Fri . 20 Jun 2020
TR | RU | UK | KK | BE |

Criticism of Wikipedia

criticism of wikipedia, what is one significant criticism of wikipedia
Criticism of Wikipedia—of the content, procedures, and operations, and of the Wikipedia community—covers many subjects, topics, and themes about the nature of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia of subject entries that almost anyone can edit Wikipedia has been criticized for the uneven handling, acceptance, and retention of articles about controversial subjects The principal concerns of the critics are the factual reliability of the content, the existence of systemic bias due to the demographics of its user base, as well as evidence of gender bias and racial bias Further concerns are that the organization allows the participation of anonymous editors leading to editorial vandalism, creates social stratification albeit through an inquisitorial administrator vetting process, and has overly complicated rules encouraging litigious behavior

The November 4, 2016 issue of Wikipedia's own journal Signposts has a feature story lead titled "Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage", which also links to a critical piece from the Heartland Institute While the Washington Post article argues that with time Wikipedia's "liberal" political bias is diminishing, the Heartland Institute article links to 24 articles critical of Wikipedia, primarily from a "conservative" point of view The Washington Post article, generally laudatory in tone, also states that many Wikipedia editors are unpaid

Contents

  • 1 Criticism of content
    • 11 Accuracy of information
      • 111 Not authoritative
      • 112 Comparative study of science articles
      • 113 Lack of methodical fact-checking
      • 114 Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest
      • 115 Scientific disputes
        • 1151 Exposure to political operatives and advocates
        • 1152 Commandeering or sanitizing articles
        • 1153 Editing for financial rewards
    • 12 Quality of the presentation
      • 121 Quality of articles on US history
      • 122 Quality of medical articles
      • 123 The Wall Street Journal debate
    • 13 Systemic bias in coverage
      • 131 Notability of article topics
      • 132 Partisanship
      • 133 American and corporate bias
      • 134 Racial bias
      • 135 Gender bias and sexism
    • 14 Sexual content
    • 15 Exposure to vandals
    • 16 Privacy concerns
  • 2 Criticism of the community
    • 21 Role of Jimmy Wales
    • 22 Conflict of interest cases
    • 23 Unfair treatment of female contributors
    • 24 Lack of verifiable identities
      • 241 Scandals involving administrators and arbitrators
        • 2411 Essjay controversy
      • 242 Anonymity
    • 25 Editorial process
      • 251 Level of debate, edit wars and harassment
      • 252 Consensus and the "hive mind"
      • 253 Excessive rule-making
    • 26 Social stratification
  • 3 See also
  • 4 References
  • 5 Further reading
  • 6 External links

Criticism of content

Wikipedia is described as unreliable at times Edwin Black has characterized the editorial content of articles as a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods" and Oliver Kamm has said that articles are usually dominated by the editors with the loudest and most persistent editorial voices talk pages and edit summaries, usually by an interest group with an ideological "axe to grind" on the subject, topic, or theme of the article in question

Wikipedia articles on politics and ideology have also been criticized Two works published in 2012 are critical of the undue-weight policy relative importance of a given source, and concluded that, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide correct and definitive information about a subject, but to present, as the consensus opinion, the majority opinion advanced by the authors of the entry's sources The uneven application of the undue-weight policy creates omissions of fact and of interpretation that might give the reader false impressions about the subject matter, based upon the incompleteness of the Wikipedia article

Wikipedia is sometimes characterized as having a hostile editing environment In Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia 2014, Dariusz Jemielniak, a steward for Wikimedia Foundation projects, stated that the complexity of the rules and laws governing editorial content and the behavior of the editors is a burden for new editors and a licence for the "office politics" of disruptive editors In a follow-up article, Jemielniak said that abridging and rewriting the editorial rules and laws of Wikipedia for clarity of purpose and simplicity of application would resolve the bureaucratic bottleneck of too many rules In The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity is Causing its Decline 2013, Aaron Halfaker stated that the over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally provoked the decline in editorial participation that began in 2009—frightening away new editors who otherwise would contribute to Wikipedia

There have also been works that describe the possible misuse of Wikipedia In "Wikipedia or Wickedpedia" 2008, the Hoover Institution said that Wikipedia is an unreliable resource for correct knowledge, information, and facts about a subject, because, as an open source website, the editorial content of the articles is readily subjected to manipulation and propaganda The 2014 edition of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's official student handbook, Academic Integrity at MIT, informs students that Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source, stating, "the bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources However, do not assume that these sources are reliable—use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research"


Accuracy of information

For more details on this topic, see Reliability of Wikipedia § Assessments

Not authoritative

Wikipedia acknowledges that the encyclopedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational The British librarian Philip Bradley said that "the main problem is the lack of authority With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it But with something like this, all that goes out the window" Likewise, Robert McHenry, editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica from 1992 to 1997, said that readers of Wikipedia articles cannot know who wrote the article they are reading—it might have been written by an expert in the subject matter or by an amateur In November 2015, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger told Zach Schwartz in Vice : "I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule" and that since he left the project, "People that I would say are trolls sort of took over The inmates started running the asylum"

Comparative study of science articles

Teaching, Criticism, and Praise: an analysis of talk-page messages for the Wikipedia Summer of Research 2011 convention

In "Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head-to-head", a 2005 article published in the Nature scientific journal, the results of a blind experiment single-blind study, which compared the factual and informational accuracy of entries from Wikipedia and the Encyclopædia Britannica, were reported The 42-entry sample included science articles and biographies of scientists, which were compared for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers; they found that the average Wikipedia entry contained four errors and omissions, while the average Encyclopædia Britannica entry contained three errors and omissions The study concluded that Wikipedia and Britannica were comparable in terms of the accuracy of its science entries" Nevertheless, the reviewers had two principal criticisms of the Wikipedia science entries: i thematically confused content, without an intelligible structure order, presentation, interpretation; and ii that undue weight is given to controversial, fringe theories about the subject matter

The dissatisfaction of the Encyclopædia Britannica editors led to Nature publishing additional survey documentation that substantiated the results of the comparative study Based upon the additional documents, Encyclopædia Britannica denied the validity of the study, stating it was flawed, because the Britannica extracts were compilations that sometimes included articles written for the youth version of the encyclopedia In turn, Nature acknowledged that some Britannica articles were compilations, but denied that such editorial details invalidated the conclusions of the comparative study of the science articles

The editors of Britannica also said that while the Nature study showed that the rate of error between the two encyclopedias was similar, the errors in a Wikipedia article usually were errors of fact, while the errors in a Britannica article were errors of omission According to the editors of Britannica, Britannica was more accurate than Wikipedia in that respect Subsequently, Nature magazine rejected the Britannica response with a rebuttal of the editors' specific objections about the research method of the study

Lack of methodical fact-checking

Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged The most prominent cases reported by mainstream media involved biographies of living people

American journalist John Seigenthaler, object of the Seigenthaler incident

The Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident demonstrated that the subject of a biographical article must sometimes fix blatant lies about his own life In May 2005, an anonymous user edited the biographical article on American journalist and writer John Seigenthaler so that it contained several false and defamatory statements The inaccurate claims went unnoticed from May until September 2005 when they were discovered by Victor S Johnson, Jr, a friend of Seigenthaler Wikipedia content is often mirrored at sites such as Answerscom, which means that incorrect information can be replicated alongside correct information through a number of web sources Such information can develop a misleading authority because of its presence at such sites

In another example, on March 2, 2007, MSNBCcom reported that then-New York Senator and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, had been incorrectly listed for 20 months in her Wikipedia biography as valedictorian of her class of 1969 at Wellesley College, when in fact she was not though she did speak at commencement The article included a link to the Wikipedia edit, where the incorrect information was added on July 9, 2005 The inaccurate information was removed within 24 hours after the MSNBCcom report appeared

Attempts to perpetrate hoaxes may not be confined to editing existing Wikipedia articles, but can also include creating new articles In October 2005, Alan Mcilwraith, a former call center worker from Scotland, created a Wikipedia article in which he wrote that he was a highly decorated war hero The article was quickly identified as a hoax by other users and deleted

There have also been instances of users deliberately inserting false information into Wikipedia in order to test the system and demonstrate its alleged unreliability Gene Weingarten, a journalist, ran such a test in 2007, in which he inserted false information into his own Wikipedia article; it was removed 27 hours later by a Wikipedia editor Wikipedia considers the deliberate insertion of false and misleading information to be vandalism

Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest

Wikipedia regards the concept of a neutral point of view as one of its non-negotiable principles; however, it acknowledges that such a concept has its limitations—its NPOV policy states that articles should be "as far as possible" written "without editorial bias" Mark Glaser, a journalist, also wrote that this may be an impossible ideal due to the inevitable biases of editors

