Criticism of Wikipedia -of icts happy, procedures, and operations, and of the Wikipedia community -covers Many subjects, topics, and themes about the kind of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia of subject entries That Almost anyone can edit. Wikipedia has been criticized for the unavailability, acceptance, and retention of articles about controversial subjects. The main concerns of the critics are the factual reliability of the content; The readability of the prose; And a clear article layout; The existence of systemic bias ; Of gender bias ; And of racial bias among the editorial community that is Wikipedia. (Leading to editorial vandalism); The existence of social stratification ; And over-complicated rules (allowing editorial quarrels), the conditions of which permit the misuse of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is described as unreliable at times. In “Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge” (2010), Edwin Black features the editorial content of articles as a mixture of “truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods”. [1] Similarly, in “Wisdom ?: More like dumbness of the Crowds” (2011), Oliver Kamm Said que la encyclopedic items usually are Dominated by the editors with the loudest voices and MOST persist editorial (talk pages and edit summaries) usually by an interest group with an Ideological “ax to grind” on the subject, topic, or theme of the item in question. [2] Politics and ideology are also criticized on Wikipedia. “The Undue Weight of Truth on Wikipedia” by Timothy Messer-Kruse, and “You Just Type in What You Are Looking For: Undergraduates” by Mónica Colón- Aguirre and Rachel A. Fleming-May, the authors Analyzed and undue Criticized the policy-weight (relative importance of a Given source), and Concluded That Wikipedia is not about providing good decent and definitive information about a subject, [3]aim INSTEAD presenting , As editorially dominant, the perspective taken by most authors of the sources for the article. This allegedly unvenient application of the undue-weight policy creates omissions (of fact and of interpretation) Based on the factually incomplete content of the Wikipedia article. [3] [4] [5]

Wikipedia is 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 the editorial content and editors is disruptive Editors and drives away new, potentially constructive editors. [6] [7] In a follow-up article, “The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia” (2014), Jemielniak Said That abridging and rewriting the editorial rules and laws of Wikipedia for clarity of purpose and simplicity of implementation Would resolve the bureaucratic bottleneck Of too many rules. [6] [7] In “The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How A Causing Its Decline” (2013), Aaron Halfaker stated that the over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally provoked the decline in Editorial participation what began in 2009-frightening away new editors who otherwise would contribute to Wikipedia. [8] Aaron Halfaker Stated que la over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally Provoked the decline in participation editorialThat Began in 2009 frightening away new editors Who Would Otherwise contribuer to Wikipedia. [8] Aaron Halfaker Stated que la over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally Provoked the decline in participation editorial That Began in 2009 frightening away new editors Who Would Otherwise contribuer to Wikipedia. [8]

icism of content

Wikipedia is described as unreliable at times. Edwin Black has the editorial content of articles as a mixture of “truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods”. [1] and Oliver Kamm HAS Said That items are usually Dominated by the editors with the loudest and MOST persist editorial voices (talk pages and edit summaries), usually by an interest group with an Ideological “ax to grind” on the subject, topic , Or theme of the article in question. [2]

Wikipedia articles on politics and ideology have also been criticized. Two works published in 2012 are the most important of a given source, and since the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide correct and definitive information about a subject, [3] but to present, As the consensus opinion, the majority opinion. The unven application of the undue-weight policy creates omissions (of fact and of interpretation) that might give the reader false impressions about the subject matter, based on the incompleteness of the Wikipedia article. [3] [9] [5]

Wikipedia is 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 the “office politics” of disruptive editors. [6] [10] 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 solve the bureaucratic bottleneck of too many rules. [10] In The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity is Causing icts Decline (2013), Aaron Halfaker Stated que la over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally Provoked the decline in editorial involvement That Began in 2009 frightening away new editors Who Otherwise Would contribuer to Wikipedia. [8]

There is also a misuse of Wikipedia. In “Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?” (2008), the Hoover Institution said that Wikipedia is an unreliable resource for correct knowledge, information, and facts about a subject, because, as an open source website, the editorial content of the articles is readily subjected to manipulation and propaganda . [11] 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 However, Do not assume that these sources are reliable-use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research . ” [12]

