncé l’«arrogance» et le «mépris» du gouvernement Legault à l’endroit des partis d’opposition.
Québec solidaire | Parti québécois
Le «mépris» du gouvernement Legault dénoncé




La police enquête sur une série de méfaits commis dans la nuit de jeudi à vendredi dans le secteur du Vieux-Port, à Québec.
PHOTOS | Vieux-Port
Des méfaits dans la rue Saint-Paul


La SQDC a réalisé des profits nets de 1,5 million $ au cours de sa première année d’activité sur des revenus de 179,7 millions $.
Cannabis
Des profits de 1,5 M$ depuis un an pour la SQDC

3
Les parents pourront obtenir une réduction du tarif rétroactive au début de l’année scolaire.
Tewkesbury
Frais de garde: petite victoire pour un père

10
Appel au «devoir de mémoire» lors d'une cérémonie de remise de médaille à titre posthume aux 14 femmes assassinées lors de l'attentat à Polytechnique.
[EN IMAGES] Tragédie de Polytechnique
Cérémonie à l’Assemblée en mémoire des victimes

8
La députée solidaire Catherine Dorion rejette l’idée que ses frasques font ombrage aux réalisations de ses collègues et à ses propres dossiers.
Bilan de la session automnale
Catherine Dorion ne changera pas d’approche


Les élus de Saint-Augustin s’apprêtent à assouplir les règles de zonage et de lotissement autour du lac Saint-Augustin.
Autour du lac Saint-Augustin
De nouvelles constructions seront permises


-4°c
à Quebec
Météo complète et prévisions
7
Dominique Anglade a livré un vibrant hommage à ses parents, fauchés par le terrible séisme qui frappé Haïti il y a près de 10 ans.
Vidéo | Séisme en Haïti
Un témoignage émouvant de Dominique Anglade


Deux automobilistes ont été arrêtés cette semaine pour conduite avec facultés affaiblies, à Québec et à Lévis.
Région de Québec
Barrages routiers: deux automobilistes arrêtés

5
Le président de l'AMVQ a critiqué le gouvernement pour ne pas avoir accordé de place à la prévention et l’éducation dans sa nouvelle législation.
Morsures de chiens
Il faut miser davantage sur la prévention

1
Ex-administrateur d’un important créancier de Groupe Capitales Médias, le ministre nie s’être lui-même placé en conflit d’intérêts.
Groupe Capitales Médias
Fitzgibbon nie être lui-même en conflit d’intérêts

4
Ces jeunes, souvent trimbalés d’une famille d’accueil à une autre, n’ont parfois qu’un sac à ordures pour transporter leurs effets personnels.
DPJ
Une élève amasse des sacs pour les jeunes


Le Service des enquêtes sur les crimes majeurs de la SQ a arrêté un ex-enseignant de la Côte-Nord pour des infractions à caractère sexuel.
Infractions à caractère sexuel
Un ex-enseignant de la Côte-Nord arrêté de nouveau



Trudeau a réitéré l’engagement de son gouvernement à bannir les armes d’assaut et appelé à en faire plus pour contrer les violences.
Tuerie de Polytechnique
Les violences contre les femmes persistent au pays


Si l’accusé à haut risque Sylvain Fournier se retrouvait «dans un contexte extérieur au milieu hospitalier», nul ne sait comment il réagirait
Meurtre d'un touriste français
Il garde son étiquette d'«accusé à haut risque»

22
Incapable de trouver des employés, le MTQ a dû confier cette tâche en sous-traitance.
Manque de ressources au MTQ
1,8 M$ pour compter des lampadaires


4
Le ministre des Finances, Éric Girard, a déposé son projet de loi visant à resserrer l’encadrement des agences d’évaluation de crédit.
Vols de données personnelles
Dépôt du projet de loi sur les agences de crédit


Jacques Duchesneau est très émotif lorsqu’il revient sur le tragique drame survenu à Polytechnique Montréal, il y a exactement 30 ans.
Commémoration du 6 décembre 1989
Un «voyage au bout de l’enfer»

3
Charette a commis un outrage en omettant de déposer le plan stratégique du Conseil du Fonds vert alors que la loi l'y obligeait, dit Paradis.
Conseil du Fonds vert | Plan stratégique
Benoit Charette a commis un outrage

3
Un incendie a entraîné la mort de près de 300 bêtes en plus de causer de lourds dommages dans une ferme à Upton, en Montérégie.
Montérégie
Près de 300 veaux périssent dans un incendie

6
Voici la statue du hockeyeur Joe Malone, surnommé «le fantôme», qui rejoindra les légendes du hockey dans l’allée commémorative au Centre Vidéotron.
Allée commémorative des légendes
Le «fantôme» Joe Malone ressuscité

13
Les Québécois vivront un nouveau référendum en 2022, cette fois sur la réforme du mode de scrutin.
Réforme du mode de scrutin
Une campagne référendaire de cinq mois

