Bureaucrats, Check users, editor, emailconfirmed, Interface administrators, reviewer, smwadministrator, smwcurator, smweditor, Suppressors, Administrators
12,798
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − {{pp-move-indef}}+ − {{short description|Overview of criticism Wikipedia has received}} − {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2017}} − [[File:Klee-Irwin.gif|thumb|Two radically different versions of the Wikipedia biography Klee Irwin (now deleted<ref>{{cite web |title=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klee Irwin (3rd nomination) |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Klee_Irwin_(3rd_nomination) |website=Wikipedia |language=en |date=15 January 2014}}</ref>) presented to the public within days of each other: Wikipedia's susceptibility to edit wars and bias is an issue often raised by critics of the project.]] − − Most '''criticism of Wikipedia''' has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. Critics have questioned its [[Reliability of Wikipedia|factual reliability]], the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its political bias. Concerns have also been raised about [[Systemic bias of Wikipedia|systemic]] bias along [[Gender bias in Wikipedia|gender]], [[Racial bias in Wikipedia|racial]], political and national lines. In addition, conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, [[clique]] behavior from contributors as well as administrators and other top figures, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven application of policies. − − ==Criticism of content== − − The reliability of [[Wikipedia]] is often questioned. In "Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge" (2010), journalist [[Edwin Black]] characterized the content of articles as a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".<ref name="EdwinBlack">{{cite web|url=http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437|title=Wikipedia—The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge|author=Black, Edwin|author-link=Edwin Black|date=April 19, 2010|publisher=History News Network|access-date=October 21, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160909210831/http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437|archive-date=September 9, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Oliver Kamm]], in "Wisdom?: More like Dumbness of the Crowds" (2007), said that articles usually are dominated by the loudest and most persistent editorial voices or by an [[interest group]] with an [[ideological]] "axe to grind".<ref name=okw/> − − In his article "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" (2012), Timothy Messer–Kruse criticized the [[Wikipedia:DUE|undue-weight policy]] that deals with the relative importance of sources, observing that it showed Wikipedia's goal was not to present correct and definitive information about a subject but to present the majority opinion of the sources cited.<ref name="undue weight">{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|author=Messer-Kruse, Timothy|date=February 12, 2012|work=The Chronicle of Higher Education|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161218162359/http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|archive-date=December 18, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Bowling Green State University">{{cite web|url=http://www.bgsu.edu/news/2012/02/wikipedia-experience-sparks-national-debate.html|title=Wikipedia Experience Sparks National Debate|date=February 27, 2012|work=[[Bowling Green State University#Media and publications|The BG News]]|publisher=Bowling Green State University|access-date=March 27, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827120800/http://www.bgsu.edu/news/2012/02/wikipedia-experience-sparks-national-debate.html|archive-date=August 27, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> In their article "You Just Type in What You are Looking for: Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia" (2012) in an academic librarianship journal, the authors noted another author's point that omissions within an article might give the reader false ideas about a topic, based upon the incomplete content of Wikipedia.<ref name="auto">{{cite web|url=http://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf|title='You Just Type in What You Are Looking For': Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia|last1=Colón-Aguirre|first1=Monica|last2=Fleming-May|first2=Rachel A.|date=October 11, 2012|work=The Journal of Academic Librarianship|page=392|access-date=March 27, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160419031904/http://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf|archive-date=April 19, 2016|url-status=live}} cited Fallis, Don. “Toward an Epistemology” (2008)</ref> − − 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.<ref name="Jemielniak">{{cite book|title=Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia|last=Jemielniak|first=Dariusz|publisher=Stanford University Press|year=2014|isbn=9780804791205|title-link=Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia}}</ref><ref name="Jem_article">{{cite web|last1=Jemielniak|first1=Dariusz|title=The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia: the legalistic atmosphere is making it impossible to attract and keep the new editors the site needs|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/wikipedia_s_bureaucracy_problem_and_how_to_fix_it.html|website=Slate|access-date=September 18, 2016|date=June 22, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160910232539/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/wikipedia_s_bureaucracy_problem_and_how_to_fix_it.html|archive-date=September 10, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Jem_article"/> In ''The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity is Causing its Decline'' (2013), [[Aaron Halfaker]] said the over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally provoked the [[Wikipedia#Decline in participation since 2009|decline in editorial participation]] that began in 2009—frightening away new editors who otherwise would contribute to Wikipedia.<ref name="Vergano, Dan">{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/01/03/wikipedia-rules-new-editors/1801229/|title=Study: Wikipedia is driving away newcomers|author=Vergano, Dan|date=January 3, 2013|work=USA Today|access-date=November 19, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150921161511/http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/01/03/wikipedia-rules-new-editors/1801229/|archive-date=September 21, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="HalfakerGeiger2012" />{{Failed verification|date=December 2021|reason=Halfak said that automated vandal-reverting bots caused this (temporary) change, not the existence of rules}} − − There have also been works that describe the possible misuse of Wikipedia. In "Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?" (2008), the Hoover Institution said 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 [[Historical revisionism (negationism)|manipulation]] and [[propaganda]].<ref name="Petrilli, Michael J">{{cite web|author=Petrilli, Michael J.|volume=Spring 2008/Vol.8, No.2|url=http://educationnext.org/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/|title=Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?|work=[[Hoover Institution#Publications|Education Next]]|date=February 29, 2008|access-date=October 22, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161121024654/http://educationnext.org/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/|archive-date=November 21, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> 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{{snd}} 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]]."<ref name="Citing Electronic Sources">{{cite web|url=https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/citing-your-sources/citing-electronic-sources|title=Citing Electronic Sources|publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology|access-date=October 21, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906033157/http://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/citing-your-sources/citing-electronic-sources|archive-date=September 6, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> − − ===Accuracy of information=== − {{details|Reliability of Wikipedia#Assessments}} − − ====Not authoritative==== − Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Researching with 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, "the main problem is the lack of [[Authority (sociology)|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."<ref name="Whoknows?">{{cite news|last=Waldman|first=Simon|date=October 26, 2004|title=Who knows?|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/oct/26/g2.onlinesupplement|work=The Guardian|access-date=December 30, 2005|location=London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190406183908/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/oct/26/g2.onlinesupplement|archive-date=April 6, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name=McHenry>{{Cite news|url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1886601.ece|work=The Independent|title=The Big Question: Do we Need a More Reliable Online Encyclopedia than Wikipedia?|last=Vallely|first=Paul|date=October 10, 2006|access-date=October 18, 2006|location=London|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061024060515/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1886601.ece|archive-date=October 24, 2006|df=mdy-all}}</ref> In November 2015, [[History of Wikipedia#Formulation of the concept|Wikipedia co-founder]] [[Larry Sanger]] told Zach Schwartz in ''[[Vice (magazine)|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 [[Internet troll|trolls]] sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum."<ref name=Schwartz2015>{{cite web | url=https://www.vice.com/read/wikipedias-co-founder-is-wikipedias-biggest-critic-511 | title=Wikipedia's Co-Founder Is Wikipedia's Most Outspoken Critic | work=Vice | date=November 11, 2015 | author=Schwartz, Zach | access-date=August 26, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151114004055/http://www.vice.com/read/wikipedias-co-founder-is-wikipedias-biggest-critic-511 | archive-date=November 14, 2015 | url-status=live }}</ref> − − ====Comparative study of science articles==== − [[File:Teaching-criticism-praise.png|thumb|right|upright=1.5|"Teaching criticism vs. teaching praise": an analysis of talk-page messages for the {{Mlmw|Research:WSOR11|3=Wikipedia Summer of Research (2011) convention}}<ref>{{cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011/Newbie_teaching_strategy_trends|title=Research:Wikimedia Summer of Research 2011/Newbie teaching strategy trends|publisher=Meta.wikimedia.org|date=June 3, 2011|access-date=December 6, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131213180943/https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011/Newbie_teaching_strategy_trends|archive-date=December 13, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref>]] − − In "Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head-to-head", a 2005 article published in the scientific journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', 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.<ref name=na05>{{Cite journal|title=Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head|author=Giles, Jim|journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume=438|pages=900–901|doi=10.1038/438900a|date=December 15, 2005|pmid=16355180|issue=7070|bibcode=2005Natur.438..900G|doi-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/12/15/1531455.htm|publisher=ABC Science|agency=Agence France-Presse (AFP)|title=Wikipedia head to head with Britannica|date=December 15, 2005|access-date=February 15, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150216085148/http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/12/15/1531455.htm|archive-date=February 16, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> − − The dissatisfaction of the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' editors led to ''Nature'' publishing additional survey documentation that substantiated the results of the comparative study.<ref>{{Cite journal|journal=Nature|title=Supplementary Information to Accompany ''Nature'' news article 'Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head'|volume=438|pages=900–901|date=December 22, 2005|doi=10.1038/438900a|pmid=16355180|last1=Giles|first1=J|doi-access=free|bibcode=2005Natur.438..900G|issue=7070}}</ref> 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.<ref name=FF>{{cite web|url=http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf|title=Fatally Flawed: Refuting the Recent Study on Encyclopaedic Accuracy by the journal ''Nature''|date=March 2006|publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.|access-date=June 30, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181202112822/http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf|archive-date=December 2, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Britannica attacks|journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume=440|page=582|doi=10.1038/440582b|date=March 30, 2006|pmid=16572128|issue=7084|bibcode=2006Natur.440R.582.|doi-access=free}}</ref> − − 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.<ref name=FF/> Subsequently, ''Nature'' magazine rejected the ''Britannica'' response with a [[rebuttal]] of the editors' specific objections about the research method of the study.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm|title=Wikipedia study 'fatally flawed'|date=March 24, 2006|work=BBC News|access-date=September 1, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170805131248/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm|archive-date=August 5, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf|work=Press release|title=Encyclopædia Britannica and Nature: A Response|date=March 23, 2006|access-date=September 1, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306063308/http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf|archive-date=March 6, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> − − ====Lack of methodical fact-checking==== − [[File:John Seigenthaler Sr. speaking.jpg|thumb|left|American journalist [[John Seigenthaler]], the object of the [[Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident|Seigenthaler incident]]]] − − 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. − − 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 [[defamation|defamatory]] statements.<ref name=Seigenthaler-incident>{{Cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm|work=USA Today|date=November 29, 2005|title=A false Wikipedia 'biography'|author=John Seigenthaler|access-date=August 26, 2017|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/64PWOeCKO?url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm|archive-date=January 3, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Seelye, Katharine Q.|date=December 3, 2005|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html|title=Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=February 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140907013706/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html|archive-date=September 7, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 [[Answers.com]], which means that incorrect information can be replicated alongside correct information through a number of web sources. Such information can thereby develop false authority due to its presence at such sites.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/mistakes-and-hoaxes-on-line/3330692|title=Mistakes and hoaxes on-line|publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation|date=April 15, 2006|access-date=April 28, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121113084903/http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/mistakes-and-hoaxes-on-line/3330692|archive-date=November 13, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> − − In another example, on March 2, 2007, MSNBC.com reported that then-[[New York Senator]] [[Hillary Clinton]] had been incorrectly listed for 20 months in her Wikipedia biography as having been valedictorian of her class of 1969 at [[Wellesley College]], when in fact she was not (though she did speak at commencement).<ref>{{Cite news|first=Bill|last=Dedman|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17388372|title=Reading Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis|work=NBC News|date=March 3, 2007|access-date=March 17, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130306204551/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17388372/|archive-date=March 6, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> The article included a link to the Wikipedia edit,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&diff=18494301&oldid=18493966|title=Hillary Rodham Clinton [archived version]|publisher=Wikipedia.org|date=July 9, 2005|access-date=March 17, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160216104215/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&diff=18494301&oldid=18493966|archive-date=February 16, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> where the incorrect information was added on July 9, 2005. The inaccurate information was removed within 24 hours after the MSNBC.com report appeared.