Accuracy of information

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

Not authoritative

Wikipedia acknowledges que la encyclopedia shoulds not be used as a primary source for research, academic Either or informational. The British Librarian Philip Bradley said that “the main problem is the lack of authority .” With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. window. ” [13] Likewise, Robert McHenry , editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica from 1992 to 1997, said that readers of Wikipedia articles can not know who wrote the article they are reading-it might have been written by an expert in the subject matter By an amateur. [14] In November 2015, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger told Zach Schwartz in Vice : “I think Wikipedia has never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that did not lead to mobility” “The inmates started running the asylum.” [15]

Comparative study of science articles

Teaching, Criticism, and Praise: an analysis of talk-page messages for the Wikipedia Summer of Research (2011). [16]

In the “Encyclopaedias Go Head-to-head”, a 2005 article published in the Nature scientific journal, the results of a blind experiment , which compares 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 reviewed for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers; They found that the average Wikipedia entry contained four errors and omissions, while the average Encyclopædia Britannica . The study Concluded That Wikipedia and Britannica Were comparable in terms of the accuracy of ict science entries “. [17] Nevertheless, the reviewers had two main criticisms of the Wikipedia science entries: (i) thematically confused content, without an intelligible structure (order, presentation, interpretation); And (ii) what is a controversial, fringe theories about the subject matter. [18]

The dissatisfaction of the Encyclopædia Britannica editors led to Nature publishing. [19] Based on 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 for the youth version of the encyclopedia. [20] 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 articles articles. [21]

The editors of Britannica aussi Said That while the Nature study Showed que le taux de error entre les 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 , Britannicawas more accurate than Wikipedia in that respect. [20] Subsequently, Nature magazine rejected the Britannica response with a rebuttal of the editors’ specific objections about the research method of the study. [22] [23]

Lack of methodical fact-checking

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

American journalist John Seigenthaler , Object of the Seigenthaler incident

The Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography is a biographical article about the life of an individual. In May 2005, an anonymous user edited the biographical section on American journalist and writer John Seigenthaler so That It contained Several false and defamatory statements. [24] [25] 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 , which means that incorrect information can be replicated alongside correct information through a number of web sources. Such information can develop a misleading authority because of its presence at such sites. [26]

In Reviews another example, on March 2, 2007, Reported That then- New York Senator and form Secretary of State Hillary Clinton HAD beens Incorrectly listed for 20 months in her Wikipedia biography as valedictorian of her class of 1969 at Wellesley College , When In fact she was not (though she did speak at the beginning ). [27] The Article included a link to the Wikipedia edit, [28] Where the incorrect information Was added on July 9, 2005. The Inaccurate information Was removed within 24 hours partner after the postponement Appeared. [29]

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 a highly decorated war hero. The article was quickly identified as a hoax by other users and deleted. [30] [ better source needed ]

There are also instances of users who have deliberately inserted 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. [31] Wikipedia considers the deliberate insertion of false and misleading information to be vandalism . [32]

Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest

Wikipedia looks at the concept of a non-negotiable principles; HOWEVER, it acknowledges Such a concept That Has Its limitations-its NPOV policy states items That shoulds be “as far as possible” written “without editorial bias”. Citation needed ] Mark Glaser, a journalist, also wrote that this may be an impossible due to the inevitable biases of editors. [33]

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 the entries by the extensive IP addresses . [34] News stories about the Central Intelligence Agency , the National Republican Congressional Committee , the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee , Diebold, Inc. and the Australian government are used to make edits to Wikipedia articles, sometimes of An opinionated or questionable nature. Another story stated that an IP address from the BBC had been used to vandalize the article on George W. Bush . [35] The BBC quoted a Wikipedia spokesperson as praising the tool: “We really value transparency and the scanner really take this to another level.” [36] Not everyone hailed WikiScanner as a success for Wikipedia. Oliver Kamm , in a column for The Times , argued instead that: [2] [35] The BBC quoted a Wikipedia spokesperson as praising the tool: “We really value transparency and the scanner really take this to another level.” [36] Not everyone hailed WikiScanner as a success for Wikipedia. Oliver Kamm , in a column for The Times , argued instead that: [2] [35] The BBC quoted a Wikipedia spokesperson as praising the tool: “We really value transparency and the scanner really take this to another level.” [36] Not everyone hailed WikiScanner as a success for Wikipedia. Oliver Kamm , in a column for The Times , argued instead that: [2] [36] Not everyone hailed WikiScanner as a success for Wikipedia. Oliver Kamm , in a column for The Times , argued instead that: [2] [36] Not everyone hailed WikiScanner as a success for Wikipedia. Oliver Kamm , in a column for The Times , argued instead that: [2]

The WikiScanner is 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 race is to stand on the sidelines and jeer at its pretensions.

