Wikipedia can be complex for most of the people who have not connected with the inner workings of the Wikipedia website. For this fact, there have been a lot of misunderstandings developed for Wikipedia. These misconceptions are mostly invalid and rumors.

Wikipedia attracted contributors because it was built around a familiar product the encyclopedia. Encyclopedias aren’t just artifacts; they’re also epistemic frames. They employ a particular and, yet, universal approach to organizing information. Prior to Wikipedia, online encyclopedias tried to do what we tend to think is a good thing when it comes to the web: challenging old metaphors, exploding analog traditions, inventing entirely new forms.

There are two other key contributors to Wikipedia’s success with attracting contributors, Wikipedia offered low transaction costs to participation, and it de-emphasized the social ownership of content. Editing Wikipedia is easy, and instant, and virtually commitment-free. “You can come along and do a drive-by edit and never make a contribution again,” And the fact that it’s difficult to tell who wrote an article, or who edited it rather than discouraging contribution, as you might assume actually encouraged contributions, “Low textual ownership resulted in more collaboration,”

However, some people misunderstand Wikipedia for what it is as to gain the highest credibility in the search engines they consider that Wikipedia, being easily accessible to all, its credibility and broader coverage are what makes the platform a crucial part of business marketing strategy. This is necessary because having a Wikipedia page for your business doesn’t only give your brand instant visibility, but it also increases your presence in the digital realm. Having a Wikipedia page is an ultimate source for brand awareness for your business, which can represent your company to your business prospects and potential audience.

Below are the most misunderstood things about Wikipedia

• You are not allowed to edit an article on Wikipedia that is created by you

It the most common misconception people have. They think that once the article is published, they cannot edit it after. It is false. There is no rule for editing an article. It can be your own or anyone else. The only thing required to be an editor on Wikipedia is the creation of an account on the website. Once you have your own account, you have the free hand to make edits in many articles. Nevertheless, make sure whatever you change should be relevant.

• You can have paid to edit on Wikipedia

It is also a misconception for the people who have their articles on Wikipedia website. It is undoubtedly a wrong statement. The rules of Wikipedia do not support paid editing. However, if you are a person that is directed to make editing in the company profile on a regular basis then it is fine. The editing process itself is not that easy. Therefore, it is necessary for you to learn about the tips and techniques of making edits in the article first. Numerous sources are available around the world. It includes Wikipedia page creation service India, China, USA and more.

• A reliable source is not required to prove your content true

It is a completely wrong statement. Wikipedia entirely believes in the authenticity and reliability of the content. For this, it has the option of adding proper referencing in the content. Hence, a list of reliable sources is the basis of a perfect Wikipedia article. Citations are not only helpful in making your article eligible but also help you in gathering more audience as it is the source of trust and reliability.

• Can a press release be one of the sources for citation

It is also a concern of many renowned companies. However, according to the Wikipedia community, it is not possible for a company to a press release as their source of authenticity. However, if an authentic reporter takes your interview and writes an article on it then it can be count as a reference. Anyone who writes outside from your organization is eligible to be used as a reference.

• Can future plans of an organization be a part of Wikipedia article

Only the thing that exists can be a part of the Wikipedia article. Therefore, not anything that you or your company is planning can add in the article. Hence, any future planning and collaboration are entirely out of the rules of the Wikipedia platform.

XML originates from SGML and both are meant as markup languages for things like electronic versions of books or perhaps to describe an invoice in an archival format.
A lot of criticism comes from using XML something it wasn't designed for, initially - real-time messaging, config files etc.
The reason it gets used anyway is, that it is a solid standard which a lot of developers understand already or can learn easily by reading the spec of the standard.
Likewise on the software side, pretty much every language has tools (parsers etc) to process XML.