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&diff=112070224&oldid=111773323|title=Hillary Rodham Clinton [archived version]|publisher=Wikipedia.org|date=March 2, 2007|access-date=March 17, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160216104216/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&diff=112070224&oldid=111773323|archive-date=February 16, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> − − [[Wikipedia hoaxes|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 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16929538&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=meet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html |title=Exclusive: Meet the Real Sir Walter Mitty |author=Paige, Cara |work=Daily Record |date=April 11, 2006 |access-date=November 24, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014712/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16929538%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dmeet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html |archive-date=September 30, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> − − 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.<ref>{{Cite news|author=Weingarten, Gene|date=March 16, 2007|url=http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/553968.html|title=A wickedly fun test of Wikipedia|work=[[The News & Observer]]|access-date=April 8, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070320032706/http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/553968.html|archive-date=March 20, 2007}}</ref> Wikipedia considers the deliberate insertion of false and misleading information to be [[Vandalism on Wikipedia|vandalism]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism&oldid=327665900|date=November 24, 2009|publisher=Wikipedia.org|title=Wikipedia:Vandalism [archived version]}}</ref> − − ====Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest==== − {{See|Wikipedia:Core content policies}} − Wikipedia regards the concept of a [[Objectivity (science)|neutral point of view]] as one of its non-negotiable principles; however, it acknowledges that such a concept has its limitations{{snd}} its [[WP:NPOV|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mediashift.org/2006/04/wikipedia-biasis-there-a-neutral-view-on-george-w-bush107|title=Wikipedia Bias: Is There a Neutral View on George W. Bush?|author=Mark Glaser|publisher=PBS|date=April 17, 2006|access-date=October 27, 2007|quote=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.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151002042216/http://mediashift.org/2006/04/wikipedia-biasis-there-a-neutral-view-on-george-w-bush107|archive-date=October 2, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> Research has shown that articles can maintain bias in spite of the neutral point of view policy through word choice, the presentation of opinions and controversial claims as facts, and [[Framing (social sciences)|framing bias]].<ref>{{cite conference|last1=Hube|first1=Christoph|last2=Fetahu|first2=Besnik|date=November 4–7, 2019|title=Neural Based Statement Classification for Biased Language|conference= ''WSDM '19 Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining''|location=Melbourne VIC, Australia|isbn=978-1-4503-5940-5|doi=10.1145/3289600.3291018|pages=259–268|arxiv=1811.05740}}.</ref><ref name="Brian Martin">Martin, Brian (2021) "[https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_2002_2021_A09.pdf Policing orthodoxy on Wikipedia: Skeptics in action?]", ''Journal of Science Communication'', 20:2, doi:10.22323/2.20020209</ref> − − 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 address]]es.<ref name="Robert Verkaik">{{Cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wikipedia-and-the-art-of-censorship-462070.html|author=Verkaik, Robert|title=Wikipedia and the art of censorship|work=The Independent|date=August 18, 2007|location=London|access-date=August 26, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101201212632/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wikipedia-and-the-art-of-censorship-462070.html|archive-date=December 1, 2010|url-status=live}}</ref> 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|Diebold, Inc.]] and the [[Government of Australia|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]].<ref name="Rhys Blakely">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exposed-guess-who-has-been-polishing-their-wikipedia-entries-bhck7xpb7vq|title=Exposed: guess who has been polishing their Wikipedia entries?|date=August 15, 2007|access-date=August 15, 2007|author=Blakely, Rhys|work=[[The Times]]|location=London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090517025259/http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2264150.ece?token=null&offset=12|archive-date=May 17, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref name="Jonathan Fildes">{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm|title=Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'|date=August 15, 2007|access-date=August 15, 2007|work=[[BBC]]|author=Fildes, Jonathan|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090111230821/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm|archive-date=January 11, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref> Not everyone hailed WikiScanner as a success for Wikipedia. [[Oliver Kamm]], in a column for ''[[The Times]]'', argued instead that:<ref name=okw>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110814104256/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece|date=August 16, 2007|title=Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds|author=Kamm, Oliver|work=The Times|archive-date=August 14, 2011}} ([http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/wisdom-more-lik.html Author's own copy] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160905131644/http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/wisdom-more-lik.html |date=September 5, 2016 }})</ref> − − <blockquote>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. − </blockquote> − − WikiScanner reveals conflicts of interest only when the editor does not have a Wikipedia account and their IP address is used instead. [[Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia|Conflict-of-interest editing]] done by editors with accounts is not detected, since those edits are anonymous to everyone except some [[Wikipedia administrators]].<ref name="Cade Metz">{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/the_wikipedia_paradox/|author=Metz, Cade|title=Truth, anonymity and the Wikipedia Way: Why it's broke and how it can be fixed|work=[[The Register]]|date=December 18, 2007|access-date=August 10, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170810142341/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/the_wikipedia_paradox/|archive-date=August 10, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> − − ====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#Violence|schizophrenia]] article, which was little more than a "rant" about the need to lock people up, in the view of one of the article's regular editors, [[neuropsychologist]] [[Vaughan Bell]]. He said that editing it stimulated him to look up the literature on the topic.<ref name=na05/> − − Another dispute involved the climate researcher [[William Connolley]], a Wikipedia editor who was opposed by others. The topic in this second dispute was "language pertaining to the [[greenhouse effect]]",<ref name="ny2006" /> and ''[[The New Yorker]]'' reported that this dispute, which was far more protracted, had led to [[Arbitration in Wikipedia|arbitration]], which took three months to produce a decision.<ref name="ny2006">{{cite magazine|author=Schiff, Stacy|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/31/know-it-all|title=Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?|magazine=The New Yorker|date=July 31, 2006|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081122125817/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact|archive-date=November 22, 2008|url-status=live}}</ref> The outcome of arbitration was for Connolley to be restricted to undoing edits on articles once per day.<ref name="ny2006" /> − − ====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 (propaganda)|spin]] on articles. In January 2006, it was revealed that several staffers of members of the [[U.S. 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 [[Marty Meehan|Martin Meehan]] to surrender his seat in 2000 were deleted, and negative comments were inserted into the articles on United States Senator [[Bill Frist]] of [[Tennessee]], and [[Eric Cantor]], a congressman from [[Virginia]]. Numerous other changes were made from an IP address assigned to the House of Representatives.<ref>{{cite web|author=Lehmann, Evan |date=January 27, 2006 |url=http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3444567 |title=Rewriting history under the dome |publisher=[[The Sun (Lowell)|Lowell Sun]] |access-date=February 2, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060202095103/http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3444567 |archive-date=February 2, 2006 }}</ref> In an interview, Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] remarked that the changes were "not cool".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2006/01/senator-staffers-spam-wikipedia.html|title=Senator staffers spam Wikipedia|date=January 30, 2006|access-date=September 13, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060329061323/http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2006/01/senator-staffers-spam-wikipedia.html|archive-date=March 29, 2006|url-status=live}}</ref> − − Larry Delay and Pablo Bachelet wrote that from their perspective, some articles dealing with Latin American history and groups (such as the [[Sandinista National Liberation Front|Sandinistas]] and [[Cuba]]) lack political neutrality and are written from a sympathetic Marxist perspective which treats socialist dictatorships favorably at the expense of alternative positions.<ref>{{Cite news|author=Bachelet, Pablo|url=http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&p_theme=mh&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=cuba%20wikipedia%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(cuba%20wikipedia)&p_sort=_rank_:D&xcal_ranksort=4&xcal_useweights=yes|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151006225302/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&p_theme=mh&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=cuba%20wikipedia%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(cuba%20wikipedia)&p_sort=_rank_:D&xcal_ranksort=4&xcal_useweights=yes|title=War of Words: Website Can't Define Cuba|date=May 3, 2006|work=[[The Miami Herald]]|archive-date=October 6, 2015}} [http://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y06/may06/10e4.htm Alt URL] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923211927/http://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y06/may06/10e4.htm |date=September 23, 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Delay, Larry|url=http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/asce/pdfs/volume16/pdfs/program.pdf|title=A Pernicious Model for Control of the World Wide Web: The Cuba Case|date=August 3, 2006|publisher=[[Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy]] (ASCE)|access-date=July 8, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910014641/http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/asce/pdfs/volume16/pdfs/program.pdf|archive-date=September 10, 2008|df=mdy-all}}</ref> − − 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.<ref name=Telegraph/> 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".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=32&x_article=1525|title=Letter in Harper's Magazine About Wikipedia Issues|publisher=[[Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America|CAMERA]]|date=August 14, 2008|access-date=March 31, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160731094722/http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2|archive-date=July 31, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> Defenders of CAMERA and the competing group, [[Electronic Intifada]], went into mediation.<ref name=Telegraph>{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1934857/Israeli-battles-rage-on-Wikipedia.html|title=Israeli battles rage on Wikipedia|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=May 8, 2008|date=May 8, 2008|last=McElroy|first=Damien|location=London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509185630/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1934857/Israeli-battles-rage-on-Wikipedia.html|archive-date=May 9, 2008|url-status=live}}</ref> Israeli diplomat [[David Saranga]] said 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.haaretz.com/culture/arts-leisure/your-wiki-entry-counts-1.235851|title=Your Wiki Entry Counts|work=[[Haaretz]]|author=Liphshiz, Cnaan|date=December 25, 2007|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605071013/http://www.haaretz.com/culture/arts-leisure/your-wiki-entry-counts-1.235851|archive-date=June 5, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> − − Israeli 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.<ref>{{cite web|author-link=Haviv Rettig|last=Rettig Gur|first=Haviv|url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660|title=Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia|work=[[The Jerusalem Post]]|date=May 16, 2010|access-date=December 6, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629014308/http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660|archive-date=June 29, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> − − 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 the running mate of Arizona Senator [[John McCain]]. During the 24 hours before the McCain campaign announcement, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=234778085&oldid=234741793 30 edits], many of them adding flattering details, were made to the article by the user "Young_Trigg".<ref>{{cite web|first=Noam|last=Cohen|date=August 31, 2008|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?ex=1378008000&en=2690a3850cb270d0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink|title=Don't Like Palin's Wikipedia Story? Change It|work=The New York Times|access-date=February 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180228041708/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?ex=1378008000&en=2690a3850cb270d0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink|archive-date=February 28, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> This person later acknowledged working on the McCain campaign, and having several other user accounts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/sarah-palins-wikipedia-entry-glossed-over-by-mystery-user-hrs-before-vp-announcement_10091497.html|title=Sarah Palins Wikipedia entry glossed over by mystery user hrs. before VP announcement|work=Thaindian News|date=September 2, 2008|access-date=November 16, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110524085649/http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/sarah-palins-wikipedia-entry-glossed-over-by-mystery-user-hrs-before-vp-announcement_10091497.html|archive-date=May 24, 2011|url-status=live}}{{better source|date=August 2015}}</ref> − − In November 2007, libelous accusations were made against two politicians from southwestern France, [[Jean-Pierre Grand]] and [[Hélène Mandroux-Colas]], on their Wikipedia biographies. Grand asked the president of the [[French National Assembly]] and [[Prime Minister of France|Prime Minister]] to reinforce the legislation on the penal responsibility of Internet sites and of authors who peddle false information in order to cause harm.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vnunet.fr/fr/news/2007/11/28/wikipedia_en_butte_a_une_nouvelle_affaire_de_calomnie|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080516003915/http://www.vnunet.fr/fr/news/2007/11/28/wikipedia_en_butte_a_une_nouvelle_affaire_de_calomnie|title=Wikipédia en butte à une nouvelle affaire de calomnie|publisher=Vnunet.fr|date=November 28, 2007|archive-date=May 16, 2008|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Senator [[Jean-Louis Masson (politician, 1947)|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 (see ''[[Internet censorship in France]]'').<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2007/qSEQ071102679.html|title=Responsabilité pénale des intervenants sur Internet : hébergeur du site, responsable du site et auteur d'allégations diffamatoires|date=February 14, 2008|access-date=August 30, 2015|publisher=Official website of the French [[Sénat]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721022032/http://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2007/qSEQ071102679.html|archive-date=July 21, 2011|url-status=dead}} [A question from Senator Jean-Louis Masson to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister's response]</ref> − − 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/852228--ottawa-investigating-wikipedia-edits|title=Ottawa investigating Wikipedia edits|author=Woods, Allan|date=August 25, 2010|work=[[Toronto Star]]|access-date=August 26, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100827182851/http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/852228--ottawa-investigating-wikipedia-edits|archive-date=August 27, 2010|url-status=live}}</ref> − − 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|Iranian presidential election of 2009]] and 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 the Great|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]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/09/11/cyrus-cylinder-wikipedia-and-iran-conspiracies|title=The Cyrus Cylinder, Wikipedia and Iran conspiracies|author=Nabili, Teymoor|publisher=blogs.