In August 2007, a tool called WikiScanner—developed by Virgil Griffith, a visiting researcher from the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico—was released to match edits to the encyclopedia by non-registered users with an extensive database of IP addresses News stories appeared about IP addresses from various organizations such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Diebold, Inc and the Australian government being used to make edits to Wikipedia articles, sometimes of an opinionated or questionable nature Another story stated that an IP address from the BBC itself had been used to vandalize the article on George W Bush The BBC quoted a Wikipedia spokesperson as praising the tool: "We really value transparency and the scanner really takes this to another level Wikipedia Scanner may prevent an organisation or individuals from editing articles that they're really not supposed to" Not everyone hailed WikiScanner as a success for Wikipedia Oliver Kamm, in a column for The Times, argued instead that:

The WikiScanner is thus an important development in bringing down a pernicious influence on our intellectual life Critics of the web decry the medium as the cult of the amateur Wikipedia is worse than that; it is the province of the covert lobby The most constructive course is to stand on the sidelines and jeer at its pretensions

WikiScanner only reveals conflicts of interest when the editor does not have a Wikipedia account and their IP address is used instead Conflict of interest editing done by editors with accounts is not detected, since those edits are anonymous to everyone except some Wikipedia administrators

Scientific disputes

The 2005 Nature study also gave two brief examples of challenges that Wikipedian science writers purportedly faced on Wikipedia The first concerned the addition of a section on violence to the schizophrenia article, which exhibited the view of one of the article's regular editors, neuropsychologist Vaughan Bell, that it was little more than a "rant" about the need to lock people up, and that editing it stimulated him to look up the literature on the topic

Another dispute involved the climate researcher William Connolley, a Wikipedia editor who was opposed by others The topic in this second dispute was the greenhouse effect, and The New Yorker reported that this dispute, which was far more protracted, had led to arbitration, which took three months to produce a decision The outcome of arbitration, as reported by Nature, was a six-month parole for Connolley, during which he was restricted to undoing edits on articles once per day

Exposure to political operatives and advocates

While Wikipedia policy requires articles to have a neutral point of view, it is not immune from attempts by outsiders or insiders with an agenda to place a spin on articles In January 2006 it was revealed that several staffers of members of the US House of Representatives had embarked on a campaign to cleanse their respective bosses' biographies on Wikipedia, as well as inserting negative remarks on political opponents References to a campaign promise by Martin Meehan to surrender his seat in 2000 were deleted, and negative comments were inserted into the articles on United States Senator Bill Frist and Eric Cantor, a congressman from Virginia Numerous other changes were made from an IP address assigned to the House of Representatives In an interview, Wikipedia de facto leader Jimmy Wales remarked that the changes were "not cool"

Larry Delay and Pablo Bachelet wrote that from their perspective, some articles dealing with Latin American history and groups such as the Sandinistas and Cuba lack political neutrality and are written from a sympathetic Marxist perspective which treats socialist dictatorships favorably at the expense of alternate positions

In 2008, the pro-Israel group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America CAMERA organized an e-mail campaign to encourage readers to correct perceived Israel-related biases and inconsistencies in Wikipedia CAMERA argued the excerpts were unrepresentative and that it had explicitly campaigned merely "toward encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy" Defenders of CAMERA and the competing group, Electronic Intifada, went into mediation Israeli diplomat David Saranga said that Wikipedia is generally fair in regard to Israel When it was pointed out that the entry on Israel mentioned the word "occupation" nine times, whereas the entry on the Palestinian People mentioned "terror" only once, he responded, "It means only one thing: Israelis should be more active on Wikipedia Instead of blaming it, they should go on the site much more, and try and change it"

Political commentator Haviv Rettig Gur, reviewing widespread perceptions in Israel of systemic bias in Wikipedia articles, has argued that there are deeper structural problems creating this bias: anonymous editing favors biased results, especially if the editors organize concerted campaigns of defamation as has been done in articles dealing with Arab-Israeli issues, and current Wikipedia policies, while well-meant, have proven ineffective in handling this

On August 31, 2008, The New York Times ran an article detailing the edits made to the biography of Alaska governor Sarah Palin in the wake of her nomination as running mate of Arizona Senator John McCain During the 24 hours before the McCain campaign announcement, 30 edits, many of them flattering details, were made to the article by Wikipedia single-purpose user identity Young_Trigg This person has later acknowledged working on the McCain campaign, and having several Wikipedia user accounts

In November 2007, libelous accusations were made against two politicians from southwestern France, Jean-Pierre Grand and Hélène Mandroux-Colas, on their Wikipedia biographies Jean-Pierre Grand asked the president of the French National Assembly and the Prime Minister of France to reinforce the legislation on the penal responsibility of Internet sites and of authors who peddle false informations in order to cause harm Senator Jean Louis Masson then requested the Minister of Justice to tell him whether it would be possible to increase the criminal responsibilities of hosting providers, site operators, and authors of libelous content; the minister declined to do so, recalling the existing rules in the LCEN law

On August 25, 2010, the Toronto Star reported that the Canadian "government is now conducting two investigations into federal employees who have taken to Wikipedia to express their opinion on federal policies and bitter political debates"

In 2010, Al Jazeera's Teymoor Nabili suggested that the article Cyrus Cylinder had been edited for political purposes by "an apparent tussle of opinions in the shadowy world of hard drives and 'independent' editors that comprise the Wikipedia industry" He suggested that after the Iranian presidential election, 2009 and the ensuing "anti-Iranian activities" a "strenuous attempt to portray the cylinder as nothing more than the propaganda tool of an aggressive invader" was visible The edits following his analysis of the edits during 2009 and 2010, represented "a complete dismissal of the suggestion that the cylinder, or Cyrus' actions, represent concern for human rights or any kind of enlightened intent," in stark contrast to Cyrus' own reputation as documented in the Old Testament and the people of Babylon

Commandeering or sanitizing articles

Articles of particular interest to an editor or group of editors are sometimes modified based on these editors' respective points of views Some companies and organizations—such as Sony, Diebold, Nintendo, Dell, the United States' Central Intelligence Agency, and the Church of Scientology—as well as individuals, such as United States Congressional staffers, were all shown to have modified the Wikipedia pages about themselves in order to present a point of view that describes them positively; these organizations may have editors who revert negative changes as soon as these changes are submitted

Editing for financial rewards

In January 2007 Rick Jelliffe stated in a story carried by CBS and IDG News Service that Microsoft had offered him compensation in exchange for his future editorial services on Wikipedia's articles related to OOXML Office Open Extensible Markup Language A Microsoft spokesperson, quoted by CBS, commented that "Microsoft and the writer, Rick Jelliffe, had not determined a price and no money had changed hands—but they had agreed that the company would not be allowed to review his writing before submission" Also quoted by CBS, Jimmy Wales expressed his disapproval of Microsoft's involvement: "We were very disappointed to hear that Microsoft was taking that approach"

Quality of the presentation

Quality of articles on US history

In the essay, “Can History be Open Source: Wikipedia and the Future of the Past” 2006, the academic historian Roy Rosenzweig criticized the encyclopedic content and writing style used in Wikipedia, for not distinguishing subjects that are important from subjects that are merely sensational That Wikipedia is “surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in US history”, and that most of the factual errors he found “were small and inconsequential”, some of which “simply repeat widely held, but inaccurate, beliefs”, which are also repeated in the Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia and in the Encyclopædia Britannica; yet Rosenzweig’s major criticism is that:

“Good historical writing requires not just factual accuracy but also a command of the scholarly literature, persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose By those measures, American National Biography Online easily outdistances Wikipedia”

Rosenzweig also criticized the “waffling—encouraged by the policy— means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history ”, and quoted the historical conclusion of the biography of William Clarke Quantrill, a Confederate guerrilla in the United States Civil War, as an example of weasel-word waffling:

“Some historians remember as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while other continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero”

In American National Biography Online, the historian James M McPherson contrasted the content and writing style of Wikipedia's biography of United States President Abraham Lincoln to that of the US Civil War article, and found that each entry was essentially accurate in covering the major episodes of President Lincoln’s life The "richer contextualization" of McPherson's work, as well as "his artful use of quotations to capture Lincoln’s voice" and "his ability to convey a profound message in a handful of words," were contrasted with Wikipedia's history-article prose The prose of the Wikipedia articles was "both verbose and dull" and thus difficult to read, because "the skill and confident judgment of a seasoned historian” are absent from the antiquarian writing style of Wikipedia, as opposed to the writing style used by professional historians in the American Heritage magazine It was also mentioned that while Wikipedia usually provides many references, these are not the most accurate references

Quality of medical articles

In the article "Wikipedia Cancer Information Accurate," a study of medical articles, Yaacov Lawrence of the Kimmel Cancer Center of Thomas Jefferson University found that the cancer entries were mostly accurate However, Wikipedia's articles were written in college-level prose, as opposed to in the easier-to-understand ninth-grade-level prose found in the Physician Data Query PDQ of the National Cancer Institute According to Lawrence, "Wikipedia’s lack of readability may reflect its varied origins and haphazard editing”