For something really simple XML may indeed be a slight overkill but in my view, it's not the end of the world either and not sure why people get so religious about this.
A good/bad example is a config file in the form:
<property>
<key>brightness</key>
<value>50</value>
</property>

It has no extra information, compared to a much more compact notation in JSON: {"key":"brightness","value":50}
But it's perfectly readable in XML and arguably easier to understand without assuming anything.
If it's not performance critical (and config files usually are not), it doesn't really matter than much. In XML/XPath you can access the the value with this simple expression: "/property/brightness/value"
Likewise to access the value from JSON file in Javascript, it's easiest to load back to an object (var myObject = JSON.parse('config.json'))and get value with myObject.brighness
Both approaches are pretty trivial so it depends if your environment has good parsers for XML, JSON or whatever format you choose.
The balance starts to shift towards XML when things get more complex - for example when you have to deal with namespaces, which are an integral part of XML (and the standard) and in JSON are an ugly afterthought. I wouldn't say it's trivial with XML anyway, but at least there is the spec and compliant tools are pretty likely to support such features. You can do more with XML ecosystem - you can create a schema to say that a config must have exactly one key/value for brightness - you could try the same with JSON but you have to write all the validation in the code yourself and it's no longer a more simple solution.

To sum up a lot of criticism is unfounded, because people are too lazy to read up a little and to take advantage of the whole XML ecosystem (i.e. not just XML syntax but also XPath, XML Schema, XSL etc), sometimes the criticism is valid because XML may be the wrong tool for the job. Sometimes there is nothing wrong with XML per se but rather how it's used (SOAP is way too verbose on top of the already verbose XML).
But most of the time it doesn't matter that much, just use whatever works best with your ecosystem.

This pops up every once in awhile. Pundits of all ends of the political spectrum like to malign it as a source. “Well, it's user-edited. How accurate could it be?” or “Nice. Now give me a real source.” Well, a 2014 study gave us a definitive answer.

A group of German researchers got together and compared the articles to the information they had. The articles they examined were 99.7%±0.2% accurate. That's pretty spot on. But there is a caveat.

The articles weren't complete. Their comprehensiveness ranged from 68.0% to 91.0%. So you get a really good overview, but for a deep dive you'd need another source.

Another study mentioned that it was about as accurate as the Encyclopædia Britannica, and being compared to that august publication isn't a bad thing. But they did mention that Wikipedia articles were somewhat biased. Now I know these days there's a lot being made out of bias, but what largely gets ignored is the degree. Articles saying things like “the greedy Republicans are at it again” or referring to the “socialist Democrats” can be safely dismissed as containing heavy amounts of bias. And frankly I've never seen anything that blatant on Wikipedia.

The bottom line is that it can be a good source when you're trying to get a crash course in one subject or another. It's not useful as a DIY guide, but it is reasonably accurate. Besides, don't you want to know just how old that actress is, or how many albums your favorite band released?

Sources:

Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology

Wikipedia Or Encyclopædia Britannica: Which Has More Bias?

Research Guides: Wikipedia: Is Wikipedia Accurate?

Wikipedia has become a science reference source even though scientists don’t cite it

I think that most of the people who try to add content to Wikipedia articles don't understand how important it is to cite (add a footnote for) a reliable source to support what they've added. Without such a citation, what is added is likely to be removed or significantly modified, either immediately or eventually. With such a cite/footnote, other editors are much more likely to protect the text that was added.

Or, to put it briefly: it's easy to change a Wikipedia article. It's much more difficult to get your change to stick.

My approach to adding Wikipedia content is to work from a source. It doesn't matter if I have detailed personal knowledge of something [not that I really trust my memory] - I always start with a reliable source (or sources), and add information to the Wikipedia article based on that source. That's also better for readers, of course, since for many people, such as students doing research, Wikipedia should be a starting point, and footnotes/citations will lead them to more detailed information.