[[alJazeera]].net|date=September 11, 2010|access-date=November 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120311004844/http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/09/11/cyrus-cylinder-wikipedia-and-iran-conspiracies|archive-date=March 11, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> − − ====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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2009/dailyposts/20090804.htm|author=Jackson, Ron|date=August 4, 2009|title=Open Season on Domainers and Domaining — Overtly Biased L.A. Times Article Leads Latest Assault on Objectivity and Accuracy|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150814081845/http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2009/dailyposts/20090804.htm|archive-date=August 14, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> Some companies and organizations—such as [[Sony]], [[Diebold]], [[Nintendo]], [[Dell]], the [[CIA]], and the [[Church of Scientology]]—as well as individuals, such as [[United States Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jdpowerwebintelligence.com/downloads/CNN_Wikipedia.pdf|title=Umbria Blogosphere Analysis — Wikipedia and Corporate Blogging|date=August 24, 2007|publisher=[[J.D. Power and Associates|J.D. Power Web Intelligence]]}}{{Dead link|date=September 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} "Organizations like Sony, Diebold, Nintendo, Dell, the CIA and the Church of Scientology were all shown to have sanitized pages about themselves."</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com/2008/02/wikipedia-continues-to-sanitize-bush.html|title=Wikipedia Continues To Sanitize Bush Content|author=MacDonald, Marc|date=February 1, 2008|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151008055813/http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com/2008/02/wikipedia-continues-to-sanitize-bush.html|archive-date=October 8, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> − − The [[Chinese Wikipedia]] article on the [[Tiananmen Square massacre]] was rewritten to describe it as necessary to "quell the counterrevolutionary riots" and [[Taiwan]] was described as "a province in the People’s Republic of China". According to the BBC, "there are indications that [such edits] are not all necessarily organic, nor random" and were in fact orchestrated by the [[Chinese Communist Party]].<ref name="jed">{{cite journal |last1=Walker |first1=Christopher |last2=Kalathil |first2=Shanthi |last3=Ludwig |first3=Jessica |title=The Cutting Edge of Sharp Power |journal=Journal of Democracy |date=2020 |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=124–137 |doi=10.1353/jod.2020.0010|s2cid=211145754 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Miller |first1=Carl |title=China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49921173 |access-date=24 August 2020 |work=BBC News |date=5 October 2019}}</ref> − − ===Quality of presentation=== − ====Quality of articles on U.S. 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 U.S. 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: − − <blockquote>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.<ref name=Rosenzweig/></blockquote> − − Rosenzweig also criticized the "[[waffling]]{{snd}} encouraged by the [neutral point of view] policy{{snd}} [which] means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history [articles]", 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 words|weasel-word]] waffling: − − <blockquote>Some historians{{nbsp}}... remember [Quantrill] as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while other [historians] continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero.<ref name=Rosenzweig/></blockquote> − − Rosenzweig contrasted Wikipedia's [[Abraham Lincoln]] article with that of [[James M. McPherson]]'s article on Lincoln in ''American National Biography Online''. He reports that each entry was essentially accurate in covering the major episodes of President Lincoln's life. McPherson—a Princeton professor and winner of the Pulitzer Prize—showed "richer contextualization", 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." By contrast Wikipedia's prose 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)|American Heritage]]'' magazine. It was also mentioned that while Wikipedia usually provides many references, these are not the most accurate references.<ref name=Rosenzweig>{{Cite journal|author=Rosenzweig, Roy |title=Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past |journal=The Journal of American History |volume=93 |issue=1 |date=June 2006 |pages=pp.{{nbsp}}117–146 |url=http://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/?essayid=42 |access-date=August 11, 2006 |doi=10.2307/4486062 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100425130754/http://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/?essayid=42 |archive-date=April 25, 2010 |jstor=4486062 }} ([[Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media]])</ref> − − ====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."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/06/04/Wikipedia-cancer-information-accurate/UPI-87311275628573/|title=Wikipedia cancer information accurate|date=June 4, 2010|work=[[United Press International]]|access-date=December 31, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021040140/http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/06/04/Wikipedia-cancer-information-accurate/UPI-87311275628573/|archive-date=October 21, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> − − In its 2007 article "Fact or Fiction? Wikipedia’s Variety of Contributors is Not Only a Strength," the magazine ''[[The Economist]]'' said 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."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/8820422?story_id=8820422|title=Fact or fiction? Wikipedia's Variety of Contributors is Not Only a Strength|date=March 10, 2007|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=December 31, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120610180124/http://www.economist.com/node/8820422?story_id=8820422|archive-date=June 10, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> − − ====''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''.<ref name="wsj9-12-2006">{{Cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/public/article/SB115756239753455284-A4hdSU1xZOC9Y9PFhJZV16jFlLM_20070911.html|title=Will Wikipedia Mean the End Of Traditional Encyclopedias?|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|access-date=September 13, 2006|date=September 12, 2006|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160115195822/http://www.wsj.com/public/article/SB115756239753455284-A4hdSU1xZOC9Y9PFhJZV16jFlLM_20070911.html|archive-date=January 15, 2016|df=mdy-all}}</ref> 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 he "had neither the time nor space to respond to [criticisms]" 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.<ref name="wsj9-12-2006" /> − − ===Systemic bias in coverage=== − {{See also|Reliability of Wikipedia#Coverage|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 (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.<ref name="Cohen 26">{{Cite web|title=Encyclopaedia Idiotica|first=Martin|last=Cohen|work=[[Times Higher Education]]|date=August 28, 2008|issue=2008–08–28|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403327|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110906163412/http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403327|archive-date=September 6, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> Cohen concludes that "[t]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]]."<ref name="Cohen 26"/> That freedom is undermined by what he sees as what matters on Wikipedia, "not your sources but the 'support of the community'."<ref name="Cohen 26"/> − − Researchers from [[Washington University in St. Louis]] developed a statistical model to measure systematic bias in the behavior of Wikipedia's users regarding controversial topics. The authors focused on behavioral changes of the encyclopedia's administrators after assuming the post, writing that systematic bias occurred after the fact.<ref>{{cite conference| url = https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2505566| title = Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: How Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion| last1 = Das| first1 = Sanmay| last2 = Allen| first2 = Lavoie| last3 = Malik| first3 = Magdon-Ismail| date = November 1, 2013| publisher = ACM| book-title = CIKM '13 Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management| pages = 1097–1106| location = San Francisco, California, US| doi = 10.1145/2505515.2505566| isbn = 978-1-4503-2263-8| access-date = April 7, 2017| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181106210405/https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2505566| archive-date = November 6, 2018| url-status = live}}</ref> − − Critics also point to the tendency to cover topics in detail disproportionate to their importance. For example, [[Stephen Colbert]] once mockingly praised Wikipedia for having a longer entry on '[[lightsaber]]s' than it does on the '[[printing press]]'.<ref name="ColbertReport">Stephen Colbert. ''The Colbert Report'' episode 3109. August 21, 2007.</ref> [[Dale Hoiberg]], the editor-in-chief of ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', said "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]]."<ref name="Whoknows?" /> − − This approach of comparing two articles, one about a traditionally encyclopedic subject and the other about one more popular with the crowd, has been called "wikigroaning".<ref name="wsj">{{Cite news|title=Oh, that John Locke|first=Jamin|last=Brophy-Warren|work=The Wall Street Journal|issue=2007–06–16|pages=3|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118194482542637175|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904182902/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118194482542637175|archive-date=September 4, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=The Art of Wikigroaning|date=June 5, 2007|first=Johnny "DocEvil"|last=Hendren|access-date=June 17, 2007|publisher=Something Awful|url=https://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070616004859/http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php|archive-date=June 16, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Abrown">{{Cite web|first=Andrew|last=Brown|issue=2007–06–14|title=No amount of collaboration will make the sun orbit the Earth|work=The Guardian|url=http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2101810,00.html|location=London|date=June 14, 2007|access-date=March 27, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070623205917/http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2101810,00.html|archive-date=June 23, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref> A defense of inclusion criteria is that the encyclopedia's longer coverage of pop culture does not deprive the more "worthy" or serious subjects of space.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/duality-of-wikipedia/article1087547/|title=Duality of Wikipedia|author=Ivor Tossell|work=[[The Globe and Mail]]|date=June 15, 2007|access-date=December 25, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121221014630/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/duality-of-wikipedia/article1087547/|archive-date=December 21, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> − − ====Notability of article topics==== − − {{See also|Notability in the English Wikipedia|Criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage}} − [[Notability in Wikipedia|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.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web|author=Kirby, J.P.|date=October 20, 2007|url=http://www.the506.com/ramblings/20071020.html|title=The Problem with Wikipedia|publisher=J.P.'s Random Ramblings [blog]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110809142025/http://the506.com/ramblings/20071020.html|archive-date=August 9, 2011|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> A Wikipedia editor rejected a draft article about [[Donna Strickland]] before she won the [[Nobel Prize in Physics]] in 2018, because no independent sources were given to show that Strickland was sufficiently notable by Wikipedia's standards. Journalists highlighted this as an indicator of the limited visibility of [[women in science]] compared to their male colleagues.<ref>{{Cite web|author1=Corinne Purtill|author2=Zoë Schlanger|url=https://qz.com/1410909/wikipedia-had-rejected-nobel-prize-winner-donna-strickland-because-she-wasnt-famous-enough/|title=Wikipedia had rejected Nobel Prize winner Donna Strickland because she wasn't famous enough|website=[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]|language=en|access-date=2018-11-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181025085329/https://qz.com/1410909/wikipedia-had-rejected-nobel-prize-winner-donna-strickland-because-she-wasnt-famous-enough/|archive-date=October 25, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/2/17929366/nobel-prize-physics-donna-strickland|title=The 2018 Nobel Prize reminds us that women scientists too often go unrecognized|work=Vox|last1=Resnick|first1=Brian|date=October 3, 2018|access-date=2018-10-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181025085321/https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/2/17929366/nobel-prize-physics-donna-strickland|archive-date=October 25, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> − − The [[gender bias on Wikipedia]] is well documented, and has prompted a movement to increase the number of notable women on Wikipedia through the [[Women in Red]] WikiProject. In an article entitled "Seeking Disambiguation", Annalisa Merelli interviewed [[Catalina Cruz]], a candidate for office in Queens, New York in the 2018 election who had the notorious [[SEO]] disadvantage of having the same name as a porn star with a Wikipedia page. Merelli also interviewed the Wikipedia editor who wrote the candidate's ill-fated article (which was deleted, then restored, after she won the election). She described the Articles for Deletion process, and pointed to other candidates who had pages on the English Wikipedia despite never having held office.<ref>{{Cite web | author1 = Annalisa Merelli | title = Seeking Disambiguation: Running for office is hard when you have a porn star's name. This makes it worse | url = https://qz.com/1352568/running-for-office-is-hard-when-you-have-a-porn-stars-name-this-makes-it-worse/ | website = Quartz | date = 18 August 2018 | access-date = 20 November 2018 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181121072709/https://qz.com/1352568/running-for-office-is-hard-when-you-have-a-porn-stars-name-this-makes-it-worse/ | archive-date = November 21, 2018 | url-status = live }}</ref> − − Novelist [[Nicholson Baker]], critical of [[deletionism]], writes: "There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out."<ref name=autogenerated2>{{cite journal|volume=55|issue=4|first=Nicholson|last=Baker|date=March 20, 2008|url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131|title=The Charms of Wikipedia|journal=[[The New York Review of Books]]|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080303001807/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131|archive-date=March 3, 2008|url-status=live}}</ref> − − Journalist [[Timothy Noah]] wrote of his treatment: "Wikipedia's notability policy resembles [[U.S. immigration policy]] before [[9/11]]: stringent rules, spotty enforcement". In the same article, Noah mentions that the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer [[Stacy Schiff]] was not considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry until she wrote her article "Know it All" about the Wikipedia [[Essjay controversy]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Noah|first=Timothy|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/pagenum/2|title=Evicted from Wikipedia|work=Slate|date=February 24, 2007|access-date=March 31, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090621232632/http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/pagenum/2|archive-date=June 21, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref> − − On a more generic level, a 2014 study found no correlation between characteristics of a given Wikipedia page about an academic and the academic's notability as determined by citation counts. The metrics of each Wikipedia page examined included length, number of links to the page from other articles, and number of edits made to the page. This study also found that Wikipedia did not cover notable [[ISI highly cited researcher]]s properly.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Samoilenko|first1=Anna|last2=Yasseri|first2=Taha|title=The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics|journal=EPJ Data Science|date=22 January 2014|volume=3|issue=1|doi=10.1140/epjds20|arxiv=1310.8508|s2cid=4971771}}</ref> − − In 2020, Wikipedia was criticized for the amount of time it took for an article about [[Theresa Greenfield]], a candidate for the [[2020 United States Senate election in Iowa]], to leave Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process and become published. Particularly, the criteria for notability were criticized, with ''The Washington Post'' reporting: "Greenfield is an uniquely tricky case for Wikipedia because she doesn’t have the background that most candidates for major political office typically have (like prior government experience or prominence in business). Even if Wikipedia editors could recognize she was prominent, she had a hard time meeting the official criteria for notability."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Steinsson |first1=Sverrir |title=Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield finally got her Wikipedia page. Here's why it took so long. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/27/senate-candidate-theresa-greenfield-finally-got-her-wikipedia-page-heres-why-it-took-so-long/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=28 October 2020}}</ref> Jimmy Wales also criticized the long process on his talk page.