Content deleted Content added
Animalparty (talk | contribs) m formatting |
SashiRolls (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1224506293 by Schauschlienger (talk)no mention of Reddit in source |
||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2023}}
{{short description|Website for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia}}
{{Infobox website
| name
| logo_size
| logocaption
| screenshot
| screenshot_size
| caption
| url
| commercial
| type
| registration
| language
| num_users
| content_license
| launch_date
| current_status
}}
'''Wikipediocracy''' is a website for discussion and [[criticism of Wikipedia]].<ref name="Qworty" /><ref name="misogyny">{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2013/0801/In-UK-rising-chorus-of-outrage-over-online-misogyny|title=In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny: Recent events in Britain draw more attention to endemic hostility towards women online|first=Dan|last=Murphy|date=1 August 2013|access-date=1 August 2013|newspaper=[[The Christian Science Monitor]]|archive-date=17 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130817053806/http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2013/0801/In-UK-rising-chorus-of-outrage-over-online-misogyny|url-status=live}}</ref> Its members have brought information about [[List of Wikipedia controversies|Wikipedia's controversies]] to the attention of the media. The site was founded in March 2012 by users of [[Wikipedia Review]],<ref name="HerschWelcome">{{cite web | url=http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15 | title=Welcome | publisher=Wikipediocracy | work=Mission statement and welcome to the public | date=15 March 2012 | access-date=26 June 2013 |
The site is "known for digging up dirt on Wikipedia's top brass", wrote reporter Kevin Morris in the ''[[Daily Dot]]''.<ref name=vandalizing /> Novelist [[Amanda Filipacchi]] wrote in ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' that the site "intelligently discusses and entertainingly lambastes Wikipedia’s problematic practices".<ref name=Amanda1>{{cite web|last=Filipacchi|first=Amanda|title=My Strange Addiction: Wikipedia
==
Wikipediocracy was cofounded by Gregory Kohs<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia | title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia | website=[[Fox News]] | date=25 March 2015 }}</ref> after being blocked by Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] for founding [[MyWikiBiz]], a service dedicated to writing entries for businesses.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M1yNL0iI5T0C&dq=Gregory%20%22Kohs%22%20%22mywikibiz%22&pg=PA142 |title=Notions of Community: A Collection of Community Media Debates and Dilemmas |year=2009 |editor-last=Gordon |editor-first=Janey |author-last=Stewart |author-first=Gavin |contribution=Selling Community: Corporate Media, Marketing and Blogging |page=142 |publisher=[[Peter Lang (publisher)|Peter Lang]] |isbn=9783039113743}}</ref>
== Website user activism ==
Wikipediocracy contributors have investigated problems, conflicts, and controversies associated with Wikipedia, some being reported by mainstream media. The site's stated mission is "to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia" and related projects. In a [[doctoral thesis]], internet policy and law specialist [[Heather Ford]]
=== Revenge editing ===
In 2013, Wikipediocracy members contacted ''[[Salon.com]]'' reporter [[Andrew Leonard]] to alert him about the "Qworty fiasco".<ref name=whatistobedone/><ref name="Qworty: the fallout">{{cite web|title=Qworty: the fallout|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/24/qworty-the-fallout/|website=Wikipediocracy|access-date=4 September 2015|archive-date=26 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191226095603/http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/24/qworty-the-fallout/|url-status=live}}</ref> Wikipedia user Qworty had attracted attention for his provocative comments in a debate on Wikipedia's treatment of female writers.<ref name="Wikipedia's Shame">{{cite web|last1=Leonard|first1=Andrew|title=Wikipedia's Shame|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/|website=Salon|date=29 April 2013|access-date=4 September 2015|archive-date=30 April 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130430063012/http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/|url-status=live}}</ref> It emerged that many of his past contributions affected the site's treatment of, and targeted rivals of, writer [[Robert Clark Young]].