In its 2007 article "Fact or Fiction Wikipedia’s Variety of Contributors is Not Only a Strength," the magazine The Economist stated that the quality of the writing in Wikipedia articles usually indicates the quality of the editorial content: "Inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete information”

The Wall Street Journal debate

In the September 12, 2006, edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jimmy Wales debated with Dale Hoiberg, editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica Hoiberg focused on a need for expertise and control in an encyclopedia and cited Lewis Mumford that overwhelming information could "bring about a state of intellectual enervation and depletion hardly to be distinguished from massive ignorance" Wales emphasized Wikipedia's differences, and asserted that openness and transparency lead to quality Hoiberg said that he "had neither the time nor space to respond to " and "could corral any number of links to articles alleging errors in Wikipedia", to which Wales responded: "No problem! Wikipedia to the rescue with a fine article", and included a link to the Wikipedia article about criticism of Wikipedia

Systemic bias in coverage

See also: Reliability of Wikipedia § Coverage, and Academic studies about Wikipedia § A minority of editors produce the majority of persistent content

Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine London philosopher Martin Cohen describes Wikipedia as having "become a monopoly" with "all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators," which he calls a "youthful cab-driver's" perspective Cohen concludes that "o control the reference sources that people use is to control the way people comprehend the world Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought" That freedom is undermined by what he sees as what matters on Wikipedia, "not your sources but the 'support of the community'"

Critics also point to the tendency to cover topics in a detail disproportionate to their importance For example, Stephen Colbert once mockingly praised Wikipedia for having a "longer entry on 'lightsabers' than it does on the 'printing press'" In an interview with The Guardian, Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, noted:

People write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair

This critical approach has been satirised as "Wikigroaning", a term coined by Jon Hendren of the website Something Awful In the game, two articles preferably with similar names are compared: one about an acknowledged, serious, or classical subject and the other about a popular or current one Defenders of a broad inclusion criteria have held that the encyclopedia's coverage of pop culture does not impose space constraints on the coverage of more serious subjects see "Wiki is not paper" As Ivor Tossell noted:

That Wikipedia is chock full of useless arcana and did you know, by the way, that the article on "Debate" is shorter than the piece that weighs the relative merits of the 1978 and 2003 versions of Battlestar Galactica isn't a knock against it: Since it can grow infinitely, the silly articles aren't depriving the serious ones of space

In 2014, supporters of holistic healing and energy psychology began a changeorg petition asking for "true scientific discourse" on Wikipedia, complaining that "much of the information related to holistic approaches to healing is biased, misleading, out-of-date, or just plain wrong" In response, Jimmy Wales said that Wikipedia only covers works that are published in respectable scientific journals

Notability of article topics

This section is duplicated at Reliability of Wikipedia#Notability of article topics

Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which are used by editors to determine if a subject merits its own article, and the application thereof, are the subject of much criticism Nicholson Baker considers the notability standards arbitrary and essentially unsolvable:

There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out

Criticizing the "deletionists", Baker then writes:

Still, a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an on-line encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come It's harder to improve something that's already written, or to write something altogether new, especially now that so many of the World Book-sanctioned encyclopedic fruits are long plucked There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work—even to the point of laughing at nonstandard "Engrish" They poke articles full of warnings and citation-needed notes and deletion prods till the topics go away

Another criticism about the deletionists is: "The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth—all are hallmarks of the deletionists approach"

Complaining that his own biography was on the verge of deletion for lack of notability, Timothy Noah argued that:

Wikipedia's notability policy resembles US immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement To be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other" Although I have written or been quoted in such works, I can't say I've ever been the subject of any And wouldn't you know, some notability cop cruised past my bio and pulled me over Unless I get notable in a hurry—win the Nobel Peace Prize Prove I sired Anna Nicole Smith's baby daughter—a "sysop" volunteer techie will wipe my Wikipedia page clean It's straight out of Philip K Dick

In the same article, Noah mentions that the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Stacy Schiff was not considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry before she wrote an extensive New Yorker article on Wikipedia itself

Partisanship

There have been suggestions that a politically liberal viewpoint is predominant According to Jimmy Wales: "The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software no voting they almost certainly don't, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the US population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the US population There are no data or surveys to back that" Andrew Schlafly created Conservapedia because of his perception that Wikipedia contained a liberal bias Conservapedia's editors have compiled a list of alleged examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia In 2007, an article in The Christian Post criticised Wikipedia's coverage of intelligent design, saying that it was biased and hypocritical Lawrence Solomon of the National Review considered the Wikipedia articles on subjects like global warming, intelligent design, and Roe v Wade all to be slanted in favor of liberal views

In a September 2010 issue of the conservative weekly Human Events, Rowan Scarborough presented a critique of Wikipedia's coverage of American politicians prominent in the approaching midterm elections as evidence of systemic liberal bias Scarborough compares the biographical articles of liberal and conservative opponents in Senate races in the Alaska Republican primary and the Delaware and Nevada general election, emphasizing the quantity of negative coverage of Tea Party-endorsed candidates He also cites some criticism by Lawrence Solomon and quotes in full the lead section of Wikipedia's article on its rival Conservapedia as evidence of an underlying bias

In 2012, Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu analyzed Wikipedia articles on US politics, going back a decade, and wrote a study arguing the more contributors there were to an article, the less biased the article would be, and that — based on a study of frequent collocations — fewer articles "leaned Democrat" than was the case in Wikipedia's early years

American and corporate bias

In 2008, Tim Anderson, a senior lecturer in political economy at the University of Sydney, said that Wikipedia administrators display an American-focused bias in their interactions with editors and their determinations of which sources are appropriate for use on the site Anderson was outraged after several of the sources he used in his edits to the Hugo Chávez article, including Venezuela Analysis and Z Magazine, were disallowed as "unusable" Anderson also described Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to ZDNet Australia as "a facade" and that Wikipedia "hides behind a reliance on corporate media editorials"

Racial bias

Main article: Racial bias on Wikipedia

Wikipedia has been criticized for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an under-representation of people of colour within its editor base The President of Wikimedia DC, James Hare, noted that "a lot of black history is left out" of Wikipedia, due to articles predominately being written by white editors Articles that do exist on African topics are, according to some critics, largely edited by editors from Europe and North America and thus reflect their knowledge and consumption of media, which "tend to perpetuate a negative image" of Africa Maira Liriano of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, has argued that the lack of information regarding black history on Wikipedia "makes it seem like it's not important" San Francisco Poet Laureate Alejandro Murguía has stressed how it is important for Latinos to be part of Wikipedia "because it is a major source of where people get their information"

Gender bias and sexism

Main article: Gender bias on Wikipedia Former Wikimedia Foundation executive Sue Gardner has listed reasons offered by some women in "Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia"

Wikipedia has a longstanding controversy concerning gender bias and sexism Gender bias on Wikipedia refers to the finding that between 84 and 91 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, which allegedly leads to systemic bias Wikipedia has been criticized by some journalists and academics for lacking not only women contributors but also extensive and in-depth encyclopedic attention to many topics regarding gender Sue Gardner, the former executive director of the foundation, said that increasing diversity was about making the encyclopedia "as good as it could be" Factors the article cited as possibly discouraging women from editing included the "obsessive fact-loving realm", associations with the "hard-driving hacker crowd", and the necessity to be "open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists" In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation set a goal of increasing the proportion of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015 In August 2013, Gardner conceded defeat: "I didn't solve it We didn't solve it The Wikimedia Foundation didn't solve it The solution won't come from the Wikimedia Foundation" In August 2014, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales acknowledged in a BBC interview the failure of Wikipedia to fix the gender gap and announced the Wikimedia Foundation's plans for "doubling down" on the issue Wales said the Foundation would be open to more outreach and more software changes

Sexual content

See also: Wikipedia § Explicit content

Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing graphic sexual content such as images and videos of masturbation and ejaculation as well as photos from hardcore pornographic films found on its articles Child protection campaigners say graphic sexual content appears on many Wikipedia entries, displayed without any warning or age verification

The Wikipedia article 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 In December 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation, a nonprofit, nongovernment-affiliated organization, added the article to its blacklist, criticizing the inclusion of the picture as "distasteful" As a result, access to the article was blocked for four days by most Internet service providers in the United Kingdom

In April 2010, Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia who had left the organization eight years previously, 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 United States federal obscenity law Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools Sanger later said that it was probably not correct to call it "child pornography", which most people associate with images of real children, and that he should have said "depictions of child sexual abuse" Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh said that Wikipedia doesn't have "material we would deem to be illegal If we did, we would remove it" Following the complaint by Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales deleted many sexual images without consulting the community; some were reinstated following discussion Critics, including Wikipediocracy, noticed that many of the sexual images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared

Exposure to vandals

Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia Vandalism of a Wikipedia article Sponge

As an online encyclopedia which almost anyone can edit, Wikipedia has long had problems with vandalism of articles, which range from "blanking" articles to inserting profanities, hoaxes or nonsense Wikipedia has a range of tools available to users and administrators in order to fight against vandalism, including blocking and banning of vandals and automated bots that detect and repair vandalism Supporters of the project argue that the vast majority of vandalism on Wikipedia is reverted within a short time, and a study by Fernanda Viégas of the MIT Media Lab and Martin Wattenberg and Kushal Dave of IBM Research found that most vandal edits were reverted within around five minutes; however they state that "it is essentially impossible to find a crisp definition of vandalism" While most instances of page blanking or the addition of offensive material are soon reverted, less obvious vandalism, or vandalism to a little viewed article, has remained for longer periods

A 2007 peer-reviewed study that measured the actual number of page views with "damaged" content, concluded:

42% of damage is repaired almost immediately, ie, before it can confuse, offend, or mislead anyone Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views

Privacy concerns

Most privacy concerns refer to cases of government or employer data gathering; or to computer or electronic monitoring; or to trading data between organizations "The Internet has created conflicts between personal privacy, commercial interests and the interests of society at large" warn James Donnelly and Jenifer Haeckl Balancing the rights of all concerned as technology alters the social landscape will not be easy It "is not yet possible to anticipate the path of the common law or governmental regulation" regarding this problem

The concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain private; to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure" in the eyes of the law It is somewhat of a battle between the right to be anonymous in cyberspace and the right to be anonymous in real life "meatspace" Wikipedia Watch argues that "Wikipedia is a potential menace to anyone who values privacy" and that "a greater degree of accountability in the Wikipedia structure" would be "the very first step toward resolving the privacy problem" A particular problem occurs in the case of an individual who is relatively unimportant and for whom there exists a Wikipedia page against their wishes

In 2005 Agence France-Presse quoted Daniel Brandt, the Wikipedia Watch owner, as saying that "the basic problem is that no one, neither the trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia, consider themselves responsible for the content"

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 who was formerly with the Chaos Computer Club More specifically, the court ordered that the URL within the German de domain http://wwwwikipediade/ may no longer redirect to the encyclopedia's servers in Florida at http://dewikipediaorg although German readers were still able to use the US-based URL directly, and there was virtually no loss of access on their part The court order arose out of a lawsuit filed by Floricic's parents, demanding that their son's surname be removed from Wikipedia 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 were being violated

Criticism of the community

Role of Jimmy Wales

The community of Wikipedia editors has been criticized for placing an irrational emphasis on Jimmy Wales as a person Wales's role in personally determining the content of some articles has also been criticized as contrary to the independent spirit that Wikipedia supposedly has gained In early 2007, Wales dismissed the criticism of the Wikipedia model: "I am unaware of any problems with the quality of discourse on the site I don't know of any higher-quality discourse anywhere"

Conflict of interest cases

Main article: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

A Business Insider article wrote about a controversy in September 2012 where two Wikimedia Foundation employees were found to have been "running a PR business on the side and editing Wikipedia on behalf of their clients"

Unfair treatment of female contributors

Some female editors have stated that they have been harassed by male editors

The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has been criticized as unfairly targeting female and feminist editors

In an article for Slate, David Auerbach criticized the decisions made by the Arbitration Committee, in a December 2014 case centered around the site's Gender Gap Task Force Auerbach was critical of the committee's decision to permanently ban a female editor involved in the case, while not banning her male "chief antagonists", stating "With the Arbitration Committee opting only to ban the one woman in the dispute despite her behavior being no worse than that of the men, it's hard not to see this as a setback to Wikipedia's efforts to rectify its massive gender gap"

In January 2015, The Guardian reported that the Arbitration Committee had banned five feminist editors from gender-related articles on a case related to the Gamergate controversy, while including quotes from a Wikipedia editor alleging unfair treatment Other commentators, including from Gawker and ThinkProgress, provided additional analysis while sourcing from The Guardian's story Reports in The Washington Post, Slate and Social Text described these articles as "flawed" or factually inaccurate, pointing out that the Arbitration case had not concluded as at the time of publishing; no editor had been banned After the result was published, Gawker wrote that "ArbCom ruled to punish six editors who could be broadly classified as 'anti-Gamergate' and five who are 'pro-Gamergate'" All of the supposed "Five Horsemen" were among the editors punished, with one of them being the sole editor banned due to this case An article called "ArbitrationGate" regarding this situation was created and quickly deleted on Wikipedia, while The Guardian later issued a correction to their article The Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation issued press statements that the Gamergate case was in response to the atmosphere of the Gamergate article resembling a "battlefield" due to "various sides of the discussion violated community policies and guidelines on conduct", and that the Committee was fulfilling its role to "uphold a civil, constructive atmosphere" on Wikipedia The Committee also wrote that it "does not rule on the content of articles, or make judgements on the personal views of parties to the case" Michael Mandiberg, writing in Social Text, remained unconvinced

Lack of verifiable identities

Scandals involving administrators and arbitrators

David Boothroyd, a Wikipedia editor and a Labour Party United Kingdom member, created controversy in 2009, when Wikipedia Review contributor "Tarantino" discovered that he committed sockpuppeting, editing under the accounts "Dbiv", "Fys", and "Sam Blacketer", none of which acknowledged his real identity After earning Administrator status with one account, then losing it for inappropriate use of the administrative tools, Boothroyd regained Administrator status with the Sam Blacketer sockpuppet account in April 2007 Later in 2007, Boothroyd's Sam Blacketer account became part of the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee Under the Sam Blacketer account, Boothroyd edited many articles related to United Kingdom politics, including that of rival Conservative Party leader David Cameron Boothroyd then resigned as an administrator and as an arbitrator

Essjay controversy Main article: Essjay controversy

In July 2006 The New Yorker ran a feature about Wikipedia by Stacy Schiff about a highly credentialed Wikipedia editor The initial version of the article included an interview with a Wikipedia administrator known by the pseudonym Essjay, who was described as a tenured professor of theology Essjay's Wikipedia user page, now removed, said the following:

I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology I have been asked repeatedly to reveal the name of the institution, however, I decline to do so; I am unsure of the consequences of such an action, and believe it to be in my best interests to remain anonymous

Essjay also stated that he held four academic degrees: Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies BA, Master of Arts in Religion MAR, Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology PhD, and Doctorate in Canon Law JCD Essjay specialized in editing articles about religion on Wikipedia, including subjects such as "the penitential rite, transubstantiation, the papal tiara"; on one occasion he was called in to give some "expert testimony" on the status of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church In January 2007, Essjay was hired as a manager with Wikia, a wiki-hosting service founded by Wales and Angela Beesley In February, Wales appointed Essjay as a member of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, a group with powers to issue binding rulings in disputes relating to Wikipedia

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who left Wikipedia to found Citizendium

In late February 2007 The New Yorker added an editorial note to its article on Wikipedia stating that it had learned that Essjay was Ryan Jordan, a 24-year-old college dropout from Kentucky with no advanced degrees and no teaching experience Initially Jimmy Wales commented on the issue of Essjay's identity: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it" Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, responded to Wales on his Citizendium blog by calling Wales' initial reaction "utterly breathtaking, and ultimately tragic" Sanger said the controversy "reflects directly on the judgment and values of the management of Wikipedia"

Wales later issued a new statement saying he had not previously understood that "EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes" He added: "I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community" Sanger responded the next day: "It seems Jimmy finds nothing wrong, nothing trust-violating, with the act itself of openly and falsely touting many advanced degrees on Wikipedia But there most obviously is something wrong with it, and it's just as disturbing for Wikipedia's head to fail to see anything wrong with it"

On March 4, Essjay wrote on his user page that he was leaving Wikipedia, and he also resigned his position with Wikia A subsequent article in The Courier-Journal Louisville suggested that the new résumé he had posted at his Wikia page was exaggerated The March 19, 2007 issue of The New Yorker published a formal apology by Wales to the magazine and Stacy Schiff for Essjay's false statements

Discussing the incident, the New York Times noted that the Wikipedia community had responded to the affair with "the fury of the crowd", and observed:

The Essjay episode underlines some of the perils of collaborative efforts like Wikipedia that rely on many contributors acting in good faith, often anonymously and through self-designated user names But it also shows how the transparency of the Wikipedia process—all editing of entries is marked and saved—allows readers to react to suspected fraud

The Essjay incident received extensive media coverage, including a national United States television broadcast on ABC's World News with Charles Gibson and the March 7, 2007, Associated Press story The controversy has led to a proposal that users who say that they possess academic qualifications should have to provide evidence before citing them in Wikipedia content disputes The proposal was not accepted