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harrison |first1=Stephen |title=Why Did It Take So Long for the Democratic Senate Candidate in Iowa to Get a Wikipedia Page? |url=https://slate.com/technology/2020/10/theresa-greenfield-iowa-senate-race-wikipedia-page.html |website=Slate |date=October 27, 2020 |publisher=The Slate Group |access-date=28 October 2020}}</ref> − − ====Partisanship==== − {{anchor|Liberal bias}} − {{main|Ideological bias on Wikipedia}} − U.S. commentators, mostly [[Conservatism in the United States|politically conservative]] ones, have suggested that [[Reliability of Wikipedia#Political bias|a politically liberal viewpoint is predominant]] in the [[English Wikipedia]]. [[Andrew Schlafly]] created [[Conservapedia]] because of his perception that Wikipedia contained a [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]] bias.<ref name="Guardian">{{Cite web|last=Johnson|first=Bobbie|url=https://www.theguardian.com/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html|title=Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia|work=The Guardian|date=March 1, 2007|location=London|access-date=March 27, 2010}}</ref> Conservapedia's editors have compiled a list of alleged examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia.<ref name="itwire">{{Cite news|last=Turner|first=Adam|title=Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right|url=http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/seeking-nerdvana/10160-conservapedia-aims-to-set-wikipedia-right|work=IT Wire|date=March 5, 2007|access-date=May 12, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120331030927/http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/seeking-nerdvana/10160-conservapedia-aims-to-set-wikipedia-right|archive-date=March 31, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2007, an article in ''[[The Christian Post]]'' criticised Wikipedia's coverage of [[intelligent design]], saying it was biased and hypocritical.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/design-proponents-accuse-wikipedia-of-bias-hypocrisy-27307/|title='Design' Proponents Accuse Wikipedia of Bias, Hypocrisy|author=Huntington, Doug|date=May 9, 2007|access-date=August 9, 2007|work=[[The Christian Post]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514104736/http://www.christianpost.com/news/design-proponents-accuse-wikipedia-of-bias-hypocrisy-27307/|archive-date=May 14, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Lawrence Solomon]] of ''[[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.<ref>{{cite news|last=Solomon|first=Lawrence|title=Wikipropaganda On Global Warming|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml|work=[[National Review]]|publisher=CBS News|date=July 8, 2008|access-date=July 20, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080828202634/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml|archive-date=August 28, 2008|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 [[U.S. 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 movement]]-endorsed candidates. He also cites criticism by Lawrence Solomon and quotes in full the lead section of Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia as evidence of an underlying bias.<ref name="scarborough">{{cite web|last=Scarborough|first=Rowan|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101207081401/http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39139 |archive-date=December 7, 2010 |url=http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39139|title=Wikipedia Whacks the Right|date=September 27, 2010|access-date=October 3, 2010|work=[[Human Events]]}}</ref> − − In 2006, Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] said: "The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to [[Libertarianism in the United States|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 U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mediashift.org/2006/04/email-debatewales-discusses-political-bias-on-wikipedia111/|title=Email Debate: Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia|author=Glaser, Mark|publisher=[[PBS]] Mediashift|date=April 21, 2006|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151005222950/http://mediashift.org/2006/04/email-debatewales-discusses-political-bias-on-wikipedia111/|archive-date=October 5, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Shane Greenstein]] and Feng Zhu analyzed 2012 era Wikipedia articles on [[U.S. politics]], going back a decade, and wrote a study<ref name="greenstein-and-zhu-2016">{{cite book|last1=Greenstein|first1=Shane|last2=Zhu|first2=Feng|author-link1=Shane Greenstein|title=Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia — Working Paper 15-023|date=March 1, 2016|publisher=Harvard Business School|location=Cambridge, MA, USA| url = http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/15-023_e044cf50-f621-4759-a827-e9a3bf8920c0.pdf|access-date=October 31, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161108213344/http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/15-023_e044cf50-f621-4759-a827-e9a3bf8920c0.pdf|archive-date=November 8, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> arguing the more contributors there were to an article, the less biased the article would be, and that{{snd}} based on a study of frequent collocations{{snd}} fewer articles "leaned Democrat" than was the case in Wikipedia's early years.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Is Wikipedia Biased? Verifying the "neutral point of view"|author1=Greenstein, Shane|author-link1=Shane Greenstein|author2=Zhu, Feng|url=http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/is_wikipedia_biased|date=December 1, 2012|access-date=October 31, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161031151056/http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/is_wikipedia_biased|archive-date=October 31, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Study: Wikipedia perpetuates political bias|author=Khimm, Suzy|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/study-wikipedia-perpetuates-political-bias/2012/06/18/gJQAaA3llV_blog.html|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=June 18, 2012|access-date=May 29, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150205072800/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/study-wikipedia-perpetuates-political-bias/2012/06/18/gJQAaA3llV_blog.html|archive-date=February 5, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> Sorin Adam Matei, a professor at [[Purdue University]], said that "for certain political topics, there's a central-left bias. There's also a slight, when it comes to more political topics, counter-cultural bias. It's not across the board, and it's not for all things."<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Matsakis |first=Louise |url=https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-wikipedia-content-moderation-internet/ |title=Don't Ask Wikipedia to Cure the Internet |magazine=Wired |date=March 16, 2018 |access-date=March 17, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180316230326/https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-wikipedia-content-moderation-internet/ |archive-date=March 16, 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> − − In November 2021, the English Wikipedia's entry for "[[Mass killings under communist regimes]]" was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)|nominated for deletion]], with some editors arguing that it has "a biased '[[anti-Communist]]' point of view", that "it should not resort to 'simplistic presuppositions that events are driven by any specific ideology{{'}}", and that "by combining different elements of research to create a 'synthesis', this constitutes [[original research]] and therefore breaches [[Wikipedia:No original research|Wikipedia rules]]."<ref name="Simpson 2021">{{cite news|last=Simpson|first=Craig|date=November 27, 2021|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/27/wikipedia-may-delete-entry-mass-killings-communism-due-claims/|url-status=live|title=Wikipedia may delete entry on 'mass killings' under Communism due to claims of bias|work=The Telegraph|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211128042842/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/27/wikipedia-may-delete-entry-mass-killings-communism-due-claims/|archive-date=November 28, 2021|issn=0307-1235|access-date=November 28, 2021}}</ref> This was criticized by historian [[Robert Tombs]], who called it "morally indefensible, at least as bad as [[Holocaust denial]], because 'linking ideology and killing' is the very core of why these things are important. I have read the Wikipedia page, and it seems to me careful and balanced. Therefore attempts to remove it can only be ideologically motivated – to [[Whitewashing (censorship)|whitewash]] Communism."<ref name="Simpson 2021"/> Other Wikipedia editors and users on social media opposed the deletion of the article.<ref>{{cite web|last=Chasmar|first=Jessica|date=November 29, 2021|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-page-mass-killings-communist-regimes-deletion-bias|title=Wikipedia page on 'Mass killings under communist regimes' considered for deletion, prompting bias accusations|publisher=Fox News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211130200001/https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-page-mass-killings-communist-regimes-deletion-bias|archive-date=November 30, 2021|access-date=December 2, 2021}}</ref> The article's deletion nomination received considerable attention from conservative media.<ref name=":02">{{Cite web|last=Rauwerda|first=Annie|date=2021-12-31|title=To delete or not to delete? The fate of the most contentious Wikipedia articles|url=https://www.inputmag.com/culture/wikipedia-deleted-articles-nominations-debate|access-date=2022-02-07|website=Input Mag|language=en}}</ref> [[The Heritage Foundation]], an [[Conservatism in the United States|American conservative]] [[think tank]], called the arguments made in favor of deletion "absurd and ahistorical".<ref name=":02" /> On December 1, 2021, a panel of four administrators found that the discussion yielded no consensus, meaning that the status quo was retained, and the article was not deleted.<ref>{{citation|title=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)|date=December 2, 2021|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1058229721|website=English Wikipedia|access-date=December 1, 2021}}</ref> The article's deletion discussion was the largest in Wikipedia's history.<ref name=":02" /> − − ====National or corporate bias==== − In 2008, [[Tim Anderson (political economist)|Tim Anderson]], a senior lecturer in [[political economy]] at the [[University of Sydney]], said 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".<ref>{{cite web|author=Browne, Marcus|date=February 12, 2008|url=http://www.zdnet.com/article/wikipedia-accused-of-us-centric-bias-3039292772/|title=Wikipedia accused of 'US-centric bias'|work=[[ZDNet]] Australia|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151001060420/http://www.zdnet.com/article/wikipedia-accused-of-us-centric-bias-3039292772/|archive-date=October 1, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> − − ====Racial bias==== − {{main|Racial bias on Wikipedia}} − Wikipedia has been charged with having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an underrepresentation of [[people of colour]] as editors.<ref name=philly>{{cite web|last1=Melamed|first1=Samantha|title=Edit-athon aims to put left-out black artists into Wikipedia|url=http://articles.philly.com/2015-03-26/entertainment/60480419_1_new-artists-american-art-philadelphia-museum|website=Philadelphia Daily News|access-date=April 13, 2015|date=March 26, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092911/http://articles.philly.com/2015-03-26/entertainment/60480419_1_new-artists-american-art-philadelphia-museum|archive-date=March 4, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> The President of [[List of Wikimedia chapters|Wikimedia D.C.]], James Hare, noted that "a lot of black history is left out" of Wikipedia, due to articles predominately being written by white editors.<ref name=NYtimes>{{cite web|last1=Smith|first1=Jada|title=Howard University Fills in Wikipedia's Gaps in Black History|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/us/at-howard-a-historically-black-university-filling-in-wikipedias-gaps-in-color.html|website=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=April 13, 2015|date=February 20, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150223151613/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/us/at-howard-a-historically-black-university-filling-in-wikipedias-gaps-in-color.html|archive-date=February 23, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name=BusinessDay>{{cite web|last1=Goko|first1=Colleen|title=Drive launched to 'Africanise' Wikipedia|url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/technology/2013/09/23/drive-launched-to-africanise-wikipedia|website=Business Day|location=South Africa|access-date=April 13, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150706190945/http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/technology/2013/09/23/drive-launched-to-africanise-wikipedia|archive-date=July 6, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> Maira Liriano, of the [[Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture]], has argued that the lack of information regarding [[African diaspora|black history]] on Wikipedia "makes it seem like it's not important."<ref name="Fast Company">{{cite magazine|last1=Cassano|first1=Jay|title=Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?|url=http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041572/black-history-matters-so-why-is-wikipedia-missing-so-much-of-it|magazine=[[Fast Company (magazine)|Fast Company]]|access-date=April 13, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150510040813/http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041572/black-history-matters-so-why-is-wikipedia-missing-so-much-of-it|archive-date=May 10, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Reynosa|first1=Peter|title=Why Don't More Latinos Contribute To Wikipedia?|date=December 3, 2015|url=http://eltecolote.org/content/en/commentary/why-dont-more-latinos-contribute-to-wikipedia/|publisher=El Tecolote|access-date=December 5, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208072102/http://eltecolote.org/content/en/commentary/why-dont-more-latinos-contribute-to-wikipedia/|archive-date=December 8, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2010, an analysis of Wikipedia edits revealed that Asia, as the most populous continent, was represented in only 16.67% of edits. Africa (6.35%) and South America (2.58%) were equally underrepresented.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Livingstone|first=Randall M.|date=2010-11-23|title=Let's Leave the Bias to the Mainstream Media: A Wikipedia Community Fighting for Information Neutrality|url=https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/315|journal=M/C Journal|language=en|volume=13|issue=6|doi=10.5204/mcj.315|issn=1441-2616|doi-access=free}}</ref> − − In 2018, the [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] criticized Wikipedia for being "vulnerable to manipulation by [[neo-Nazis]], [[white nationalists]] and [[racist]] academics seeking a wider audience for extreme views."<ref name="SPLC">{{cite web|title=Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets|url=https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets|author=Justin Ward|date=March 12, 2018|access-date=March 1, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200514042137/https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets|archive-date=May 14, 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> According to the SPLC, "[c]ivil POV-pushers can disrupt the editing process by engaging other users in tedious and frustrating debates or tie up administrators in endless rounds of mediation. Users who fall into this category include racialist academics and members of the human biodiversity, or HBD, blogging community. ... In recent years, the proliferation of far-right online spaces, such as white nationalist forums, alt-right boards and HBD blogs, has created a readymade pool of users that can be recruited to edit on Wikipedia en masse. ... The presence of white nationalists and other far-right extremists on Wikipedia is an ongoing problem that is unlikely to go away in the near future given the rightward political shift in countries where the majority of the site’s users live.<ref name=SPLC/> The SPLC cited the article "[[Race and intelligence]]" as an example of the alt-right influence on Wikipedia, stating that at that time the article presented a "false balance" between fringe racialist views and the "mainstream perspective in psychology."<ref name=SPLC/> − − ====Gender bias and sexism==== − {{main|Gender bias on Wikipedia}} − [[File:Sue Gardner Feb 2013 portrait crop 2.jpg|thumb|left|Former Wikimedia Foundation executive [[Sue Gardner]] has listed reasons offered by some women in "Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia".<ref name=Gardner110219>{{cite web |last=Gardner |first=Sue |date=February 19, 2011 |title=Nine Reasons Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia, In Their Own Words |url=http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/ |type=blog |publisher=suegardner.org |access-date=September 8, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150718103642/http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/ |archive-date=July 18, 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref>]] − − Wikipedia has a longstanding controversy concerning gender bias and sexism.