<ref name="Qworty">{{cite web|last=Leonard|first=Andrew|work=Salon.com|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=17 May 2013|access-date=18 May 2013|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|archive-date=31 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160531215546/http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Manhire |first=Toby |author-link=Toby Manhire |url=https://www.noted.co.nz/archive/archive-listener-nz-2013/wikipedia-and-the-scourge-of-revenge-editors |title=Wikipedia and the scourge of "revenge editors" |magazine=[[New Zealand Listener]] |date=5 June 2013 |access-date=5 June 2013 |archive-date=21 April 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200421065837/https://www.noted.co.nz/archive/archive-listener-nz-2013/wikipedia-and-the-scourge-of-revenge-editors |url-status=live }}</ref> This background information led to Leonard's challenging Young in an article "Revenge, Ego, and the Corruption of Wikipedia", which identified Young as Qworty. Just before the publication of Leonard's article, Qworty had been banned from editing Wikipedia biographies of living persons due to this behavior.<ref name="Qworty"/><ref name=whatistobedone>{{cite web|url=http://talkingwriting.com/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedia/|title=What Should We Do About Wikipedia?|last1=Nichols|first1=Martha|last2=Berry|first2=Lorraine|publisher=Talking Writing|date=20 May 2013|access-date=20 May 2013|archive-date=1 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200101174130/http://talkingwriting.com/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedia/|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Discussion of governments ===
Wikipediocracy contributors' criticisms of Wikipedia have been discussed in news stories covering [[Jimmy Wales]]'s relationship with the government of [[Kazakhstan]],<ref name="Daily Dot Kazakh">{{cite web |url = http://www.dailydot.com/politics/wikipedia-kazakhstan-dictatorship/ |title = Wikipedia's odd relationship with the Kazakh dictatorship |last = Morris |first = Kevin |date = 25 December 2012 |website = The Daily Dot |access-date = 18 May 2013 |archive-date = 25 May 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160525060031/http://www.dailydot.com/politics/wikipedia-kazakhstan-dictatorship/ |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="netprophet">{{cite web |url = http://netprophet.tol.org/2013/01/08/critics-question-neutrality-of-kazakh-wikipedia/ |title = Critics question neutrality of Kazakh Wikipedia |last = Hermans |first = Steven |date = 8 January 2013 |website = NET PROPHET |access-date = 26 May 2013 |archive-date = 28 April 2019 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190428202345/http://netprophet.tol.org/2013/01/08/critics-question-neutrality-of-kazakh-wikipedia/ |url-status = dead }}</ref><ref name="Telegraph Kazakh">{{cite web |url = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9764719/Wikipedia-co-founder-Jimmy-Wales-restricts-discussion-of-Tony-Blair-friendship.html |title = Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales restricts discussion of Tony Blair friendship |last = Williams |first = Christopher |date = 24 December 2012 |work = The Telegraph |access-date = 26 May 2013 |archive-date = 17 August 2019 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190817033031/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9764719/Wikipedia-co-founder-Jimmy-Wales-restricts-discussion-of-Tony-Blair-friendship.html |url-status = live }}</ref> the [[Gibraltarpedia#Controversy|Gibraltarpedia controversy]],<ref name="Daily Dot influence">{{cite web |url = http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-influence-scandal/ |title = Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales breaks silence on resurgence of influence-peddling scandal |last = Alfonso |first = Fernando |date = 25 October 2012 |website = [[The Daily Dot]] |access-date = 18 May 2013 |archive-date = 29 October 2013 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20131029183926/http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-influence-scandal/ |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="El Reg Gibraltarpedia">{{cite web
In May 2014, ''[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]]'', working with Wikipediocracy, uncovered evidence identifying the [[Hillsborough Wikipedia posts|civil servant who had allegedly vandalized the Wikipedia articles]] on the [[Hillsborough disaster]] and [[Anfield]].<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/10844002/Civil-servants-behind-sickening-Hillsborough-slurs-identified.html | title=Civil servants behind 'sickening' Hillsborough slurs identified | first=Oliver | last=Duggan | date=