WikiScanner only reveals conflicts of interest when the editor does not have a Wikipedia account and their IP address is used instead. Conflict of interest editing done by editors with accounts is not detected, since those edits are anonymous to everyone except some Wikipedia administrators . [37]

Scientific disputes

The 2005 Nature study aussi gave two brief examples of challenges That Wikipedian science writers purportedly faced is Wikipedia. The first Concerned the addition of a section is violence to the schizophrenia article qui EXHIBITED the view of one of the paper’s regular editors, neuropsychologist Vaughan Bell , That It was little more than a “rant” about the need to lock people up, and That editing it stimulated him to look up the literature on the topic. [17]

Another argument Involved the climate researcher William Connolley , a Wikipedia editor Who Was Opposed by others. The topic in this second dispute was the greenhouse effect , and the New Yorker reported that this dispute, which was far more protracted, had led to arbitration , which took three months to produce a decision. The outcome of arbitration, as reported by Nature , was a six-month speech for Connolley, during which he was restricted to undoing edits on articles once per day. [38]

Extract or delete some HTML tag attributes from the desired tags, based on your criteria with the online HTML editor. Other useful features will help you to make web content composing a piece of cake.

Exposure to political operatives and advocates

While Wikipedia policy requires-have items to a neutral Point of view, it is not immune from Attempts by outsiders (or insiders) with calendar year up to a spin one items. In January 2006 it was revealed that many of the staff members of the US House of Representatives had embarked on a campaign to cleanse their respective bosses’ biographies on Wikipedia, as well as negative remarks on political opponents. References to a campaign promised by Martin Meehan to surrender his seat in 2000 were deleted, and negative comments were inserted into the articles on United States Senator Bill Frist and Eric Cantor , a congressman from Virginia . Numerous other changes were made from an IP address assigned to the House of Representatives. [39] In an interview, Wikipedia de facto leader Jimmy Wales remarked that the changes were “not cool”. [40]

Larry Delay and Pablo Bachelet Wrote That from Their perspective, some items dealing with Latin American history and groups (Such As the Sandinistas and Cuba ) Lack political neutrality and are written from a sympathetic Marxist perspective qui treats socialist Dictatorships favorably at the expense of alternate positions . [41] [42] [43]

In 2008, the Pro-Israel Group Committee for Accountability in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) [44] CAMERA argued the excerpts were unrepresentative and that it had explicitly campaigned merely “towards encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy”. [45] Defenders of CAMERA and the competing group, Electronic Intifada , went into mediation. [44] Israeli diplomat David Saranga said that Wikipedia is looking at Israel. When it was pointed out that the entry on Israel mentioned the word “occupation” nine times, The Palestinian People “,” Israel “and” Israel “should be more active on Wikipedia. Instead of blaming it, they should go on the site much more, and try and change it. ” [46]

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 Articles dealing with Arab-Israeli issues, and current Wikipedia policies, while well-meant, have proven ineffective in handling this. [47]

On August 31, 2008, The New York Times ran an item detailing the edits made to the biography of Alaska governor Sarah Palin in the wake of her appointment as the running mate of Arizona Senator John McCain . During the 24 hours before the McCain campaign announcement, 30 edits , many of the flattering details, were made to the article by Wikipedia single-purpose user identity Young_Trigg. [48] Wikipedia user accounts. [49]

In November 2007, libelous accusations were made against two politicians from southwestern France, Jean-Pierre Grand and Hélène Mandroux-Colas , on their Wikipedia biographies. Jean-Pierre Grand Chairman of the French National Assembly and the Prime Minister of France to strengthen the legislation on the penal responsibility of Internet sites. [50] Senator Jean Louis Masson then asked 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. [51]

On August 25, 2010, the Toronto Star reported that the Canadian “government is now conducting two investigations into federal employees who have taken their public opinion on federal policies and bitter political debates.” [52]

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 included the Wikipedia industry.” The Iranian Presidential election, 2009 and the ensuing “anti-Iranian activities” a “strenuous attempt to portray the cylinder as nothing more than the propaganda tool of an aggressive invader” was visible. The edits following his analysis of the edicts during 2009 and 2010, represented “a complete dismissal of the suggestion that the cylinder, or Cyrus’ actions, represent concern for human rights or any kind of enlightened intent, In stark contrast to Cyrus ‘ own reputation as documented in the Old Testament and the people of Babylon. [53]