<ref name="nytimes">{{cite web|last=Cassell|first=Justine|title=Editing Wars Behind the Scenes|url=https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/a-culture-of-editing-wars|work=The New York Times|date=February 4, 2011|access-date=February 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170227113525/http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/a-culture-of-editing-wars|archive-date=February 27, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="nytimes_a">{{cite web|author=Cohen, Noam|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1296482628-WKqXsGSoGM9myNIYsHbqYw|title=Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List|work=The New York Times|date=January 30, 2011|access-date=January 31, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121221093834/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1296482628-WKqXsGSoGM9myNIYsHbqYw|archive-date=December 21, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Gleick, James|url=http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/|title=Wikipedia's Women Problem|work=The New York Review of Books|date=April 29, 2013|access-date=November 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105144556/http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/|archive-date=November 5, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Filipacchi, Amanda|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html|title=Wikipedia's Sexism Toward Women Novelists|work=The New York Times|date=April 24, 2013|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151015155304/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html|archive-date=October 15, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Dunn|first=Gaby|url=http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-sexism-problem-sue-gardner/|title=Does Sexism Lurk?|publisher=DailyDot.com|date=May 1, 2013|access-date=November 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140705234201/http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-sexism-problem-sue-gardner/|archive-date=July 5, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/deannazandt/2013/04/26/yes-wikipedia-is-sexist-thats-why-it-needs-you/|title=Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist – That's Why It Needs You|work=[[Forbes]]|date=April 26, 2013|access-date=November 19, 2013|first=Deanna|last=Zandt|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131030112854/http://www.forbes.com/sites/deannazandt/2013/04/26/yes-wikipedia-is-sexist-thats-why-it-needs-you/|archive-date=October 30, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> Gender bias on Wikipedia refers to the finding that between 84 and 91 percent of [[Wikipedia editors]] are male,<ref name=nytimes20jun2015>{{cite web|author1=Andrew Lih|title=Can Wikipedia Survive?|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html|website=The New York Times|access-date=June 21, 2015|location=Washington|date=June 20, 2015|quote=...{{nbsp}}the considerable and often-noted gender gap among Wikipedia editors; in 2011, less than 15 percent were women.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150621032208/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html|archive-date=June 21, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=EditorSurveys>Statistics based on Wikimedia Foundation Wikipedia editor surveys [https://web.archive.org/web/20140812211630/http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEditor_Survey_Report_-_April_2011.pdf&page=1 2011] (Nov. 2010-April 2011) and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editors_Survey_November_2011 November 2011] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160605124632/http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research%3AWikipedia_Editors_Survey_November_2011 |date=June 5, 2016 }} (April - October 2011)</ref> which allegedly leads to [[Systemic bias of Wikipedia|systemic bias]].<ref name=Cohen110130>{{cite news |last=Cohen |first=Noam |date=January 30, 2011 |title=Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=January 31, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110203043906/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html |archive-date=February 3, 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref> Wikipedia has been criticized<ref name="nytimes" /> 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]], former executive director of the Foundation, said that increasing diversity was about making the encyclopedia "as good as it could be". Factors cited as possibly discouraging women from editing included the "obsessive fact-loving realm", associations with the "hard-driving [[Hacker (term)|hacker]] crowd", and the necessity to be "open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists."<ref name="nytimes_a" /> − − In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation set a goal of increasing the proportion of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015.<ref name="nytimes_a" /> 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."<ref name=Huang130811>{{cite news |last=Huang |first=Keira |date=August 11, 2013 |title=Wikipedia fails to bridge gender gap |url=http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1295872/wikipedia-fails-bridge-gender-gap |newspaper=South China Morning Post |access-date=October 27, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160115195821/http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1295872/wikipedia-fails-bridge-gender-gap |archive-date=January 15, 2016 |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="BBC">[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28701772 Wikipedia 'completely failed' to fix gender imbalance] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229004148/http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28701772 |date=December 29, 2016 }}, [[BBC]] interview with [[Jimmy Wales]], August 8, 2014; starting at 45 seconds.</ref> − − Writing in the ''Notices of the American Mathematical Society'', Marie Vitulli states that "mathematicians have had a difficult time when writing biographies of women mathematicians," and she describes the aggressiveness of editors and administrators in deleting such articles.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Vitulli|first=Marie A.|title=Writing women in mathematics into Wikipedia|journal=Notices of the American Mathematical Society|year=2018|volume=65|issue=3|pages=331–332|doi=10.1090/noti1650|doi-access=free}}</ref> − − Criticism was presented on this topic in ''[[The Signpost]]'' ([[WP:THREATENING2MEN]]).<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://adanewmedia.org/2015/04/issue7-peake/ |issue=7 |title=WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Wikipedia |first1=Bryce |last1=Peake |author-link1=User:Thebrycepeake |journal=[[Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology]] |year=2015 |doi=10.7264/N3TH8JZS |access-date=February 18, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200212194427/https://adanewmedia.org/2015/04/issue7-peake/ |archive-date=February 12, 2020 |url-status=live }}</ref> − − ====Institutional bias==== − Wikipedia has been criticized for reflecting the bias and influence of media that are seen as reliable due to their dominance, and for being a site of conflict between entrenched or special institutional interests. Public relations firms and interest lobbies, corporate, political and otherwise, have been accused of working systemically to distort Wikipedia's articles in their respective interests.<ref>{{cite news |title=PR firms pledge 'ethical' use of Wikipedia |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27816379 |access-date=9 November 2021 |work=BBC News |date=12 June 2014}}</ref> − − ====Firearms-related articles==== − Wikipedia has been criticized for issues related to bias in firearms-related articles. According to critics, systematic bias arises from the tendency of the editors most active in maintaining firearms-related articles to also be gun enthusiasts, and firearms-related articles are dominated by technical information while issues of the social impact and regulation of firearms are relegated to separate articles. Communications were facilitated by a "WikiProject," called "WikiProject Firearms", an on-wiki group of editors with a common interest. The alleged pro-gun bias drew increased attention after the [[Stoneman Douglas High School shooting]] in [[Parkland, Florida]], in February 2018. The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] defended itself from allegations of being host to opinion-influencing campaigns of pro-gun groups, saying that the contents are always being updated and improved.<ref>{{cite web | first=Jacob |last=Parakilas |title = Wikipedia, neutrality and guns | publisher=Action on Armed Violence | url = https://aoav.org.uk/2014/wikipedia-neutrality-guns/ | date = March 18, 2014 | quote = But if a reader had started on the page for either of Breivik’s guns, the Ruger or the Glock, they would not know this. That reader would find a great deal of technical information about the weapons in question – their weights, lengths, cartridges, rates of fire, magazine capacities, muzzle velocities – and detailed descriptions of their designs, all illustrated with abundant photographs and diagrams. | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170914184731/http://aoav.org.uk/2014/wikipedia-neutrality-guns/ | archive-date = September 14, 2017 | access-date = March 7, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=The adolescent cult of the AR-15 |first=Matthew |last=Walther |url=https://theweek.com/articles/735590/adolescent-cult-ar15 |access-date=March 23, 2018 |date=November 7, 2017 |magazine=[[The Week]] |quote=What do the perpetrators of the massacres at Sandy Hook, at Aurora, at Orlando, and at Sutherland Springs have in common? They were all men under 30 and they all used versions of the same kind of firearm, the AR-15, the semi-automatic version of the military's M-16 and the bestselling gun in America. It might be difficult to make this connection because as I write this, the section on the use of AR-15s in mass killings has been deleted from Wikipedia{{nbsp}}... |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324101622/http://theweek.com/articles/735590/adolescent-cult-ar15 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=How gun buffs took over Wikipedia's AR-15 page; After Parkland, gun control information was strangely hard to find |first=Russell |last=Brandom |date=March 6, 2018 |access-date=March 9, 2018 |url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting |work=[[The Verge]] |publisher=[[Vox Media]] |quote=But on Wikipedia, as in the real world, the users with the deepest technical knowledge of firearms are also the most fervent gun owners and the most hostile to gun control. For critics, that’s led to a persistent pro-gun bias on the web’s leading source of neutral information at a time when the gun control debate is more heated than ever. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180309205013/https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting |archive-date=March 9, 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Pro-gun Wikipedia users spark fierce editing war; Editors against tighter controls on firearms have been purging information that shows weapons such as AR-15s in a bad light |date=March 7, 2018 |access-date=March 9, 2018 |quote=The bias in the articles was not explicit, but structural. The project did not insert false information into the articles, but instead purged information that showed the weapons in a bad light - dismissing it as "off topic". |url=https://news.sky.com/story/pro-gun-wikipedia-users-spark-fierce-editing-war-11279640 |agency=[[Sky News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180310200734/https://news.sky.com/story/pro-gun-wikipedia-users-spark-fierce-editing-war-11279640 |archive-date=March 10, 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Pro-gun Group Edited AR-15 Wikipedia Page to Hide Mass Shootings |first=David |last=Brennan |date=March 7, 2018 |access-date=March 9, 2018 |url=http://www.newsweek.com/pro-gun-group-edited-ar-15-wikipedia-page-hide-mass-shootings-834639 |magazine=[[Newsweek]] |quote=A group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors tried to hide the true number of mass shootings associated with the AR-15 rifle in the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180308211535/http://www.newsweek.com/pro-gun-group-edited-ar-15-wikipedia-page-hide-mass-shootings-834639 |archive-date=March 8, 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=A gun group has been editing Wikipedia's firearms pages to sanitize mass shootings, for months |first=Walter |last=Einenkel |date=March 8, 2018 |access-date=March 9, 2018 |url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-gun-group-edited-ar-160258959.html |agency=[[Newsweek]] |publisher=[[Yahoo! News]] |quote=The Wikimedia Foundation has defended itself and Wikipedia from allegations of being host to these kinds of influence campaigns, arguing that the encyclopaedia is constantly being updated and improved. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180310074625/https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-gun-group-edited-ar-160258959.html |archive-date=March 10, 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Gun Enthusiasts Are Waging a War of Attrition on Wikipedia, and It Looks Like They're Winning |first=Omer |last=Benjakob |date=March 18, 2018 |access-date=March 23, 2018 |url=https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/how-firearm-enthusiasts-control-what-you-read-about-guns-on-wikipedia-1.5910470 |newspaper=[[Haaretz]] |quote=According to The Verge report and an independent follow-up by Haaretz, the top editors of the Colt page are pro-gun enthusiasts who skewed the information presented on it and are also involved in editing other articles on Wikipedia – for example, the much more general article, titled AR 15 – to push their worldview{{nbsp}}... Through countless exhausting debates, this small group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors – linked together through Wikipedia’s Firearms project (or “WikiProject: Firearms,” mentioned below) – has managed to control almost completely the discourse around the rifle, predominantly by making sure any potentially negative details about it be excluded from the original Colt AR-15 article. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324162222/https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/how-firearm-enthusiasts-control-what-you-read-about-guns-on-wikipedia-1.5910470 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> − − ====Skeptical bias==== − − In 2014, supporters of holistic healing and [[energy psychology]] began a [[Change.org]] petition asking for "true scientific discourse" on Wikipedia, complaining that "much of the information [on Wikipedia] related to holistic approaches to healing is biased, misleading, out-of-date, or just plain wrong". In response, Jimmy Wales said Wikipedia covers only works that are published in respectable scientific journals.<ref>{{cite magazine|author=Sifferlin, Alexandra|date=March 25, 2014|url=http://time.com/36938/wikipedia-founder-sticks-it-to-lunatic-holistic-healers/|title=Wikipedia Founder Sticks It To 'Lunatic' Holistic Healers|magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|access-date=October 22, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141014030030/http://time.com/36938/wikipedia-founder-sticks-it-to-lunatic-holistic-healers/|archive-date=October 14, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Newman, Lily Hay|date=March 27, 2014|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/27/jimmy_wales_denies_petition_from_advocates_of_holistic_healing_about_wikipedia.html|title=Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic Healing Coverage|work=Slate|access-date=October 22, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625002844/http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/27/jimmy_wales_denies_petition_from_advocates_of_holistic_healing_about_wikipedia.html|archive-date=June 25, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> − − Wikipedia has been accused of being biased against views outside of the scientific mainstream due to influence from the [[skeptical movement]].<ref name="Brian Martin"/> Social scientist [[Brian Martin (social scientist)|Brian Martin]] examined the influence of skeptics on Wikipedia by looking for parallels between Wikipedia entries and characteristic techniques used by skeptics, finding that the result "does not prove that Skeptics are shaping Wikipedia but is compatible with that possibility."<ref name="Brian Martin"/> − − ===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 pornography|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/09/Wikipedia_attacked_over_porn_pages |title=Wikipedia attacked over porn pages |publisher=Livenews.com.au |access-date=March 31, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080917145158/http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/09/Wikipedia_attacked_over_porn_pages |archive-date=September 17, 2008 }}</ref> − − {{anchor|Wikipe-tan}}The Wikipedia article ''[[Virgin Killer]]''—a 1976 album from German heavy metal band [[Scorpions (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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803188.html|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=December 10, 2008|first=JR|last=Raphael|title=Wikipedia Censorship Sparks Free Speech Debate|access-date=May 10, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110429004044/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803188.html|archive-date=April 29, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> Seth Finkelstein writing for ''[[The Guardian]]'' argues that the debate over the album cover masks a structural lack of accountability on Wikipedia, in particular when it comes to sexual content.<ref name="Finkelstein">{{citation|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/dec/18/wikipedia-jimmy-wales|title=Sting in the Scorpions tale is the exposure of Wiki's weakness|author=Seth Finkelstein|date=December 18, 2008|access-date=May 23, 2018|work=The Guardian|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131207094702/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/dec/18/wikipedia-jimmy-wales|archive-date=December 7, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> For example, the deletion by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales of images of [[lolicon]] versions of the character [[Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan|Wikipe-tan]] created a minor controversy on the topic. The deletion was taken as endorsement of the non-lolicon images of Wikipe-tan, which Wales later had to explicitly deny: "I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have."