Anonymity

Wikipedia has been criticised for allowing editors to contribute anonymously without a registered account and using an auto-generated IP-labeled account or pseudonymously using a registered account, with critics saying that this leads to a lack of accountability This also sometimes leads to uncivil conduct in debates between Wikipedians For privacy reasons, Wikipedia even forbids editors to reveal information about an anonymous editor on Wikipedia A whistleblower in violation of this policy may be banned from Wikipedia

Editorial process

Further information: Academic studies about Wikipedia § Power plays

Level of debate, edit wars and harassment

The standard of debate on Wikipedia has been called into question by persons who have noted that contributors can make a long list of salient points and pull in a wide range of empirical observations to back up their arguments, only to have them ignored completely on the site An academic study of Wikipedia articles found that the level of debate among Wikipedia editors on controversial topics often degenerated into counterproductive squabbling:

For uncontroversial, "stable" topics self-selection also ensures that members of editorial groups are substantially well-aligned with each other in their interests, backgrounds, and overall understanding of the topics For controversial topics, on the other hand, self-selection may produce a strongly misaligned editorial group It can lead to conflicts among the editorial group members, continuous edit wars, and may require the use of formal work coordination and control mechanisms These may include intervention by administrators who enact dispute review and mediation processes, completely disallow or limit and coordinate the types and sources of edits

In 2008, a team from the Palo Alto Research Center found that for editors that make between two and nine edits a month, the percentage of their edits being reverted had gone from 5% in 2004 to about 15%, and people who only make one edit a month were being reverted at a 25% rate According to The Economist magazine 2008, "The behaviour of Wikipedia's self-appointed deletionist guardians, who excise anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms, is now known as "wiki-lawyering" In regards to the decline in the number of Wikipedia editors since the 2007 policy changes, another study stated this was partly down to the way "in which newcomers are rudely greeted by automated quality control systems and are overwhelmed by the complexity of the rule system"

Another complaint about Wikipedia focuses on the efforts of contributors with idiosyncratic beliefs, who push their point of view in an effort to dominate articles, especially controversial ones This sometimes results in revert wars and pages being locked down In response, an Arbitration Committee has been formed on the English Wikipedia that deals with the worst alleged offenders—though a conflict resolution strategy is actively encouraged before going to this extent Also, to stop the continuous reverting of pages, Jimmy Wales introduced a "three-revert rule", whereby those users who reverse the effect of others' contributions to one article more than three times in a 24-hour period may be blocked

In a 2008 article in The Brooklyn Rail, Wikipedia contributor David Shankbone contended that he had been harassed and stalked because of his work on Wikipedia, had received no support from the authorities or the Wikimedia Foundation, and only mixed support from the Wikipedia community Shankbone wrote, "If you become a target on Wikipedia, do not expect a supportive community"

David Auerbach, writing in Slate magazine, said:

I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka’s The Trial I have ever witnessed, with editors and administrators giving conflicting and confusing advice, complaints getting "boomeranged" onto complainants who then face disciplinary action for complaining, and very little consistency in the standards applied In my short time there, I repeatedly observed editors lawyering an issue with acronyms, only to turn around and declare "Ignore all rules!" when faced with the same rules used against them The problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them

Consensus and the "hive mind"

Oliver Kamm, in an article for The Times, said that Wikipedia's reliance on consensus in forming its content was dubious:

Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices

Wikimedia advisor Benjamin Mako Hill also talked about Wikipedia's disproportional representation of viewpoints, saying:

In Wikipedia, debates can be won by stamina If you care more and argue longer, you will tend to get your way The result, very often, is that individuals and organizations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tend to win out over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable These less-committed editors simply have less at stake and their attention is more distributed

Wikimedia steward Dariusz Jemielniak says:

Tiring out one's opponent is a common strategy among experienced Wikipedians I have resorted to it many times

In his article, "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" first published online by Edge: The Third Culture, 30 May 2006, computer scientist and digital theorist Jaron Lanier describes Wikipedia as a "hive mind" that is "for the most part stupid and boring", and asks, rhetorically, "why pay attention to it" His thesis says:

The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force This is different from representative democracy, or meritocracy This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods The fact that it's now being re-introduced today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous

Lanier also says the economic trend to reward entities that aggregate information, rather than those that actually generate content In the absence of "new business models", the popular demand for content will be sated by mediocrity, thus reducing or even eliminating any monetary incentives for the production of new knowledge

Lanier's opinions produced some strong disagreement Internet consultant Clay Shirky noted that Wikipedia has many internal controls in place and is not a mere mass of unintelligent collective effort:

Neither proponents nor detractors of hive mind rhetoric have much interesting to say about Wikipedia itself, because both groups ignore the details Wikipedia is best viewed as an engaged community that uses a large and growing number of regulatory mechanisms to manage a huge set of proposed edits To take the specific case of Wikipedia, the Seigenthaler/Kennedy debacle catalyzed both soul-searching and new controls to address the problems exposed, and the controls included, inter alia, a greater focus on individual responsibility, the very factor "Digital Maoism" denies is at work

Excessive rule-making

Kat Walsh, a former chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, has criticized Wikipedia's increasingly complex policies, saying "It was easier when I joined in 2004 Everything was a little less complicated It's harder and harder for new people to adjust" According to a top Wikipedia administrator Oliver Moran, "policy creep" is "the real barrier"

In his 2014 book, Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia, Jemielniak, the Wikimedia steward, states that the sheer complexity of the rules and laws governing content and editor behavior has become excessive and creates a learning burden for new editors Jemielniak also suggests actively abridging and rewriting the rules and laws to fall within a fixed and reasonable limit of size and complexity to remedy their excessive complexity and size

In 2013, a study by Aaron Halfaker of the University of Minnesota stated that Wikipedia's rules have had the unintended effect of driving away new contributors to the site

Social stratification

Further information: Academic studies about Wikipedia § Work distribution and social strata

Despite the perception that the Wikipedia process is democratic, "a small number of people are running the show" a partial list of these titled people includes administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers, mediators, arbitrators, and oversighters In an article on Wikipedia conflicts in 2007, The Guardian discussed "a backlash among some editors, who say that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalize in the first place" based on the experiences of one editor who became a vandal after his edits were reverted and he was blocked for edit warring

See also

  • Censorship of Wikipedia
  • Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
  • History of Wikipedia
  • List of Wikipedia controversies
  • Reliability of Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia:Criticisms
  • Wikipedia:Press coverage
  • Wikipedia:Replies to common objections
  • Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great