1. Wikipedia predates WYSIWYG editing in the browser, having started in 2001. At that point, the options were between using straight HTML and using something slightly simpler: a markup language. Wikitext, the markup language of MediaWiki, is at its core somewhat simpler than pure HTML, so back in the day, it was easier to use. However, since WYSIWYG is now possible, wikitext is comparatively confusing.
2. Wikitext is ad-hoc, as part of the initially ad-hoc development of Wikipedia's open-source MediaWiki wiki engine. Users asked for, and received, features that make wikitext very powerful: transclusion, conditionals, et cetera. That makes editing more confusing because pages will make use of some of these advanced features. These days some work is just converting complicated templates from wikitext to modules written in Lua, since even a scripting language is ultimately better than a damn Turing-complete markup language.
3. Because Wikipedia has been using wikitext for so long and has built up such an impressive corpus (the largest single reference work humans have produced!) it's stuck with some of the quirks of wikitext. While there's ongoing work to normalize some of that away, it's still a lot of work to fix any given quirk of the language without breaking potentially hundreds or thousands of pages.

There is ongoing work on an already quite-functional VisualEditor extension, that layers WYSIWYG editing on top of the wikitext syntax. I forget whether it's available by default yet, since I have it disabled, but it's certainly available to logged-in users. It's not perfect, and as someone who uses the advanced features of wikitext I find it limiting, but newbies can manage the basics without learning much syntax.

Why do some people say Wikipedia is incorrect information?

This concept is most commonly spread, in the world of “education”. That industry so proud of the results it creates, never having included any improvement in “Thinking Prowess”.

Threatened by other information reference sources, K-12 programming gets nervous.
Never having offered any classes called; Thinking, Thought, nor How to Think. Those same TEACHERS & PROFESSORS ALL have voids in their GPA’s, not having those classes either.

With the power of information at your fingertips, doubt is what is necessary for the programming veil to remain in place, before the programmed break free from their own self-programming.

My students found it rather difficult to navigate the site, once they started to look "backstage" at Talk, History, Contributions, Wikiproject, Policy, et cetera.

I suppose the difficulty is that there are so many different types and functionalities for WP webpages. Sure, once you're an experienced editor, it all seems fine. But for beginners, Wikipedia is quite different than the typical websites that people use.

As an experienced editor, I can still get confused about how to best handle editing conflicts and (seemingly) unreasonable editors. The standard, recommended procedures can be ineffective and draining. It's often best to just contact an experienced admin (sysop), which can be done off-site via Wikipedia's active IRC system. But novices don't know about this at all.

Steps
1. Purchase an XML editing software program that allows you to create XML schemas, if you do not already have such software.

2. Install the software on your computer and restart, if necessary.

3. Familiarize yourself with your XML editor's workspace, as well as with user resources that are available.

4. Create elements for your XML Schema.

Your schema must include the schema element as its root element. This element may also contain attributes.

Elements must include a start and end tag and may include other elements, text, attributes or any combination of these.

The names of your XML elements must not start with a number or special character and cannot start with "xml."

Ensure all elements are properly nested.

Use short, descriptive names for your elements.

6. Create your XML Schema attributes.

Attributes provide additional information about the elements contained within your XML document.

Attributes must appear within quotes.

Attributes can contain only one value.

Do not include tree structures in your attributes.

7. Create your XML Schema types to define the content of your elements and attributes.

8. Save your work.

9. Check your XML Schema to be sure XML elements and XML attributes are properly named and that there are no other errors.

10. Correct any errors you identify.

11. Validate your XML Schema using your XML editor's validation tool.

12. Correct any errors identified during validation.

13. Save your work.

14. Open the XML file or files for which you have created the XML Schema.

15. Include a reference to your XML Schema within your XML file or files.

16. Save your XML file.

Easy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

Text by Wikipedia - “Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself”.

And more see here:

Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource?

It is possible to use XSLT transformation on XML documents to generate HTML document with forms.

Given the XML:

using XSLT:

Result HTML Form:

The usual criticisms are that it is overly verbose and bureaucratic as well as difficult to read.