<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/future/technology/216543-manga-avatars-windows|title=Meet the manga avatars of your favorite tech platforms|author1=Dorothy Howard|author2-link=The Otaku Encyclopedia|author2=Patrick W. Galbraith|publisher=Hopes&Fears|date=November 20, 2015|access-date=May 23, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523173205/http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/future/technology/216543-manga-avatars-windows|archive-date=May 23, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Finkelstein sees Wikipedia as composed of [[fiefdoms]], which makes it difficult for the Wikipedia community to deal with such issues, and sometimes necessitates top-down intervention.<ref name="Finkelstein" /> − − ===Exposure to vandals=== − {{main|Vandalism on Wikipedia}} − [[File:Wikipedia vandalism.svg|thumb|[[Vandalism]] of a Wikipedia article]] − − As an online encyclopedia which almost anyone can edit, Wikipedia has had problems with vandalism of articles, which range from blanking articles to inserting profanities, [[hoax]]es, or nonsense. Wikipedia has a range of tools available to [[Wikipedia community|users]] and [[Wikipedia administrators|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."<ref>{{cite conference|url=http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf|conference=CHI '04 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM)|title=Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with ''history flow'' Visualizations|first1=Fernanda B.|last1=Viégas|first2=Martin|last2=Wattenberg|first3=Kushal|last3=Dave|publisher=ACM|isbn=1-58113-702-8|doi=10.1145/985692.985765|date=April 24–29, 2004|location=Vienna, Austria|access-date=September 1, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181111090534/http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf|archive-date=November 11, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 conference paper estimated that 1 in 271 articles had some "damaged" content. Most of the damage involved nonsense; 20% involved actual misinformation. It reported that 42% of damage gets repaired before any reader clicked on the article, and 80% before 30 people did so.<ref name="mngrp07">{{cite conference|first1=Reid|last1=Priedhorsky|first2=Jilin|last2=Chen|first3=Shyong (Tony) K.|last3=Lam|first4=Katherine|last4=Panciera|author-link5=Loren Terveen|first5=Loren|last5=Terveen|author-link6=John T. Riedl|first6=John|last6=Riedl|title=Creating, destroying, and restoring value in wikipedia|work=Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work|publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery|ACM]]|date=November 4, 2007|location=Sanibel Island, Florida, USA | isbn=978-1-59593-845-9|doi=10.1145/1316624.1316663}} [http://smena-online.ru/sites/default/files/u7/group282-priedhorsky.pdf online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191122012010/http://smena-online.ru/sites/default/files/u7/group282-priedhorsky.pdf |date=November 22, 2019 }}</ref> − − ===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. According to [[James C. Donnelly, Jr.|James Donnelly]] and Jenifer Haeckl, "the Internet has created conflicts between personal privacy, commercial interests and the interests of society at large".<ref name=DH>{{cite web|url=http://www.modl.com/images/library/114.html |title=Privacy and Security on the Internet: What Rights, What Remedies? |date=April 12, 2001 |first1=James |last1=Donnelly |first2=Jenifer |last2=Haeckl |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081201135317/http://www.modl.com/images/library/114.html |archive-date=December 1, 2008 }}</ref> 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.<ref name=DH /> − − 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.<ref>See [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/examples-public-and-private-figures "Public and Private Figures"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160519175833/http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/examples-public-and-private-figures |date=May 19, 2016 }} by the Digital Media Law Project for the legal distinction.</ref> It is somewhat of a battle between the right to be anonymous in [[cyberspace]] and the right to be anonymous in [[real life]] ("[[meatspace]]"). A particular problem occurs in the case of an individual who is relatively unimportant and for whom there exists a Wikipedia page against their wishes.{{Citation needed|date=July 2020}} − − 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."<ref name="agfrancpresse">{{cite web|title=Wikipedia Becomes Internet Force, Faces Crisis|url=http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Wikipedia_Becomes_Internet_Force__Faces_Crisis.html|author=Lever, Rob|agency=Agence France-Presse (AFP)|date=December 11, 2005|access-date=December 26, 2007|archive-url=https://archive.today/20071006093627/http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Wikipedia_Becomes_Internet_Force__Faces_Crisis.html|archive-date=October 6, 2007|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> − − 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 {{mono|.de}} domain ({{mono|http://www.wikipedia.de/}}) may no longer redirect to the encyclopedia's servers in Florida at {{mono|http://de.wikipedia.org}} 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. The next month 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69391|title=Court overturns temporary restraining order against Wikimedia Deutschland|work=[[Heinz Heise]]|date=February 9, 2006|access-date=January 31, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070208212530/http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69391|archive-date=February 8, 2007}}</ref> − − ==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. [[Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/feb/09/wikipedia-wales-deletion-row|date=February 9, 2009|title=Jimmy Wales in drive-by shooting of Wikipedia|work=The Guardian|author=Arthur, Charles|access-date=August 31, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151006000430/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/feb/09/wikipedia-wales-deletion-row|archive-date=October 6, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/technology/insider-editing-at-wikipedia.html|title=Insider Editing at Wikipedia|work=The New York Times|author=Mitchell, Dan|date=December 24, 2005|access-date=August 31, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150529192425/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/technology/insider-editing-at-wikipedia.html|archive-date=May 29, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.infopackets.com/news/internet/2007/20070404_wikipedia_co_founder_creates_competing_site.htm|title=Wikipedia Co-Founder Creates Competing Site|publisher=Infopackets.com|date=April 4, 2007|access-date=November 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105051202/http://www.infopackets.com/news/internet/2007/20070404_wikipedia_co_founder_creates_competing_site.htm|archive-date=November 5, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17796811/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/wikipedia-co-founder-seeks-start-over/|author=Bergstein, Brian|title=Building an alternative to Wikipedia|work=NBC News|date=March 26, 2007|access-date=November 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105045847/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17796811/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/wikipedia-co-founder-seeks-start-over/|archive-date=November 5, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.yahoo.com/wikipedia-vs-citizendiumorg-art-competing-with-286257.html |title=Wikipedia Vs Citizendium.org: The Art of Competing with Oneself |publisher=[[Yahoo! Voices]] |date=April 17, 2007 |access-date=November 19, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140728205837/http://voices.yahoo.com/wikipedia-vs-citizendiumorg-art-competing-with-286257.html |archive-date=July 28, 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/03/28/wikipedia-co-founder-unveils-rival-free-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia Co-Founder Unveils Rival Free Encyclopedia|publisher=[[Fox News Channel]]|agency=Associated Press|date=March 28, 2007|access-date=November 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140715091109/http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/03/28/wikipedia-co-founder-unveils-rival-free-encyclopedia/|archive-date=July 15, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="USAToday" /> − − ===Conflict of interest cases=== − {{Main|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."<ref>{{cite web|author=Wood, Mike|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-marketing-2013-1|title=I Get Paid To Edit Wikipedia For Leading Companies|work=Business Insider|date=January 9, 2013|access-date=November 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131123141332/http://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-marketing-2013-1|archive-date=November 23, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> − − {{anchor|Allegations of biased treatment}} − − ===Unfair treatment of women=== − In 2015, ''[[The Atlantic]]'' published a story by Emma Paling about a contributor who was able to obtain no relief from the [[Arbitration Committee]] for off-site harassment. Paling quotes a then-sitting Arbitrator speaking about bias against women on the Arbitration Committee.<ref name=Paling2015>{{cite news|work=[[The Atlantic]]|title=How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women|date=October 21, 2015|access-date=October 21, 2015|archive-date=October 21, 2015|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151021174625/http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/|first=Emma|last=Paling}}</ref> − − In the online magazine ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'', [[David Auerbach]] criticized the Arbitration Committee's decision to block a woman indefinitely without simultaneously blocking her "chief antagonists" in the December 2014 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force|Gender Gap Task Force]] case. He mentions his own experience with what he calls "the unblockables"{{Em dash}}abrasive editors who can get away with complaints against them because there are enough supporters, and that he had observed a "general indifference or even hostility to outside opinion" on the English Wikipedia. Auerbach considers the systematic defense of vulgar language use by insiders as a symptom of the toxicity he describes.<ref name=Auerbach>{{cite web|last=Auerbach|first=David|authorlink=David Auerbach|title=Encyclopedia Frown: Wikipedia is amazing. But it's become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess.|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html|work=Slate|date=December 11, 2014|access-date=December 17, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141216221958/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html|archive-date=December 16, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> − − {{anchor|Arbitrationgate}}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.<ref>{{cite web|last=Hern|first=Alex|date=January 23, 2015|title=Wikipedia votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy|work=The Guardian|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150826013256/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy|archive-date=August 26, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="slate ouroboros">{{Cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.single.html|title=The Wikipedia Ouroboros|first=David|last=Auerbach|date=February 5, 2015|access-date=February 5, 2015|work=Slate|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150205172028/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.single.html|archive-date=February 5, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> Other commentators, including from ''[[Gawker]]'' and ''[[ThinkProgress]]'', provided additional analysis while sourcing from ''The Guardian''{{'}}s story.<ref name="slate ouroboros"/><ref>{{cite web|first=Maryam|last=Louise|date=January 25, 2015|title=GamerGate Wikipedia Ruling Bans Harassed Feminist Editors, Outrage Ensues|url=http://www.inquisitr.com/1786642/gamergate-wikipedia-ruling-bans-harassed-feminist-editors-outrage-ensues-videos|publisher=Inquisitr.com|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904033357/http://www.inquisitr.com/1786642/gamergate-wikipedia-ruling-bans-harassed-feminist-editors-outrage-ensues-videos/|archive-date=September 4, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Williams|first=Lauren|date=January 23, 2015|title=Wikipedia Wants To Ban Feminists From Editing GamerGate Articles|url=http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/26/3615559/wikipedia-wants-ban-feminist-editors-gamergate-articles/|website=[[Think Progress]]|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310130924/http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/26/3615559/wikipedia-wants-ban-feminist-editors-gamergate-articles/|archive-date=March 10, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Bennett|first=Alanna|date=January 24, 2015|title=Wikipedia Has Banned Five Feminist Editors From Gamergate Articles & More|url=http://www.themarysue.com/wikipedia-gamergate/|publisher=The Mary Sue|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150812074518/http://www.themarysue.com/wikipedia-gamergate/|archive-date=August 12, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Cush |first=Andy |date=January 23, 2015 |title=Wikipedia Purged a Group of Feminist Editors Because of Gamergate |url=http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331 |publisher=[[Gawker]] |access-date=August 30, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150913114936/http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331 |archive-date=September 13, 2015 }}</ref> Reports in ''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[Slate (magazine)|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.<ref name="slate ouroboros"/><ref name=washpostgamer>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/29/gamergate-wikipedia-and-the-limits-of-human-knowledge/|title=Gamergate, Wikipedia and the limits of 'human knowledge'|first=Caitlin|last=Dewey|date=January 29, 2015|access-date=January 29, 2015|newspaper=The Washington Post|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150129195454/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/29/gamergate-wikipedia-and-the-limits-of-human-knowledge/|archive-date=January 29, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=MichaelSocial>{{cite web|url=http://socialtextjournal.org/affective-labor-of-wikipedia-gamergate/|title=The Affective Labor of Wikipedia: GamerGate, Harassment, and Peer Production|date=February 1, 2015|access-date=February 21, 2015|work=[[Social Text]]|first=Michael|last=Mandiberg|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150222020741/http://socialtextjournal.org/affective-labor-of-wikipedia-gamergate/|archive-date=February 22, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 {{Non-sequitur | text = "Five Horsemen" | date = July 2020 | reason = Not mentioned before in the text. Unclear what it is supposed to signify in this context. }} were among the editors punished, with one of them being the sole editor banned due to this case.<ref>{{cite web|last=Cush |first=Andy |title=The Gamergate Decision Shows Exactly What's Broken About Wikipedia |url=http://internet.gawker.com/the-gamergate-decision-shows-exactly-whats-broken-about-1682639327 |access-date=February 17, 2015 |publisher=Gawker.com |date=January 30, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150217201403/http://internet.gawker.com/the-gamergate-decision-shows-exactly-whats-broken-about-1682639327 |archive-date=February 17, 2015 }}</ref> An article called "ArbitrationGate" regarding this situation was created (and quickly deleted) on Wikipedia, while ''The Guardian'' later issued a correction to their article.<ref name="slate ouroboros"/> 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 [having] 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".<ref name=washpostgamer/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/01/27/civility-wikipedia-gamergate/|title=Civility, Wikipedia, and the conversation on Gamergate|date=January 27, 2015|access-date=January 28, 2015|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|first=Philippe|last=Beaudette|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150131162929/http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/01/27/civility-wikipedia-gamergate/|archive-date=January 31, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Michael Mandiberg]], writing in ''[[Social Text]]'', remained unconvinced.<ref name=MichaelSocial/> − − === Croatian Wikipedia === − {{see also|Croatian Wikipedia}} − − On the Croatian Wikipedia, a group of administrators were criticized for blocking Wikipedians in favor of [[LGBT rights]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.novilist.hr/Vijesti/Hrvatska/Jovanovic-Djeco-ne-baratajte-hrvatskom-Wikipedijom-jer-su-sadrzaji-falsificirani |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131116214408/http://www.novilist.hr/Vijesti/Hrvatska/Jovanovic-Djeco-ne-baratajte-hrvatskom-Wikipedijom-jer-su-sadrzaji-falsificirani |url-status=dead |archive-date=2013-11-16 |access-date=9 June 2021}}</ref><ref>[http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trolls-hijack-wikipedia-turn-articles-against-gays170913 Trolls hijack Wikipedia to turn articles against gays]</ref><ref>[http://www.dailydot.com/politics/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/ How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history]</ref> In an interview given to [[Index.hr]], [[Robert Kurelić]], a professor of history at the [[Juraj Dobrila University of Pula]], has commented that "the Croatian Wikipedia is only a tool used by its administrators to promote their own political agendas, giving false and distorted facts".