References

This article incorporates text from the GFDL Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Replies to common objections
  1. ^ WP:WIKISPEAK
  2. ^ a b c d Jemielniak, Dariusz 2014 Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia Stanford University Press 
  3. ^ Pete Forsyth; Milowent November 4, 2016 "Washington Post leads the pack in this edition's roundup of media stories" Signpost Retrieved November 6, 2016 
  4. ^ a b Alcantara, Chris November 6, 2016 "Wikipedia editors are essentially writing the election guide millions of voters will read" Washington Post Retrieved November 6, 2016 note: the title provided is the social media sharing og:title meta title, the article title as it appears after clicking is: "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates’ Wikipedia pages", quote: "Wikipedia editors, many of whom are unpaid and live across the globe, take it upon themselves to manage every word, link and image published to Trump’s and Clinton’s biographical and campaign pages" 
  5. ^ "Wikipedia: Broken, Biased, and Corrupt" Heartland Institute Retrieved November 6, 2016 
  6. ^ Black, Edwin 2010-04-19 "Wikipedia—The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge" History News Network Retrieved 2014-10-21 
  7. ^ a b c Kamm, Oliver "Wisdom More like dumbness of the crowds" The Times Archived from the original on 2011-08-14  Author's own copy
  8. ^ a b Messer-Kruse, Timothy 2012-02-12 "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved 30 August 2015 
  9. ^ Colón-Aguirre, Monica; Fleming-May, Rachel A 2012-10-11 "'You Just Type in What You Are Looking For': Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs Wikipedia" pdf The Journal of Academic Librarianship p 392 Retrieved 2014-03-27 
  10. ^ "Wikipedia Experience Sparks National Debate" The BG News Bowling Green State University 2012-02-27 Retrieved 2014-03-27 
  11. ^ a b c Jemielniak, Dariusz 22 June 2014 "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia: the legalistic atmosphere is making it impossible to attract and keep the new editors the site needs" Slate Retrieved 18 September 2016 
  12. ^ a b Vergano, Dan 2013-01-03 "Study: Wikipedia is driving away newcomers" USA Today Retrieved 2014-11-19 
  13. ^ Petrilli, Michael J "Wikipedia or Wickedpedia" Education Next Retrieved 2014-10-22 
  14. ^ "Citing Electronic Sources" Massachusetts Institute of Technology Retrieved 21 October 2014 
  15. ^ a b Waldman, Simon 2004-10-26 "Who knows" The Guardian London Retrieved 30 December 2005 
  16. ^ Vallely, Paul 10 October 2006 "The Big Question: Do we Need a More Reliable Online Encyclopedia than Wikipedia" The Independent London Retrieved 18 October 2006 
  17. ^ Schwartz, Zach 11 November 2015 "Wikipedia's Co-Founder Is Wikipedia's Most Outspoken Critic" Vice 
  18. ^ "Research:Wikimedia Summer of Research 2011/Newbie teaching strategy trends" Metawikimediaorg 2011-06-03 Retrieved 2013-12-06 
  19. ^ a b Giles, Jim 2005-12-15 "Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head" Nature 438 7070: 900–901 doi:101038/438900a PMID 16355180 
  20. ^ "Wikipedia head to head with Britannica" ABC Science Agence France-Presse AFP 15 December 2005 
  21. ^ "Supplementary Information to Accompany Nature news article 'Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head'" doc Nature 22 December 2005 pp 900–901 Retrieved 30 August 2015 
  22. ^ a b "Fatally Flawed: Refuting the Recent Study on Encyclopaedic Accuracy by the journal Nature" PDF Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc March 2006 Retrieved 30 June 2009 
  23. ^ "Britannica attacks" Nature 440 7084: 582 2006-03-30 doi:101038/440582b PMID 16572128 Retrieved 2006-07-14 
  24. ^ "Wikipedia study 'fatally flawed'" BBC News 2006-03-24 
  25. ^ "Encyclopædia Britannica and Nature: A Response" PDF Press release 2006-03-23 
  26. ^ John Seigenthaler 2005-11-29 "A false Wikipedia 'biography'" USA Today 
  27. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q 2005-12-03 "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar" The New York Times 
  28. ^ "Mistakes and hoaxes on-line" Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2006-04-15 Retrieved 2007-04-28 
  29. ^ Dedman, Bill 2007-03-03 "Reading Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis" MSNBC Retrieved 2007-03-17 
  30. ^ "Hillary Rodham Clinton " Wikipediaorg 2005-07-09 Retrieved 2007-03-17 
  31. ^ "Hillary Rodham Clinton " Wikipediaorg 2007-03-02 Retrieved 2007-03-17 
  32. ^ Paige, Cara 2006-04-11 "Exclusive: Meet the Real Sir Walter Mitty" Daily Record Archived from the original on September 30, 2007 Retrieved 2007-11-24 
  33. ^ Weingarten, Gene 2007-03-16 "A wickedly fun test of Wikipedia" The News & Observer Archived from the original on 2007-03-20 Retrieved 2006-04-08 
  34. ^ "Wikipedia:Vandalism " Wikipediaorg 2009-11-24 
  35. ^ Mark Glaser 2006-04-17 "Wikipedia Bias: Is There a Neutral View on George W Bush" PBS Retrieved 2007-10-27 The search for a 'neutral point of view' mirrors the efforts of journalists to be objective, to show both sides without taking sides and remaining unbiased But maybe this is impossible and unattainable, and perhaps misguided Because if you open it up for anyone to edit, you're asking for anything but neutrality 
  36. ^ Verkaik, Robert 2007-08-18 "Wikipedia and the art of censorship" The Independent London 
  37. ^ Blakely, Rhys 2007-08-15 "Exposed: guess who has been polishing their Wikipedia entries" The Times London Retrieved 2007-08-15 
  38. ^ Fildes, Jonathan 2007-08-15 "Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'" BBC Retrieved 2007-08-15 
  39. ^ Metz, Cade 2007-12-18 "Truth, anonymity and the Wikipedia Way: Why it's broke and how it can be fixed" The Register 
  40. ^ Schiff, Stacy 2006-07-31 "Know It All" The New Yorker Retrieved 2014-03-12 
  41. ^ Lehmann, Evan 2006-01-27 "Rewriting history under the dome" Lowell Sun Retrieved 2014-02-02 
  42. ^ "Senator staffers spam Wikipedia" 2006-01-30 Retrieved 2006-09-13 
  43. ^ Bachelet, Pablo 2006-05-03 "War of Words: Website Can't Define Cuba" The Miami Herald Archived from the original on 2015-08-30 
  44. ^ Sanchez, Matt 2008-05-14 "Wiki-Whacked by Political Bias" Retrieved 2008-07-08 
  45. ^ Delay, Larry 2006-08-03 "A Pernicious Model for Control of the World Wide Web: The Cuba Case" PDF Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy ASCE Retrieved 2008-07-08 
  46. ^ a b McElroy, Damien 2008-05-08 "Israeli battles rage on Wikipedia" The Daily Telegraph London: Telegraph Media Group Limited Retrieved 2008-05-08 
  47. ^ "Letter in Harper's Magazine About Wikipedia Issues" CAMERA 2008-08-14 Retrieved 2010-03-31 
  48. ^ Liphshiz, Cnaan 2007-12-25 "Your Wiki Entry Counts" Haaretz Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  49. ^ Rettig Gur, Haviv 2010-05-16 "Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia" The Jerusalem Post Retrieved 2013-12-06 
  50. ^ Cohen, Noam 2008-08-31 "Don't Like Palin's Wikipedia Story Change It" The New York Times 
  51. ^ "Sarah Palins Wikipedia entry glossed over by mystery user hrs before VP announcement" Thaindian News 2008-09-02 
  52. ^ "Wikipédia en butte à une nouvelle affaire de calomnie" Vnunetfr 2007-11-28 Archived from the original on 2015-08-30 
  53. ^ "Responsabilité pénale des intervenants sur Internet : hébergeur du site, responsable du site et auteur d'allégations diffamatoires" Official website of the French Sénat 2008-02-14 Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  54. ^ Woods, Allan 2010-08-25 "Ottawa investigating Wikipedia edits" Toronto Star Retrieved 2010-08-26 
  55. ^ Nabili, Teymoor 2010-09-11 "The Cyrus Cylinder, Wikipedia and Iran conspiracies" blogsalJazeeranet Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  56. ^ Jackson, Ron 2009-08-04 "Open Season on Domainers and Domaining — Overtly Biased LA Times Article Leads Latest Assault on Objectivity and Accuracy" Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  57. ^ "Umbria Blogosphere Analysis — Wikipedia and Corporate Blogging" PDF JD Power Web Intelligence 2007-08-24  "Organizations like Sony, Diebold, Nintendo, Dell, the CIA and the Church of Scientology were all shown to have sanitized pages about themselves"
  58. ^ MacDonald, Marc 2008-02-01 "Wikipedia Continues To Sanitize Bush Content" Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  59. ^ Grace, Francie; Bergstein, Brian 2007-01-24 "Microsoft Violates Wikipedia's Sacred Rule" CBS News Associated Press Retrieved 2008-09-03 
  60. ^ Gohring, Nancy 2007-01-23 "Microsoft said to offer payment for Wikipedia edits" CIO magazine IDG News Service Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  61. ^ Gohring, Nancy 2007-01-24 "Microsoft's step into Wikipedia prompts debate" Computerworld IDG News Service Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  62. ^ a b c Rosenzweig, Roy June 2006 "Can History be Open Source Wikipedia and the Future of the Past" The Journal of American History 93 1: pp 117–146 doi:102307/4486062 Retrieved 2006-08-11  Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media
  63. ^ "Wikipedia cancer information accurate" United Press International 2010-06-04 Retrieved 2010-12-31 
  64. ^ "Fact or fiction Wikipedia's Variety of Contributors is Not Only a Strength" The Economist 2007-03-10 Retrieved 31 December 2010 
  65. ^ a b "Will Wikipedia Mean the End Of Traditional Encyclopedias" The Wall Street Journal 2006-09-12 Retrieved 2006-09-13 
  66. ^ a b c Cohen, Martin "Encyclopaedia Idiotica" Times Higher Education Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  67. ^ Stephen Colbert The Colbert Report episode 3109 2007-08-21
  68. ^ Brophy-Warren, Jamin "Oh, that John Locke" The Wall Street Journal 2007-06-16 p 3 Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  69. ^ Hendren, Johnny "DocEvil" 2007-06-05 "The Art of Wikigroaning" Something Awful Retrieved 2007-06-17 
  70. ^ Brown, Andrew 2007-06-14 "No amount of collaboration will make the sun orbit the Earth" The Guardian London Retrieved 2010-03-27 
  71. ^ Tossell, Ivor 2007-06-15 "Duality of Wikipedia" The Globe and Mail Retrieved 2007-06-20 
  72. ^ Sifferlin, Alexandra 2014-03-25 "Wikipedia Founder Sticks It To 'Lunatic' Holistic Healers" Time Retrieved 2014-10-22 
  73. ^ Newman, Lily Hay 2014-03-27 "Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic Healing Coverage" Slate Retrieved 2014-10-22 
  74. ^ a b Kirby, JP 2007-10-20 "The Problem with Wikipedia" JP's Random Ramblings Archived from the original on 2015-08-30 
  75. ^ Baker, Nicholson 2008-03-20 "The Charms of Wikipedia" The New York Review of Books 55 4 Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  76. ^ Johnson, Bobbie 2009-08-12 "Wikipedia approaches its limits" The Guardian Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  77. ^ Noah, Timothy 2007-02-24 "Evicted from Wikipedia" Slate Retrieved 2010-03-31 
  78. ^ Glaser, Mark 2006-04-21 "Email Debate: Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia" PBS Mediashift Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  79. ^ Johnson, Bobbie 2007-03-01 "Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia" The Guardian London Retrieved 2010-03-27 
  80. ^ Turner, Adam 2007-03-05 "Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right" IT Wire Retrieved 2008-05-12 
  81. ^ Huntington, Doug 2007-05-09 "'Design' Proponents Accuse Wikipedia of Bias, Hypocrisy" The Christian Post Retrieved 2007-08-09 
  82. ^ Solomon, Lawrence 2008-07-08 "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming" National Review CBS News Retrieved 2008-07-20 
  83. ^ Scarborough, Rowan 2010-09-27 "Whacks the Right" Human Events Retrieved 2010-10-03 
  84. ^ Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng "Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia" PDF Retrieved October 31, 2016 
  85. ^ Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng December 1, 2012 "Is Wikipedia Biased Verifying the "neutral point of view"" Retrieved October 31, 2016 
  86. ^ Khimm, Suzy 2012-06-18 "Study: Wikipedia perpetuates political bias" The Washington Post Retrieved 2013-05-29 
  87. ^ Browne, Marcus 2008-02-12 "Wikipedia accused of 'US-centric bias'" ZDNet Australia Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  88. ^ Melamed, Samantha "Edit-athon aims to put left-out black artists into Wikipedia" Philadelphia Daily News Retrieved 13 April 2015 
  89. ^ Smith, Jada "Howard University Fills in Wikipedia's Gaps in Black History" The New York Times Retrieved 13 April 2015 
  90. ^ Goko, Colleen "Drive launched to 'Africanise' Wikipedia" Business Day South Africa Retrieved 13 April 2015 
  91. ^ Cassano, Jay "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It" Fast Company Retrieved 13 April 2015 
  92. ^ Reynosa, Peter "Why Don't More Latinos Contribute To Wikipedia" El Tecolote Retrieved December 5, 2015 
  93. ^ Gardner, Sue 19 February 2011 "Nine Reasons Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia, In Their Own Words" blog suegardnerorg 