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. [54] Some companies and organizations-such as Sony , Diebold , Nintendo , Dell , the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency , and the Church of Scientology- as well as United States Congressional staffers , The Wikipedia pages about themselves in order to present a point of view that describes them positively; These organizations may have editors who revert to negative changes as soon as these changes are submitted. [55] [56]

Editing for financial rewards

In January 2007, Rick Jelliffe stated in a story by CBS [57] and IDG News Service [58] [59] that Microsoft had offered him compensation in exchange for his future editorial services on Wikipedia’s articles related to OOXML(Open Office Extensible Markup Language ). A Microsoft spokesperson, quoted by CBS, commented that “Microsoft and the writer, Rick Jelliffe, had not changed hands-but had agreed that the company would not consider his writing before submission.” Also quoted by CBS, Jimmy Wales expressed his disapproval of Microsoft’s involvement:

Quality of the presentation

Quality of articles on US history

In the essay, “The History of the Past” (2006), the academic historian Roy Rosenzweig criticized the encyclopedic content and writing style used in Wikipedia, for Are merely sensational. That Wikipedia is “surprisingly accurate in reporting history, dates, and events in US history”, and that of the factual errors he found were simply and widely held, but inaccurate, beliefs, qui sont également repeated in the Microsoft Encartaencyclopedia and in the Encyclopaedia Britannica ; Yet Rosenzweig’s major criticism is that:

“Good historical writing requires not just factual accuracy but also a command of the scholarly literature, persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose. By these measures, American National Biography Online easily outdistances Wikipedia. ” [60]

Rosenzweig also criticized the “waffling-encouraged by the [neutral point of view] policy- [which] means that it is hard to discern any general interpretive stance in Wikipedia [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-word waffling:

“Some historians. . . Remember [Quantrill] as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while other [historians] continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero. ” [60]

In American National Biography Online , the historian James M. McPherson of the United States President Abraham Lincoln to the US Civil War article, and found that each entry was essentially accurate in covering the major episodes of President Lincoln’s life. The “richer contextualization” of McPherson’s work, as well as his “Lincoln’s voice” and “his ability to convey a profound message in a handful of words,” were contrasted with Wikipedia’s history-article prose. The prose of the Wikipedia articles was “both verbose and dull” and thus difficult to read, because ” The skill and confident judgment of a seasoned historian “are absent from the antiquarian writing style of Wikipedia, as opposed to the writing style used by professional historians in the American Heritage magazine. It was also mentioned that while Wikipedia provides references. [60]

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.” [61]

In its 2007 article “Fact or Fiction?” Wikipedia’s Variety of Contributors is not only a Strength, “the magazine The Economist stated that the quality of the writing in Wikipedia articles” Inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects Muddled thoughts and incomplete information. ” [62]

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 . [63] Lewis Mumford, who is the author of a book on ” Lewis Mumford “. Wales emphasized Wikipedia’s differences, and asserted that openness and transparency lead to quality. Hoiberg said that he had neither the time nor the space to respond to the criticisms and that he could not answer the question.

Systemic bias in coverage

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

Wikipedia has an 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 of the articles in this article have been published in the literature, this article has not been translated into English. In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine (London) philosopher Martin Cohen describes Wikipedia as having “become a monopoly” with “all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators,” which he calls a “youthful cab-driver’s” perspective. [64] Cohen concludes that ” [T] o control the reference sources that people use to understand the world. Wikipedia May-have a benign, Even trivial face goal underneath May binds a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought . ” [64] That freedom is Undermined by what he Sees as what matters is Wikipedia,” not your sources aim the ‘ Support of the community ‘. ” [64]

Researchers from the University of Washington University . The authors focused on the behavioral changes of the encyclopedia’s administrators after assuming the post, writing that systematic bias occurred after the fact. [65]

Critics also point to the tendency to cover topics in a detail disproportionate to their importance. For example, Stephen Colbert once mockingly Praised for Having a Wikipedia entry on along ‘ lightsabers ‘ than it does on the ‘ printing press ‘. [66] In an interview with The Guardian , Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica , NOTED: [13]

People write of things they are interested in, and so many subjects do not 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 .