<ref name="index130903">{{cite web|url=http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/jovanoviceva-poruka-ucenicima-i-studentima-ne-koristite-hrvatsku-wikipediju/700302.aspx|title=Jovanovićeva poruka učenicima i studentima: Ne koristite hrvatsku Wikipediju!|publisher=[[Index.hr]]|language=hr|trans-title=Jovanović's message to the pupils and students: Don't use Croatian Wikipedia!|access-date=13 September 2013}}</ref> As two particularly prominent examples he listed the Croatian Wikipedia's coverage of [[Istrianism]] (a [[Regionalism (politics)|regionalist]] movement in [[Istria]], a region mostly located in Croatia), defined as a "movement fabricated to reduce the number of Croats", and ''antifašizam'' ([[anti-fascism]]), which according to him is defined as the opposite of what it really means.<ref name="index130903" /> Kurelić further advised "that it would be good if a larger number of people got engaged and started writing on Wikipedia", because "administrators want to exploit high-school and university students, the most common users of Wikipedia, to change their opinions and attitudes, which presents a serious issue".<ref name="index130903"/> − − In 2013, Croatia's [[Ministry of Science and Education (Croatia)|Minister of Science, Education and Sports]] at the time, [[Željko Jovanović (politician)|Željko Jovanović]], called for pupils and students in Croatia to avoid using the Croatian Wikipedia.<ref name="novi">{{cite web|url=http://www.novilist.hr/Vijesti/Hrvatska/Jovanovic-Djeco-ne-baratajte-hrvatskom-Wikipedijom-jer-su-sadrzaji-falsificirani|title=Jovanović: Djeco, ne baratajte hrvatskom Wikipedijom jer su sadržaji falsificirani|publisher=[[Novi list]]|language=hr|trans-title=Jovanović: "Children, do not use the Croatian Wikipedia because its contents are forgeries"|access-date=13 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190901073813/http://www.novilist.hr/Vijesti/Hrvatska/Jovanovic-Djeco-ne-baratajte-hrvatskom-Wikipedijom-jer-su-sadrzaji-falsificirani|archive-date=September 1, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> In an interview given to ''[[Novi list]]'', Jovanović said that <blockquote>"the idea of openness and relevance as a knowledge source that Wikipedia could and should represent has been completely discredited – which, for certain, has never been the goal of Wikipedia's creators nor the huge number of people around the world who share their knowledge and time using that medium. Croatian pupils and students have been wronged by this, so we have to warn them, unfortunately, that a large part of the content of the Croatian version of Wikipedia is not only dubious but also [contains] obvious forgeries, and therefore we invite them to use more reliable sources of information, which include [[Wikipedia in English]] and in other major languages of the world."<ref name="novi" /> </blockquote>Jovanović has also commented on the Croatian Wikipedia editors – calling them a "minority group that has usurped the right to edit the Croatian-language Wikipedia".<ref name="novi" /> − − ===Lack of verifiable identities=== − ====Scandals involving administrators and arbitrators==== − <!-- Boothroyd part copied from List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2009 --> − [[David Boothroyd]], a Wikipedia editor and a [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] ([[United Kingdom]]) member, created controversy in 2009, when [[Wikipedia Review]] contributor "Tarantino" discovered that he committed [[Sockpuppet (Internet)|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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=Sam+Blacketer&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype=|title=User Rights Log|website=Wikipedia}}</ref> Later in 2007, Boothroyd's Sam Blacketer account became part of the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-12-26/Arbitration_series|title=Arbitration Series|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171012014718/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-12-26/Arbitration_series|archive-date=October 12, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> Under the Sam Blacketer account, Boothroyd edited many articles related to United Kingdom politics, including that of rival [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] leader [[David Cameron]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/|title=Sockpuppeting British politico resigns from Wikisupremecourt|last=Metz|first=Cade|date=May 26, 2009|work=The Register|access-date=May 27, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090529060909/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/|archive-date=May 29, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref> Boothroyd then resigned as an administrator and as an arbitrator.<ref>{{cite web|title=Meta: Steward requests/Permissions|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=1518617&oldid=1516965|website=Meta-Wiki|access-date=August 15, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160115195821/https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&diff=1518617&oldid=1516965|archive-date=January 15, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-sentinel-quits-after-using-alias-to-alter-entries-1698762.html|title=Wikipedia 'sentinel' quits after using alias to alter entries|work=The Independent|date=June 7, 2009|access-date=March 31, 2010|first1=Jamie|last1=Welham|first2=Nina|last2=Lakhani|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100318071440/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-sentinel-quits-after-using-alias-to-alter-entries-1698762.html|archive-date=March 18, 2010|url-status=live}}</ref> − − ====Essjay controversy==== − {{Main|Essjay controversy}} − [[File:Essjay.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|left|Essjay]] − In July 2006, ''[[The New Yorker]]'' ran a feature by [[Stacy Schiff]] about "a highly credentialed Wikipedia editor".<ref name="ny2006" /> The initial version of the article included an interview with a [[Administrators (Wikipedia)|Wikipedia administrator]] using the pseudonym Essjay, who described himself as a [[tenure]]d professor of theology.<ref name="guardian">{{cite news|url=http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html|title=Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive|access-date=August 1, 2007|last=Finkelstein|first=Seth|date=March 8, 2007|work=The Guardian|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070329052204/http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html|archive-date=March 29, 2007|url-status=live}} 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."</ref> Essjay's Wikipedia user page, now removed, said the following: − − <blockquote> − 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=User:Essjay |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay#Professional_Life |website=Wikipedia |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060225194153/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay#Professional_Life |archive-date=25 February 2006}}</ref> − </blockquote> − − Essjay also said he held four academic degrees: Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.), Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.), Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.), 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";<ref name="ny2006" /> on one occasion he was called in to give some "expert testimony" on the status of [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|Mary]] in the [[Roman Catholic Church]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&oldid=15002257|title=Talk:Five solas [archived version]|publisher=Wikipedia.org|date=June 11, 2005|access-date=June 18, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160216105246/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&oldid=15002257|archive-date=February 16, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 [[Arbitration Committee|Wikipedia Arbitration Committee]], a group with powers to issue binding rulings in disputes relating to Wikipedia.<ref name="Orlowski">{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02/wikipedia_fraud/|title=Bogus Wikipedia Prof. was blessed then promoted: The Counterfactual History Man|access-date=March 18, 2007|last=Orlowski|first=Andrew|author-link=Andrew Orlowski|date=March 2, 2007|work=The Register|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070304064754/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02/wikipedia_fraud/|archive-date=March 4, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref> − − [[File:L Sanger.jpg|thumb|upright=0.75|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 [[Dropping out|dropout]] from [[Kentucky]] with no advanced degrees and no teaching experience.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm|title=Fake professor in Wikipedia storm|work=BBC News|date=March 6, 2007|access-date=March 8, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070308090712/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm|archive-date=March 8, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref> 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]], [[History of Wikipedia#Conceptual origins|co-founder]]<ref name="Sanger Springs">{{cite news|first=Brian|last=Bergstein|title=Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500570.html|newspaper=The Washington Post|agency=Associated Press|date=March 25, 2007|access-date=March 26, 2007|quote=The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. 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.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121112163154/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500570.html|archive-date=November 12, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="sanger-NYTimes">{{cite news|title=Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html|work=The New York Times|date=September 20, 2001|access-date=August 30, 2015|first=Peter|last=Meyers|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090415232001/http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html|archive-date=April 15, 2009|url-status=live}} "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.</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=4|title=Bias, sabotage haunt Wikipedia's free world|author=Mehegan, David|work=[[Boston Globe]]|date=February 12, 2006|access-date=July 30, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060512093417/http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=4|archive-date=May 12, 2006|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref name="cz">{{cite web|url=http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/01/wikipedia-firmly-supports-your-right-to-identity-fraud/ |title=Wikipedia firmly supports your right to identity fraud |access-date=March 2, 2007 |publisher=Citizendium Blog |date=March 1, 2007 |author=Sanger, Larry |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070304065029/http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/01/wikipedia-firmly-supports-your-right-to-identity-fraud/ |archive-date=March 4, 2007 }}</ref> − − 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 Wikipedia community."<ref>{{cite web|title=User talk:Jimbo Wales [archived version]|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=112270687|publisher=Wikipedia.org|access-date=September 1, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160216105250/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=112270687|archive-date=February 16, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref name="sanger2">{{cite web|url=http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/03/jimmy-wales-latest-response-on-the-essjay-situation/ |title=Jimmy Wales' latest response on the Essjay situation |access-date=March 3, 2007 |publisher=Citizendium Blog |date=March 3, 2007 |author=Sanger, Larry |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070306065044/http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/03/jimmy-wales-latest-response-on-the-essjay-situation/ |archive-date=March 6, 2007 }}</ref> − − On March 4, Essjay wrote on his user page that he was leaving Wikipedia, and he also resigned his position with Wikia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wikia.com/wiki/User:Essjay|title=Essjay's Wikia user page|publisher=Wikia.com|access-date=September 19, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071106120606/http://www.wikia.com/wiki/User:Essjay|archive-date=November 6, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref> A subsequent article in ''[[The Courier-Journal]]'' ([[Louisville, Kentucky|Louisville]]) suggested that the new [[résumé]] he had posted at his Wikia page was exaggerated.<ref>{{cite web|first=Andrew|last=Wolfson|title=Wikipedia editor who posed as professor is Ky. dropout: Man resigns post after controversy|url=http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/NEWS01/703060446/1008|work=[[Louisville Courier-Journal]]|date=March 6, 2007|access-date=March 7, 2007}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} [http://www.kctcs.net/todaysnews/index.cfm?tn_date=2007-03-06#9315 Alt URL] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930193712/http://www.kctcs.net/todaysnews/index.cfm?tn_date=2007-03-06#9315 |date=September 30, 2007 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="WalesApology">{{Cite news|last=Wales|first=Jimmy|author-link=Jimmy Wales|newspaper=The New Yorker|date=March 19, 2007|title=Making amends|page=24}}</ref> − − 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: − − <blockquote> − 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.<ref name=Essjay-controversy>{{cite news|first=Noam|last=Cohen|title=A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=f79cc41f899c2de6&ex=1330750800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss|work=The New York Times|date=March 5, 2007|access-date=March 5, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013192545/http://nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=f79cc41f899c2de6&ex=1330750800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss|archive-date=October 13, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref> − </blockquote> − − The Essjay incident received extensive media coverage, including a national United States television broadcast on [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC's]] ''[[World News with Charles Gibson]]''{{thinsp}}<ref>{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2929512|title=[ABC News broadcast on Essjay]|work=ABC News|access-date=March 8, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070310034801/http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2929512|archive-date=March 10, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref> and the March 7, 2007, [[Associated Press]] story.<ref>{{Cite news|title=After flap over phony professor, Wikipedia wants some writers to share real names|url=https://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-03-07-wikipedia-credentials_N.htm|agency=Associated Press|first=Brian|last=Bergstein|date=March 7, 2007|work=USA Today|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090516200320/http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-03-07-wikipedia-credentials_N.htm|archive-date=May 16, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref> The controversy has led to a proposal that users who say they possess academic qualifications should have to provide evidence before citing them in Wikipedia content disputes.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/129702/article.html|title=Wikipedia Founder Addresses User Credentials|first=Martyn|last=Williams|agency=IDG News Service|work=PC World|date=March 9, 2007|access-date=August 31, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924084707/http://www.pcworld.com/article/129702/article.html|archive-date=September 24, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> The proposal was not accepted.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:There_is_no_credential_policy&oldid=182227955|title=Wikipedia's credentials policy [archived version]|publisher=Wikipedia.org|date=January 5, 2008|access-date=August 31, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160115195821/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:There_is_no_credential_policy&oldid=182227955|archive-date=January 15, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> − − ====Anonymity==== − Wikipedia has been criticised for allowing editors to contribute anonymously (without a registered account and using an auto-generated [[IP address|IP]]-labeled account) or pseudonymously (using a registered account), with critics saying that this leads to a lack of accountability.<ref name="USAToday">{{cite web|last=Bergstein|first=Brian|title=Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm|website=USA Today|date=March 25, 2007|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121016222037/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm|archive-date=October 16, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="SFWeekly">{{cite news|last=Spicuzza|first=Mary|title=Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco|url=http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/Content?oid=2166325|newspaper=[[SF Weekly]]|page=2|date=February 13, 2008|access-date=August 30, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150911025447/http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/Content?oid=2166325|archive-date=September 11, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> This also sometimes leads to uncivil conduct in debates between Wikipedians.