  94. ^ a b Cassell, Justine 2011-02-04 "Editing Wars Behind the Scenes" The New York Times 
  95. ^ a b c Cohen, Noam 2011-01-30 "Define Gender Gap Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List" The New York Times Retrieved 2011-01-31 
  96. ^ Gleick, James 2013-04-29 "Wikipedia's Women Problem" The New York Review of Books Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  97. ^ Filipacchi, Amanda 2013-04-24 "Wikipedia's Sexism Toward Women Novelists" The New York Times Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  98. ^ Dunn, Gaby 2013-05-01 "Does Sexism Lurk" DailyDotcom Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  99. ^ Zandt, Deanna 2013-04-26 "Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist – That's Why It Needs You" Forbes Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  100. ^ Andrew Lih 20 June 2015 "Can Wikipedia Survive" The New York Times Washington Retrieved 21 June 2015 the considerable and often-noted gender gap among Wikipedia editors; in 2011, less than 15 percent were women 
  101. ^ Statistics based on Wikimedia Foundation Wikipedia editor surveys 2011 Nov 2010-April 2011 and November 2011 April - October 2011
  102. ^ Cohen, Noam 30 January 2011 "Define Gender Gap Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List" The New York Times Retrieved 31 January 2011 
  103. ^ Huang, Keira 11 August 2013 "Wikipedia fails to bridge gender gap" South China Morning Post 
  104. ^ Wikipedia 'completely failed' to fix gender imbalance, BBC interview with Jimmy Wales, August 8, 2014; starting at 45 seconds
  105. ^ "Wikipedia attacked over porn pages" Livenewscomau Archived from the original on September 17, 2008 Retrieved 2010-03-31 
  106. ^ Raphael, JR 2008-12-10 "Wikipedia Censorship Sparks Free Speech Debate" The Washington Post Retrieved 2009-05-10 
  107. ^ a b "Wikipedia blasts co-founder's accusations of child porn on website" The Economic Times 2010-04-29 Retrieved 2010-04-29 
  108. ^ "Wikipedia blasts talk of child porn at website" Physorg Agence France-Presse AFP 2010-04-28 Archived from the original on 29 April 2010 Retrieved 29 April 2010 
  109. ^ "Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights" BBC News 2010-05-19 Retrieved 2010-05-19 
  110. ^ Gray, Lila 2013-09-17 "Wikipedia Gives Porn a Break" XBIZ Retrieved 2013-10-20 
  111. ^ Viégas, Fernanda B; Wattenberg, Martin; Dave, Kushal "Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations" PDF CHI 
  112. ^ Priedhorsky, Reid; Chen, Jilin; Lam, Shyong Tony K; Panciera, Katherine; Terveen, Loren; Riedl, John 2007-11-04 "Creating, destroying, and restoring value in wikipedia" Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work ACM Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  113. ^ a b Donnelly, James; Haeckl, Jenifer 2001-04-12 "Privacy and Security on the Internet: What Rights, What Remedies" Archived from the original on December 1, 2008 
  114. ^ See "Public and Private Figures" by the Digital Media Law Project for the legal distinction
  115. ^ Brandt, Daniel 2005-09-09 "Wikipedia's Hive Mind Administration" Archived from the original on 2005-11-10 
  116. ^ Lever, Rob 2005-12-11 "Wikipedia Becomes Internet Force, Faces Crisis" Agence France-Presse AFP Archived from the original on 2015-08-30 Retrieved 2007-12-26 
  117. ^ "Court overturns temporary restraining order against Wikimedia Deutschland" Heinz Heise 2006-02-09 Archived from the original on 2007-02-08 Retrieved 2014-01-31 
  118. ^ Arthur, Charles 2009-02-09 "Jimmy Wales in drive-by shooting of Wikipedia" The Guardian Retrieved 2015-08-31 
  119. ^ Mitchell, Dan 2005-12-24 "Insider Editing at Wikipedia" The New York Times Retrieved 2015-08-31 
  120. ^ "Wikipedia Co-Founder Creates Competing Site" Infopacketscom 2007-04-04 Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  121. ^ Bergstein, Brian 2007-03-26 "Building an alternative to Wikipedia" NBC News Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  122. ^ "Wikipedia Vs Citizendiumorg: The Art of Competing with Oneself" Yahoo! Voices 2007-04-17 Archived from the original on July 28, 2014 Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  123. ^ "Wikipedia Co-Founder Unveils Rival Free Encyclopedia" Fox News Channel Associated Press 2007-03-28 Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  124. ^ a b c Bergstein, Brian 2007-03-25 "Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia" USA Today Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  125. ^ Wood, Mike 2013-01-09 "I Get Paid To Edit Wikipedia For Leading Companies" Business Insider Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  126. ^ a b Paling, Emma October 21, 2015 "How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women" The Atlantic Archived from the original on October 21, 2015 Retrieved October 21, 2015 
  127. ^ Auerbach, David 2014-12-11 "Encyclopedia Frown: Wikipedia is amazing But it's become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess" Slate Retrieved 2014-12-17 
  128. ^ Hern, Alex 2015-01-23 "Wikipedia votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles" The Guardian Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  129. ^ a b c d Auerbach, David 2015-02-05 "The Wikipedia Ouroboros" Slate Retrieved 2015-02-05 
  130. ^ Louise, Maryam 2015-01-25 "GamerGate Wikipedia Ruling Bans Harassed Feminist Editors, Outrage Ensues" Inquisitrcom Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  131. ^ Williams, Lauren 2015-01-23 "Wikipedia Wants To Ban Feminists From Editing GamerGate Articles" Think Progress Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  132. ^ Bennett, Alanna 2015-01-24 "Wikipedia Has Banned Five Feminist Editors From Gamergate Articles & More" The Mary Sue Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  133. ^ Cush, Andy 2015-01-23 "Wikipedia Purged a Group of Feminist Editors Because of Gamergate" Gawker Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  134. ^ a b Dewey, Caitlin 2015-01-29 "Gamergate, Wikipedia and the limits of 'human knowledge'" The Washington Post Retrieved 2015-01-29 
  135. ^ a b Mandiberg, Michael 2015-02-01 "The Affective Labor of Wikipedia: GamerGate, Harassment, and Peer Production" Social Text Retrieved 2015-02-21 
  136. ^ Cush, Andy 2015-01-30 "The Gamergate Decision Shows Exactly What's Broken About Wikipedia" Gawkercom Retrieved 2015-02-17 
  137. ^ Beaudette, Philippe 2015-01-27 "Civility, Wikipedia, and the conversation on Gamergate" Wikimedia Foundation Retrieved 2015-01-28 
  138. ^ Tozer, James 2009-06-07 "Labour councillor David Boothroyd caught altering David Cameron's Wikipedia entry" Daily Mail Retrieved 2013-04-25 
  139. ^ Metz, Cade 2009-05-26 "Sockpuppeting British politico resigns from Wikisupremecourt" The Register Retrieved 2009-05-27 
  140. ^ "Meta: Steward requests/Permissions" Meta-Wiki Retrieved 2014-08-15 
  141. ^ Welham, Jamie; Lakhani, Nina 2009-06-07 "Wikipedia 'sentinel' quits after using alias to alter entries" The Independent Retrieved 2010-03-31 
  142. ^ a b Schiff, Stacy 2006-07-31 "Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise" The New Yorker Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  143. ^ Finkelstein, Seth 2007-03-08 "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive" The Guardian Retrieved 2007-08-01  At some point, Essjay said he had sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials, vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia"
  144. ^ "Talk:Five solas " Wikipediaorg 2005-06-11 Retrieved 2007-06-18 
  145. ^ Orlowski, Andrew 2007-03-02 "Bogus Wikipedia Prof was blessed then promoted: The Counterfactual History Man" The Register Retrieved 2007-03-18 
  146. ^ "Fake professor in Wikipedia storm" BBC News 2007-03-06 Retrieved 2007-03-08 
  147. ^ Bergstein, Brian 2007-03-25 "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia" The Washington Post Associated Press Retrieved 2007-03-26 The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy PhD who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial—Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it 
  148. ^ Meyers, Peter 2001-09-20 "Fact-Driven Collegial This Site Wants You" The New York Times Retrieved 2015-08-30  "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
  149. ^ Mehegan, David 2006-02-12 "Bias, sabotage haunt Wikipedia's free world" Boston Globe Retrieved 2007-07-30 
  150. ^ Sanger, Larry 2007-03-01 "Wikipedia firmly supports your right to identity fraud" Citizendium Blog Archived from the original on March 4, 2007 Retrieved 2007-03-02 
  151. ^ "User talk:Jimbo Wales " Wikipediaorg 
  152. ^ Sanger, Larry 2007-03-03 "Jimmy Wales' latest response on the Essjay situation" Citizendium Blog Archived from the original on March 6, 2007 Retrieved 2007-03-03 
  153. ^ "Essjay's Wikia user page" Wikiacom Retrieved 2007-09-19 
  154. ^ Wolfson, Andrew 2007-03-06 "Wikipedia editor who posed as professor is Ky dropout: Man resigns post after controversy" Louisville Courier-Journal Archived from the original on 2007-05-17 Retrieved 2007-03-07 
  155. ^ Wales, Jimmy 2007-03-19 "Making amends" The New Yorker p 24 
  156. ^ Cohen, Noam 2007-03-05 "A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side" The New York Times Retrieved 2007-03-05 
  157. ^ "" ABC News Retrieved 2007-03-08 
  158. ^ Bergstein, Brian 2007-03-07 "After flap over phony professor, Wikipedia wants some writers to share real names" USA Today Associated Press Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  159. ^ Williams, Martyn 2007-03-09 "Wikipedia Founder Addresses User Credentials" PC World IDG News Service Retrieved 2015-08-31 
  160. ^ "Wikipedia's credentials policy " Wikipediaorg 2008-01-05 
  161. ^ a b Spicuzza, Mary 2008-02-13 "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco" SF Weekly p 2 Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  162. ^ Kolbe, Andreas 2014-08-11 "Wikimania 2014" Wikipediocracycom Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  163. ^ Arthur, Charles 2005-12-14 "Log on and join in, but beware the web cults" The Guardian Retrieved 2006-07-14 
  164. ^ Stvilla, Besiki; Twidale, Michael; Smith, Linda; Gasser, Les 2008-02-21 "Information Quality Work Organization in Wikipedia" PDF Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology Archived from the original PDF on August 20, 2007  subscription required
  165. ^ Johnson, Bobbie 2009-08-12 "Wikipedia approaches its limits" The Guardian Retrieved 2014-05-25 
  166. ^ "The battle for Wikipedia's soul" The Economist 2008-03-06 Retrieved 2015-08-31 
  167. ^ Halfaker, Aaron; Geiger, R Stuart; Morgan, Jonathan T; Riedl, John 2012 "The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline" PDF American Behavioral Scientist 57 5: 664 doi:101177/0002764212469365 ISSN 0002-7642 Retrieved 2015-08-30 
  168. ^ Hickman, Martin; Roberts, Genevieve 2006-02-13 "Wikipedia – separating fact from fiction" The New Zealand Herald Retrieved 2007-04-17 Such checking leads to a daily battle of wits with the cyber-wreckers who insert erroneous, ludicrous and offensive material into entries How frequently entries get messed about with depends on the controversy of their subjects This week the entry Muslim is being attacked dozens of times a day following the row about cartoons of Mohammed with angry denunciations of suicide bombing and claims of hypocrisy Prime Minister Tony Blair's entry is a favourite for distortion with new statements casting aspersions on his integrity 
  169. ^ Kleinz, Torsten February 2005 "World of Knowledge" PDF Linux Magazine Archived from the original PDF on October 2, 2015 Retrieved 2007-05-12 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 
  170. ^ Shankbone, David 2008-06-07 "Nobody's Safe in Cyberspace" The Brooklyn Rail Retrieved 2008-07-10 
  171. ^ Auerbach, David 11 December 2014 "Encyclopedia Frown" Slate 
  172. ^ Hill, Benjamin Mako 2013-03-27 "The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and Wikipedia" makocc eous Retrieved 2015-08-31 
  173. ^ Postril, Virginia 2014-11-17 "Who Killed Wikipedia" Pacific Standard Retrieved 2015-08-31 
  174. ^ a b Lanier, Jaron 2006-05-30 "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" Edge Retrieved 2007-04-30 
  175. ^ Shirky, Clay 2006-06-07 "Reactions to Digital Maoism" Corantecom Retrieved 2007-05-01 
  176. ^ Angwin, Julia; Fowler, Geoffrey A 2009-11-27 "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages" The Wall Street Journal Retrieved 2013-07-28 subscription required
  177. ^ Simonite, Tom 2013-10-22 "The Decline of Wikipedia" MIT Technology Review Retrieved 2015-03-26 
  178. ^ a b Jemielniak, Dariusz 2014-06-22 "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia" Slate 
  179. ^ Wilson, Chris 2008-02-22 "The Wisdom of the Chaperones: Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 20 democracy" Slate Retrieved 2013-01-14 
  180. ^ Kleeman, Jenny 2007-03-25 "Wiki wars" The Guardian Retrieved 2007-10-04 