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jon Hendren [67] of the website Something Awful . [68] In the game, two articles (preferably with similar names) are compared: one about an acknowledged, serious, or classical subject and the other on a popular or current one. [69] Defenders of a broad inclusion of the encyclopedia’s coverage of pop culture does not impose space constraints on the coverage of more serious subjects (see ” Wiki is not paper “). As Ivor Tossell noted:

That Wikipedia is chock full of useless arcana (and did you know, by the way, that the article on “Debate” is shorter than the piece that weighs the relative merits of the 1978 and 2003 versions of Battlestar Galactica? Knock against it: Since it can grow infinitely, the silly articles are not depriving the serious ones of space. [70]

In 2014, supporters of holistic healing and energy psychology began a petition asking for “true scientific discourse” on Wikipedia, complaining that “much of the information [on Wikipedia] Of-date, or just plain wrong “. In response, Jimmy Wales said that Wikipedia only covers works that are published in respectable scientific journals. [71] [72]

Notability of article topics

See also: notability in the English Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia § Systemic bias in coverage

Wikipedia’s notability guidelines , which are used by editors to determine if the subject matter of the article is the subject of much criticism. [73] Nicholson Baker considers the notability standards arbitrary and essentially unsolvable: [74]

There are queries, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever spell it out.

Criticizing the ” deletionists “, Baker then writes: [73]

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

Another criticism about the deletionists is: “The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth—all are hallmarks of the deletionists approach.”[75]

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

Wikipedia’s notable policy resembles US immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement. To be noble, a Wikipedia topic must be “the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.” Although I have never been a subject of any kind. And would not you know, some notability cop cruised past my bio and pulled me over. Unless I get notable in a hurry-win the Nobel Peace Prize? Prove I sired Anna Nicole Smith’s baby daughter? -a “sysop” (volunteer techie) will wipe my Wikipedia page clean. It’s straight out of Philip K. Dick . [76]

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

A 2014 study found no correlation between characteristics of a given Wikipedia article 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 researchers properly. [77]


There have been a number of predominant issues . According to Jimmy Wales: “The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) The Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the US population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the US population. [78] Andrew Schlafly created Conservapedia because of his perception that Wikipedia contained a liberal bias. [79] Conservapedia’s editors have compiled a list of alleged examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia. [80] In 2007, an article in The Christian Post criticized Wikipedia’s coverage of intelligent design , which was biased and hypocritical. [81] Lawrence Solomon of the National Review on the Wikipedia article on subjects like global warming , intelligent design , and Roe v. Wade all to be slanted in favor of liberal views. [82] an item in The Christian Post criticised Wikipedia’s coverage of intelligent design , Saying That It Was biased and hypocritical. [81] Lawrence Solomon of the National Review on the Wikipedia article on subjects like global warming , intelligent design , and Roe v. Wade all to be slanted in favor of liberal views. [82] an item in The Christian Post criticised Wikipedia’s coverage of intelligent design , Saying That It Was biased and hypocritical. [81] Lawrence Solomon of the National Review on the Wikipedia article on subjects like global warming , intelligent design , and Roe v. Wade all to be slanted in favor of liberal views. [82] [81] Lawrence Solomon of the National Review on the Wikipedia article on subjects like global warming , intelligent design , and Roe v. Wade all to be slanted in favor of liberal views. [82] [81] Lawrence Solomon of the National Review on the Wikipedia article on subjects like global warming , intelligent design , and Roe v. Wade all to be slanted in favor of liberal views. [82]

In a September 2010 issue of the conservative weekly Human Events , Rowan Scarborough presented a critique of Wikipedia’s coverage of American politicians’ prominent approach to the midterm elections as evidence of systemic liberal bias. [83] 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 amount of negative coverage of Tea Party -endorsed candidates. He also cites some criticism by Lawrence Solomon and his article on his rival Conservapedia as evidence of an underlying bias.

Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu analyzed 2012 era Wikipedia articles on US politics , going back to decade, and wrote a study [84] arguing the more contributors there was an article, the less biased the article would be Study of frequent collocations – fewer articles “leaned Democrat” that was the case in Wikipedia’s early years. [85] [86]

American and corporate bias

In 2008, Tim Anderson, a senior lecturer in political economy at the University of Sydney , said that Wikipedia administrators display an American-focused bias in their interactions with editors and their determinations of which sources are appropriate for use on the site. Anderson was outraged after several of the sources he used in his edits to the Hugo Chávez article, including Venezuela’s Analysis and Z Magazine , were disallowed as “unusable.” Anderson also describes how ZDNet Australia has “a facade” and that Wikipedia “hides behind a reliance on corporate media editorials”. [87]