1
Avec son nouveau restaurant Madame Chose aux Galeries de la Capitale, le groupe Restos Plaisirs tient ses promesses.
Photos | Galeries de la Capitale
Découvrez le concept éclaté du resto Madame Chose

8
Pierre Fitzgibbon promet de ne pas se venger si jamais Desjardins maintient sa décision de ne pas soutenir la relance de GCM.
Groupe Capitales Médias
Fitzgibbon ne se vengera pas de Desjardins

2
Un homme de 36 ans se trouve dans un état critique après avoir été happé par un véhicule, jeudi soir, à Saint-Lin–Laurentides, dans Lanaudière.
Saint-Lin-Laurentides
Un piéton perd la vie


L’histoire de la ville de Québec
Pierre
Gingras

4
Une femme qui travaillait dans un centre animalier où elle a été attaquée par un chien agressif dénonce le manque de formation du personnel.
centres animaliers | Chiens dangereux
Elle veut plus de formation pour les employés

31
Ferrandez, l’eugéniste
Nathalie
Elgrably-Lévy

21
Sales temps
Denise
Bombardier

1
Bien que du travail reste à faire, des étudiantes de Polytechnique constatent le progrès réalisé 30 ans après le féminicide.
Polytechnique Montréal
Quelle place accorde-t-on aux femmes aujourd’hui?

4
On devine que les stratèges libéraux ne misent pas sur l’Ouest pour remporter la prochaine bataille électorale.
Guillaume St-Pierre
Justin Trudeau: garder le cap malgré la grogne

39
Trudeau vs Trump: on se calme!
Jonathan
Trudeau

2
Le patrimoine débâti
Antoine
Robitaille

6
Pour sortir enfin du déni
Josée
Legault


Plusieurs incendies de forêts en Australie ont fusionné en un seul et unique «mégafeu» qui brûle désormais de façon incontrôlée au nord de Sydney.
Australie
Des incendies fusionnent en un «mégafeu»


Sports
Canadien
Hockey
Opinions
Remparts
Football
Soccer
La Zone payante
Combats
Courses
Rouge et or
Baseball
Les Capitales
Tennis
Golf
Plein air, chasse et pêche
Ski
Autres sports
Archives

5
Cayden Primeau repousse 32 tirs, mais le Canadien s’incline 3 à 2.
réveil tardif
Primeau repousse 32 tirs, le CH s’incline 3 à 2


L’ex-femme du défenseur des Sénateurs d’Ottawa Nikita Zaitsev l’accuse d’avoir kidnappé leurs enfants, vendredi matin.
LNH | Sénateurs
[VIDÉO] Nikita Zaitsev aurait kidnappé ses enfants


Deux épreuves de la Coupe du monde seront présentées sur les Plaines en mars 2020.
Ski de fond
Les meilleurs fondeurs de retour à Québec

10
Ayant déjà maille à partir avec les arbitres pour des infractions banales, on peut imaginer que Claude Julien n’a pas accepté que les officiels ne sév
Selon Claude Julien
Mise en échec sur Kotkaniemi: «Un coup salaud»



L’équipe a connu un départ canon et trône au sommet du classement général.
LHJMQ
Le Phœnix se dévoile enfin


L’étudiant en médecine Mathieu Massé-Pelletier avait accepté une offre pour jouer dans la NCAA.
NCAA
Football: une commotion met fin à son rêve sportif


Le boxeur québécois David Lemieux a fait le poids vendredi, à la veille de son combat contre l’Ukrainien Max Bursak à Montréal.
combat demain
Le boxeur québécois David Lemieux a fait le poids

6
Voici la statue du hockeyeur Joe Malone, surnommé «le fantôme», qui rejoindra les légendes du hockey dans l’allée commémorative au Centre Vidéotron.
Allée commémorative des légendes
Le «fantôme» Joe Malone ressuscité


Le défenseur P.K. Subban croit toujours que son équipe peut renverser la vapeur.
Devils du New Jersey
Bas-fonds du classement: Subban y croit toujours


Le directeur général des Penguins de Pittsburgh, Jim Rutherford, est très franc concernant les difficultés éprouvées par Alex Galchenyuk.
LNH
Les Penguins n’ont pas confiance en Galchenyuk

1
Les Coyotes de l’Arizona seraient l’une des équipes les plus actives afin de faire l’acquisition de l’attaquant des Devils du New Jersey Taylor Hall.
LNH
Taylor Hall avec les Coyotes?