Further reading

  • Keen, Andrew The Cult of the Amateur Doubleday/Currency, 2007 ISBN 978-0-385-52080-5 substantial criticisms of Wikipedia and other web 20 projects
    • Keen, Andrew 2007-06-16 "Does the Internet Undermine Culture" NPR Retrieved 2010-03-31 Audio version with transcript of the NPR interview with Andrew Keen on June 16, 2007 
  • Rafaeli, Sheizaf & Ariel, Yaron 2008 "Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia" In A Barak ed, Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications pp 243–267 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
    • "CyberpsychYedainfo" Archived from the original on November 27, 2012 Retrieved 2013-11-19 
  • Simonite, Tom 2013-10-22 "The Decline of Wikipedia: Even As More People Than Ever Rely on It, Fewer People Create It" MIT Technology Review Technologyreviewcom 116 6 Retrieved 2014-08-09 

External links

  • A Compendium of Wikipedia Criticism – Wikipediocracy
  • The Geographically Uneven Coverage of Wikipedia – Oxford Internet Institute – University of Oxford

analysis of wikipedia, criticism of wikipedia, what is one significant criticism of wikipedia


Criticism of Wikipedia Information about

Criticism of Wikipedia


  • user icon

    Criticism of Wikipedia beatiful post thanks!

    29.10.2014


Criticism of Wikipedia
Criticism of Wikipedia
Criticism of Wikipedia viewing the topic.
Criticism of Wikipedia what, Criticism of Wikipedia who, Criticism of Wikipedia explanation

There are excerpts from wikipedia on this article and video

Random Posts

Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland

Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland

Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland 4 April 1406 – 3 November 1484 was an English peer Content...
Mamprusi language

Mamprusi language

The Mamprusi language, Mampruli Mampelle, Ŋmampulli, is a Gur language spoken in northern Ghana by t...
Singapore Changi Airport

Singapore Changi Airport

Singapore Changi Airport IATA: SIN, ICAO: WSSS, or simply Changi Airport, is the primary civili...
Christian Siriano

Christian Siriano

Christian Siriano born November 18, 1985 is an American fashion designer and member of the Council o...