Here's a small collection of quotes about XML:

"The essence of XML is this: the problem it solves is not hard, and it does not solve the problem well."
-Phil Wadler

"XML is like violence. Sure, it seems like a quick and easy solution at first, but then it spirals out of control into utter chaos."
-Sarkos (Reddit)

"XML combines the efficiency of text files with the readability of binary files"

"XML is a classic political compromise: it balances the needs of man and machine by being equally unreadable to both."
-Matthew Might

You can find more reasons to dislike XML on "cat -v"'s "XML Considered Harmful" page:
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/xml/

May I ask, how did you conclude that XML is overrated? Did you come across someone who wants nothing to do with any other way of structuring information and only use XML? If that is so, then the question is relevant to that person. XML is just a format that is human readable, also used to exchange data between computer programs, nothing more nothing less. It's just a tool, use it or not depends on what you are trying to do and the nature of the problem you are trying to solve. As an example, I would not use XML to structure a proprietary file format, reasons could be the speed of parsing, keeping it in binary format would be easier to make it hard to be reverse engineered as anyhow the human-understandable part is not a requirement for this problem statement.

So my comment, it's neither overrated not underrated, it's just a format available, among many others. Know your tools and pick the one that is fit for what you are doing.

They are not interchangeable. You use ‘ref’ to refer back to something you have defined elsewhere. Perhaps you have defined an xs:element or an xs:attributeGroup. You use the ‘ref’ attribute to refer to those defined pieces of data by their name.

For example, if you had defined:

<xs:attributeGroup name="id.att"> 
	<xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:ID"/> 
</xs:attributeGroup> 

Then you could put this inside an element that you wanted to have an id attribute:

<xs:attributeGroup ref="id.att"/> 

Notice the type attribute in the attributeGroup which says that the id must follow the predefined rules for an xs:ID. This is a predefined type that means the id attribute needs to be unique within the document.

A couple of the most common predefined types for attributes are:

xs:string - can contain any characters

xs:integer - can be an integer

Where it starts to get confusing is that, in addition to using type to refer to predefined types, you can use type to refer to a type that you have defined in your document. So it almost seems like it should be a ref. Just remember that ref is a reference to anything that is not a type. Here is an example of a simple attribute type where I wanted it to only allow “yes” or “no”.

<xs:simpleType name="yesorno"> 
	<xs:restriction base="xs:string"> 
		<xs:enumeration value="yes"/> 
		<xs:enumeration value="no"/> 
	</xs:restriction> 
</xs:simpleType> 

Then, anyhwhere else I can define an attribute that takes those two values, without having to repeat my enumeration.

<xs:attribute name="answer" type="yesorno"/> 

I hope that clears it up a little. The two can be a little confusing.

There is a fantastic Health Information standard called HL7 FHIR, which is really the 4th iteration of the HL7 standard. HL7 FHIR is REST-enabled, resource-based, supports document and messaging use cases, and comes in multiple flavours, including XML and JSON.

5 Things to Know About HL7 FHIR

In the United States, a lot of Health Information is covered by the NIEM Health Health Domain, under Health and Human Services. NIEM is also primarily an XML standard, and comes in multiple flavours, including XML and JSON. Unlike HL7 FHIR, NIEM is not resource-based, although it encourages reuse and composition.

Open Data & NIEM

Disclaimer: I work with HL7 v3, and I mention FHIR and NIEM because they are much more practical XML standards than v3.

I was in your shoes a couple of months back. There was no good publicly available parser for Wikipedia XML data sets or more correctly, I did not find one that correctly met my needs. So, I asked for help from one of my friends who had worked on that dataset before. She gave me a fairly good yet simple working parser, which I modified and extended for my requirements.

The thing that you have to realize for making a fast parser for huge amounts of data dumps is that you need indexing so to optimize the file reads for your needs. An easy way is to achieve this is to have an index file which has article to file byte offset mapping so that your parser can quickly go to a particular article, given its id or name. This is pretty basic but greatly extensible, as you can easily design indexing logic according to how you want to access the data. So, I have a first pass which creates the index files using regexes to define what is an article. And then, in the second pass, the actual parsing happens (which can be parallelized) using the index file. It's was not too much work and it does make parsing of big files a lot faster.

But, if you really want better indexing and parsing, you can also use Solr Apache Lucene - Apache Solr over your data. It is an an open source search engine that you can deploy locally. You can modify and use their indexing & parsing code for your project.