=== Wikimedia Foundation ===
A Wikipediocracy blog post reported in 2013 that Wikipedia was being vandalized from [[IP address]]es assigned to the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF).<ref name=vandalizing /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/04/22/busy-day-at-the-wikimedia-foundation-office/|title=Busy day at the Wikimedia Foundation office?|last=Hogsky|first=Roger|access-date=24 May 2013|publisher=Wikipediocracy|work=Blog|date=22 April 2013|archive-date=23 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191223181954/https://wikipediocracy.com/2013/04/22/busy-day-at-the-wikimedia-foundation-office/|url-status=live}}</ref> Responding to the allegations, WMF spokesman Jay Walsh stated that the IP addresses belonged to WMF servers and were not used by the WMF offices. He stated that the addresses were assigned to some edits by IPs due to a misconfiguration, which was corrected.<ref name=vandalizing>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-staffers-vandalizing-wikipedia/|title=Wikipedia says its staffers are not vandalizing Wikipedia|last=Morris|first=Kevin|publisher=The Daily Dot|date=23 April 2013|access-date=24 May 2013|archive-date=1 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200101174136/https://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-staffers-vandalizing-wikipedia/|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Other issues ===
A Wikipediocracy forum discussion identified the Wikipedia account responsible for a hoax article Wikipedia administrators had recently [[Deletion of articles on Wikipedia|deleted]]. The "[[Bicholim conflict]]" article described a fictitious 1640–41 [[India]]n civil war. It was awarded Wikipedia's "[[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good article]]" status in 2007, and retained it until late 2012, when a Wikipedian checked the article's cited sources and found that none of them appeared to exist.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-bicholim-conflict-hoax-deleted/|title=After a half-decade, massive Wikipedia hoax finally exposed|publisher=The Daily Dot|first=Kevin|last=Morris|date=1 January 2013|access-date=18 May 2013|archive-date=10 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140410195455/http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-bicholim-conflict-hoax-deleted/|url-status=live}}</ref>
A September 2013 story resulting from a Wikipediocracy tip-off concerned commercial plastic surgeons editing Wikipedia's [[plastic surgery]] articles to promote their services. Concerns with violations of conflict of interest guidelines and the provision of misinformation in the relevant articles had also been raised by Wikipediocracy members on Wikipedia itself.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-plastic-surgery-otto-placik-labiaplasty/|title=Are plastic surgeons nip/tucking ads into high-profile Wikipedia articles?|publisher=The Daily Dot|first=Audra|last=Schroeder|date=20 September 2013|access-date=7 October 2013|archive-date=1 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160601045629/http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-plastic-surgery-otto-placik-labiaplasty/|url-status=live}}</ref>
In February 2015, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee banned a user after finding he had edited to promote the [[Indian Institute of Planning and Management]] and added negative material to the article on another university. The user's edits had been noted in Wikipediocracy in December 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://scroll.in/article/714291/Wikipedia-bans-editor-for-consistent-bias-in-favour-of-Arindam-Chaudhuri
In late 2020, Wikipediocracy raised issues about the accuracy of the Wikipedia page of [[Nicholas Alahverdian]].<ref name="provj2020">{{Cite web|last=Mooney|first=Tom|title=He was reported dead, but the state police kept looking for Nick Alahverdian|url=https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2021/01/27/nicholas-alahverdian-dcyf-critic-death-got-attention-state-police/4258174001/|access-date=27 January 2021
==See also==
Line 57 ⟶ 60:
*{{Official|http://wikipediocracy.com }}
*[http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/ A Compendium of Wikipedia Criticism]: summary post explaining the site's objections to Wikipedia practices
* [http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia "The Dark Side of Wikipedia,"] ''[[Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson]]'',
{{Wikipediahistory}}
Line 66 ⟶ 69:
[[Category:Blogs]]
[[Category:Critics of Wikipedia]]
| |||