Le Canadien de Montréal sera de retour au boulot, vendredi soir, alors qu’ils rendent visite aux Rangers de New York.
Canadien
Guerre de tranchées à prévoir face aux Rangers


Lorsqu’une équipe est en mesure de produire et d’aligner les victoires en l’absence de deux piliers, c’est une bonne indication de sa profondeur.
Avalanche | Canadien
Sérieux candidat pour le Calder


Annonce, jeudi, d’une entente entre la Ville, l’organisation des Flames et l’organisme Calgary Stampede.
Flames de Calgary
Entente signée pour un nouvel aréna


Le jeune attaquant du Canadien de Montréal Jesperi Kotkaniemi souffrirait d'une commotion cérébrale.
Zadorov pas suspendu
Kotkaniemi souffrirait d'une commotion cérébrale


Le Drakkar tentera de rebondir à la suite de sa dernière contre-performance, vendredi soir, quand il recevra les Islanders de Charlottetown
LHJMQ
Le Drakkar veut se racheter face aux Islanders


Environ 3750 skieurs, marcheurs et coureurs sont attendus cette fin de semaine pour la 19e édition du 24h Tremblant.
24h Tremblant
3750 skieurs, marcheurs et coureurs attendus

2
Entre ses poteaux, Primeau est resté de glace, calme et solide.
Avalanche | Canadien
Cayden Primeau a répondu à l’appel


Yves Ulysse fils s’est incliné par décision unanime des juges contre le Vénézuélien Ismael Barroso, jeudi soir à Costa Mesa, en Californie.
Boxe
Yves Ulysse fils perd son titre


Le Canadien visitera les Rangers de New York vendredi soir.
Canadien | Rangers
L'avant-match du CH


L’attaquant n’a laissé aucune chance de remontée aux Tigres de Victoriaville alors qu’il a marqué trois buts pour les Wildcats.
LHJMQ
Jeremy McKenna trop fort pour les Tigres

1
Les Rangers de New York ont arraché un gain de 3 à 2 aux Blue Jackets, à Columbus.
Rangers – Blue Jackets
Artemi Panarin frustre son ancienne équipe


Russell Westbrook a connu un fort match pour les Rockets de Houston, qui ont vaincu les Raptors de Toronto par la marque de 119 à 109.
Basket
Les Raptors s’inclinent à domicile


Le Centre Georges-Vézina est une forteresse difficile à prendre.
LHJMQ | Saguenéens
Intraitables à la maison


L’Océanic poursuit son périple de quatre matchs en cinq jours en Abitibi.
Hockey | Océanic
«Une bonne performance» qui donne le ton au voyage


Selon son contrat, Beckham a encore quatre saisons à disputer à Cleveland. Lui-même a admis ses torts dans le cadre d'une saison difficile.
Saison difficile
Odell Beckham fils ne veut pas parler de son futur


Le Russe Arslanbek Makhmudov (9-0-0, 9 K.-O.) a su démontrer assez clairement qu’il possédait une force de frappe au-dessus de la moyenne.
Boxe
Un combat parmi les géants en 2020 pour Makhmudov?


L’Américain effectuera son grand retour au Scotiabank Arena de Toronto dans moins d’une semaine.
Autres sports
Kawhi Leonard à Toronto pour un match


Kirsten Moore-Towers et Michael Marinaro ont pris le sixième et dernier rang au Grand Prix de patinage artistique de Turin.
Patinage artistique
Moore-Towers et Marinaro sixièmes à Turin








Suivez-nous
Gestionnaire d'abonnements
Contactez-nous
Profil des lecteurs

ACTUALITÉ
Faits divers et judiciaire
Politique
Monde
Santé
Éducation
Transports
Environnement
Consommation
Société
Québec
ENQUÊTES
Construction
Santé
Fiscalité
Affaires policières
Le Québec dans le rouge
Le bordel informatique
Syndicalisme
Transports
SPORTS
Hockey
Canadiens
Football
Baseball
Plein air, chasse et pêche
Combats
Courses
Tennis
Soccer
Golf
Ski
Autres sports
Remparts
Les Capitales
Rouge et Or
Opinions
SPECTACLES
Célébrités
Cinéma
Télévision
Musique
Spectacles
Théâtre
Sorties
Humour
Opinions
LE SAC DE CHIPS
Épicé
Croustillant
Touchant
Vidéo virale
Incroyable
OPINIONS
Toutes nos chroniques
ARGENT
Dans vos poches
Où vont vos impôts
Entreprises
Opinions
Bourse
BLOGUES
Tous nos blogues
VACANCES
Destinations
Coin nature
Revues
Aubaines
VIE
Santé
Saveurs
Techno
Psycho
Famille
Mode beauté
Courrier de Louise
Rencontres
Coup de coeur
Focus
Livres
Joggeuse urbaine
Touriste chez soi
WEEKEND
Actualité
Musique
Cinéma
Télé
Théâtre
Livres
MÉTÉO
CONCOURS
FASCICULES
SERVICES D'ARCHIVES
NETIQUETTE
VIE PRIVÉE
CONDITIONS D'UTILISATION

plan du site
REGISTRE DES PUBLICITÉS ÉLECTORALES FÉDÉRALES © 2019 TOUS DROITS RÉSERVÉS. LE JOURNAL DE QUEBEC EST PUBLIÉ PAR MÉDIA QMI INC.

[Astray]

Is this how we respond to ClydeR now?