<ref name="USAToday" /><ref name="SFWeekly" /> For privacy reasons, Wikipedia forbids editors to reveal information about an anonymous editor on Wikipedia.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:OUTING|title=Privacy|website=Wikipedia}}</ref> − − ==Criticism of process== − ===Level of debate, edit wars and harassment=== − {{Further|Academic studies about Wikipedia#Power plays}} − − The standard of debate on Wikipedia has been called into question by people 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.<ref name=cult>{{cite web|url=http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/insideit/story/0,,1667345,00.html|title=Log on and join in, but beware the web cults|last=Arthur|first=Charles|date=December 14, 2005|access-date=July 14, 2006|work=The Guardian|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060503042626/http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/insideit/story/0,,1667345,00.html|archive-date=May 3, 2006|url-status=live}}</ref> An academic study of Wikipedia articles found that the level of debate among Wikipedia editors on controversial topics often degenerated into counterproductive squabbling: − − <blockquote>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{{nbsp}}... 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, [or] completely disallow or limit and coordinate the types and sources of edits.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bstvilia/papers/stvilia_wikipedia_infoWork_p.pdf |title=Information Quality Work Organization in Wikipedia |first1=Besiki |last1=Stvilla |first2=Michael |last2=Twidale |first3=Linda |last3=Smith |first4=Les |last4=Gasser |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |date=February 21, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070820183345/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bstvilia/papers/stvilia_wikipedia_infoWork_p.pdf |archive-date=August 20, 2007 }} ["Information Quality Work Organization in Wikipedia" at Wiley Online Library]{{subscription required}}</ref></blockquote> − − In 2008, a team from the [[Palo Alto Research Center]] found that for editors who 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 make only one edit a month were being reverted at a 25% rate.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist|title=Wikipedia approaches its limits|work=The Guardian|date=August 12, 2009|access-date=May 25, 2014|author=Johnson, Bobbie|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140301165902/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist|archive-date=March 1, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> 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'."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/10789354|title=The battle for Wikipedia's soul|date=March 6, 2008|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=August 31, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924175256/http://www.economist.com/node/10789354|archive-date=September 24, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> In regards to the [[Wikipedia#Decline in participation since 2009|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."<ref name="HalfakerGeiger2012">{{cite journal|last1=Halfaker|first1=Aaron|last2=Geiger|first2=R. Stuart|last3=Morgan|first3=Jonathan T.|last4=Riedl|first4=John|title=The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline|journal=American Behavioral Scientist|year=2012|issn=0002-7642|doi=10.1177/0002764212469365|volume=57|issue=5|page=664|s2cid=144208941}}</ref> − − 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.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=55&objectid=10368068|title=Wikipedia – separating fact from fiction|work=[[The New Zealand Herald]]|date=February 13, 2006|access-date=April 17, 2007|first1=Martin|last1=Hickman|first2=Genevieve|last2=Roberts|quote=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.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929155128/http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=55&objectid=10368068|archive-date=September 29, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Torsten_Kleinz">{{cite web|first=Torsten |last=Kleinz |title=World of Knowledge |work=[[Linux Magazine]] |url=http://www.linux-magazine.com/content/download/62899/486425/version/1/file/Wikipedia_Encyclopedia.pdf |date=February 2005 |access-date=May 12, 2007 |quote=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. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151002023902/http://www.linux-magazine.com/content/download/62899/486425/version/1/file/Wikipedia_Encyclopedia.pdf |archive-date=October 2, 2015 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule|title=Wiki page on Three-revert-rule|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170713165840/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule|archive-date=July 13, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> − − 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/06/express/nobodys-safe-in-cyber-space|title=Nobody's Safe in Cyberspace|last=Shankbone|first=David|date=June 7, 2008|work=[[The Brooklyn Rail]]|access-date=July 10, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080828174828/http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/06/express/nobodys-safe-in-cyber-space|archive-date=August 28, 2008|url-status=live}}</ref> − − [[David Auerbach]], writing in ''Slate'' magazine, said:<blockquote>I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to [[Franz Kafka|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{{nbsp}}... 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.<ref name=Auerbach/></blockquote> − − Wikipedia has also been criticised for its weak enforcement against perceived toxicities among the editing community at various times. In one case a longtime editor was nearly driven to suicide following an online abuse from editors and a ban from the site before being rescued from the suicide attempt.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Koebler |first1=Jason |title=Wikipedia Editor Says Site's Toxic Community Has Him Contemplating Suicide |url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4xangm/wikipedia-editor-says-sites-toxic-community-has-him-contemplating-suicide |website=Vice |access-date=28 February 2020 |language=en |date=17 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200405070147/https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4xangm/wikipedia-editor-says-sites-toxic-community-has-him-contemplating-suicide |archive-date=April 5, 2020 |url-status=live }}</ref> − − In order to address this problem Wikipedia planned to institute a new rule of conduct aimed at combating 'toxic behavior'. The development of the new rule of conduct would take place in two phases. The first will include setting policies for in-person and virtual events as well as policies for technical spaces including chat rooms and other Wikimedia projects. A second phase outlining enforcement when the rules are broken is planned to be approved by the end of 2020, according to Wikimedia board's plan.<ref>{{cite web |title=Wikipedia sets new rules to combat 'toxicity' |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52779899 |website=BBC News |date=23 May 2020 |access-date=June 11, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200605151940/https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52779899 |archive-date=June 5, 2020 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{Update inline|date=February 2021|reason=}} − − ===Consensus and the "hive mind"=== − [[Oliver Kamm]], in an article for ''[[The Times]]'', said Wikipedia's reliance on consensus in forming its content was dubious:<ref name=okw/> − <blockquote> − 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. − </blockquote> − − Wikimedia advisor [[Benjamin Mako Hill]] also talked about Wikipedia's disproportional representation of viewpoints, saying: − <blockquote> − 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.<ref>{{cite web|last=Hill|first=Benjamin Mako|author-link=Benjamin Mako Hill|title=The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and Wikipedia|url=http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy-and-wikipedia|website=mako.cc|publisher=eous|date=March 27, 2013|access-date=August 31, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905184314/https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy-and-wikipedia|archive-date=September 5, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> − </blockquote> − − Wikimedia trustee Dariusz Jemielniak says: − <blockquote> − Tiring out one's opponent is a common strategy among experienced Wikipedians{{nbsp}}... I have resorted to it many times.<ref>{{cite web|author=Postril, Virginia|author-link1=Virginia Postrel|title=Who Killed Wikipedia?|url=https://psmag.com/social-justice/killed-wikipedia-93777|website=[[Pacific Standard]]|date=November 17, 2014|access-date=August 31, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190825073705/https://psmag.com/social-justice/killed-wikipedia-93777|archive-date=August 25, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> − </blockquote> − − In his article, "[[Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism]]" (first published online by ''Edge: The Third Culture'', May 30, 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: − − <blockquote> − 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.<ref name="JaronLanier"/> − </blockquote> − − Lanier also says the current economic trend is to reward entities that aggregate information, rather than those that actually generate content. In the absence of "new business models", the popular demand for [[information|content]] will be sated by mediocrity, thus reducing or even eliminating any monetary incentives for the production of ''new'' knowledge.<ref name="JaronLanier">{{Cite news|first=Jaron|last=Lanier|title=Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism|url=http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html|publisher=[[Edge Foundation, Inc.|Edge]]|date=May 30, 2006|access-date=April 30, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070429210913/http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html|archive-date=April 29, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref> − − 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: − − <blockquote>Neither proponents nor detractors of hive mind rhetoric have much interesting to say about Wikipedia itself, because both groups ignore the details{{nbsp}}... 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{{nbsp}}... 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/06/07/reactions_to_digital_maoism.php|title=Reactions to Digital Maoism|publisher=Corante.com|author=Shirky, Clay|date=June 7, 2006|access-date=May 1, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060613095529/http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/06/07/reactions_to_digital_maoism.php|archive-date=June 13, 2006|df=mdy-all}}</ref></blockquote> − − ===Excessive rule-making{{anchor|Excessive regulation}}=== − Various figures involved with the Wikimedia Foundation have argued that [[Wikipedia#Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior|Wikipedia's increasingly complex policies and guidelines]] are [[Wikipedia#Decline in participation since 2009|driving away new contributors to the site]]. Former chair [[Kat Walsh]] has criticized the project in recent years, saying, "It was easier when I joined in 2004{{nbsp}}... Everything was a little less complicated{{nbsp}}... It's harder and harder for new people to adjust."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125893981183759969|title=Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages|work=The Wall Street Journal|date=November 27, 2009|access-date=July 28, 2013|author1=Angwin, Julia|author2=Fowler, Geoffrey A.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171025060009/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125893981183759969|archive-date=October 25, 2017|url-status=live}}{{subscription required}}</ref> Wikipedia administrator Oliver Moran views "policy creep" as the major barrier, writing that "the loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage".<ref name="decline">{{cite web|url=http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/|title=The Decline of Wikipedia|work=[[MIT Technology Review]]|date=October 22, 2013|access-date=March 26, 2015|author=Simonite, Tom|archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20150619205842/http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/|archive-date=June 19, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> According to Jemielniak, the sheer complexity of the rules and laws governing content and editor behavior has become excessive and creates a learning burden for new editors.<ref name="Jemielniak"/><ref name=slate.com>{{cite web|last1=Jemielniak|first1=Dariusz|title=The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/wikipedia_s_bureaucracy_problem_and_how_to_fix_it.html|work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|date=June 22, 2014|access-date=July 1, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140701064131/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/wikipedia_s_bureaucracy_problem_and_how_to_fix_it.html|archive-date=July 1, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2014 Jemielniak suggested actively rewriting, and abridging, the rules and laws to decrease their complexity and size.<ref name="Jemielniak"/><ref name="slate.com"/> − − ===Social stratification=== − {{Further|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",<ref name="wilson">{{cite web|author=Wilson, Chris|date=February 22, 2008|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2008/02/the_wisdom_of_the_chaperones.single.html|title=The Wisdom of the Chaperones: Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy|work=Slate|access-date=January 14, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130320034414/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2008/02/the_wisdom_of_the_chaperones.single.html|archive-date=March 20, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> including administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers, mediators, arbitrators, and oversighters.<ref name="Jem_article"/> 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.<ref name=admin>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/25/wikipedia.web20|title=Wiki wars|author=Kleeman, Jenny|date=March 25, 2007|access-date=October 4, 2007|work=The Guardian|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131031062913/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/25/wikipedia.web20|archive-date=October 31, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> − − ==See also== − <!-- Please keep entries in alphabetical order & add a short description [[WP:SEEALSO]] --> − {{div col|colwidth=30em}} − * [[Censorship of Wikipedia]] − * [[Ideological bias on Wikipedia]] − * [[Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia]] − * [[History of Wikipedia]] − * [[List of Wikipedia controversies]] − * [[Reliability of Wikipedia]] − * [[Predictions of the end of Wikipedia]] − *{{srlink|Wikipedia:Criticisms}} − *{{srlink|Wikipedia:Press coverage}} − *{{srlink|Wikipedia:Replies to common objections}} − *{{srlink|Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great}} − *{{srlink|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source}} − {{div col end}} − <!-- please keep entries in alphabetical order --> − − ==References== − {{Self reference|This article incorporates text from the [[GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]] Wikipedia page [[Wikipedia:Replies to common objections]].}} − {{Reflist|30em}} − − ==Further reading== − * {{cite news|last=Jacobs |first=Julia |title=Wikipedia Isn't Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly.|newspaper=The New York Times|date=April 8, 2019|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html}} − *[[Andrew Keen|Keen, Andrew]]. ''The Cult of the Amateur''. Doubleday/Currency, 2007. {{ISBN|978-0-385-52080-5}} (substantial criticisms of Wikipedia and other web 2.0 projects). − ** {{cite web|last=Keen|first=Andrew|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11131872|title=Does the Internet Undermine Culture?|publisher=[[NPR]]|date=June 16, 2007|access-date=March 31, 2010|postscript={{nbsp}}(Audio version (with transcript) of the NPR interview with Andrew Keen on June 16, 2007).}} − *[[Sheizaf Rafaeli|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.{{nbsp}}243–267). Cambridge, UK: [[Cambridge University Press]]. − **{{cite web|url=http://cyberpsych.yeda.info/ |title=Cyberpsych.Yeda.info |access-date=November 19, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121127003940/http://cyberpsych.yeda.info/ |archive-date=November 27, 2012 }} − *{{cite journal|last=Simonite|first=Tom|url=http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/|title=The Decline of Wikipedia: Even As More People Than Ever Rely on It, Fewer People Create It|journal=MIT Technology Review|publisher=Technologyreview.com|volume=116|number=6|date=October 22, 2013|access-date=August 9, 2014}} − − ==External links== − {{Wikiquote}} − *[http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/ A Compendium of Wikipedia Criticism – Wikipediocracy] − *[https://web.archive.org/web/20140505112239/http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wikipedia/ The Geographically Uneven Coverage of Wikipedia – Oxford Internet Institute – University of Oxford] − − {{Wikipediahistory}} − − {{DEFAULTSORT:Criticism Of Wikipedia}} − [[Category:Criticism of Wikipedia| ]] − [[Category:Criticisms of software and websites|Wikipedia]]
Criticism of Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 23:06, 23 February 2022
, 23:06, 23 February 2022←Replaced content with '<!--Criticism of Wikipedia-->'
<!--Criticism of Wikipedia-->