Racial bias

Main article: Racial bias on Wikipedia

Wikipedia has been criticized for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an under-representation of people of color within its editor base. [88] The President of Wikimedia DC , James Hare, noted that “a lot of black history is left out” of Wikipedia, due to articles predominately being written by white editors. [89] Articles that do exist on African topics are, according to some critics, widely 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. [90] Maira Liriano of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture , HAS argued que la Lack of Information regarding black history is Wikipedia “Makes It sccm like it’s not important.” [91] 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.” [92]

Gender bias and sexism

Main article: Gender bias on Wikipedia
Former Wikimedia Foundation executive Sue Gardner has listed some of the reasons why women do not edit Wikipedia [93]

Wikipedia has a longstanding controversy about gender bias and sexism. [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] Gender bias is Wikipedia Refers to the finding That entre 84 and 91 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, [100] [101] qui Allegedly lead to systemic bias . [102] Wikipedia has been criticized [94] by some journalists and academics for lacking not only women contributors but also extensive and in-depth encyclopedic. Sue Gardner , the executive director of the foundation. The “obsessive-facts-loving realm”, “hard-driving hacker crowd”, and the necessity to be “open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists. ” [95] In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation set a goal of increasing the proportion of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015. [95] In August 2013 Gardner conceded defeat: “I did not solve it. The Wikimedia Foundation did not solve it. [103] In August 2014, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales is a journalist and editor of the Wikimedia Foundation . Wales said the Foundation would be more open to more and more changes. [104]

Sexual content

Wikipedia has-been Criticized for Allowing graphic sexual glad Such As pictures and videos of masturbation and ejaculation as well as pictures from hardcore pornographic movies were found icts items. Child protection campaigners say graphic sexual content appears on many Wikipedia entries, displayed without any warning or age verification. [105]

The Wikipedia article Virgin Killer -a 1976 album from German heavy metal band Scorpions -features a picture of the album’s original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl. In December 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation , a nonprofit, nongovernment-affiliated organization, added the article to its blacklist, criticizing the inclusion of the picture as “distasteful.” As a result, Internet access providers in the United Kingdom. [106]

In April 2010, Larry Sanger , a co-founder of Wikipedia who had left the organization eight years previously, wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation , outlining its two categories of images on Wikimedia. Violation of United States federal obscenity law. Sanger also expressed about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools. [107] Sanger later said that it was not enough to call it “child pornography”, which most people associate with images of real children, and that he should have said “depictions of child sexual abuse”. [108] Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh said that Wikipedia does not have ” Material we would deem to be illegal. If We Did, we would remove it “. [107] Following the complaint by Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales deleted Many sexual pictures without consulting the community;. Some Were Reinstated Following discussions [109]Critics, Including Wikipediocracy , Noticed That Many of the Sexual images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared. [110] Noticed that many of the images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared. [110] Noticed that many of the images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared. [110]

Exposure to vandals

As an online encyclopedia which has almost anyone can edit, Wikipedia has long had problems with vandalism of articles, which range from “blanking” articles to inserting profanities, hoaxes or nonsense. Wikipedia: has a Range of tools available to users and administrators in order to fight contre 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 Vigas of the MIT Media Lab and Martin Wattenberg and Kushal Dave of IBM minutes; However they state that ”

A 2007 peer-reviewed study [112] with the “damaged” content, concluded:

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

Privacy concerns

Most privacy concerns refer to cases of government or use data gathering; Or to computer or electronic monitoring; Or to trading data between organizations. “The Internet has created conflicts between personal privacy, commercial interests and the interests of society at large” warn James Donnelly and Jenifer Haeckl. [113] 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. [113]

Wikipedia is a private citizen of the United States. To remain a “private citizen” rather than a ” public figure ” in the eyes of the law. [114] It is somewhat of a battle between the right to be anonymous in cyberspace and the right to be anonymous in real life (” meatspace “). Citation needed ] Wikipedia Watch Wikipedia Wikipedia : Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia is a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia.

In 2005 Agence France-Presse quoted Daniel Brandt, the Wikipedia Watch owner, as saying that “the basic problem is that no one, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia, consider themselves responsible for the content. ” [116]

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 que la URL dans le German .de domain ( ) May no follow redirect to the encyclopedia’s servers in Florida at http://de.wikipedia.orgALTHOUGH German readers Were still able to use the US-based URL directly, and there was virtually no loss of access on their part. Floricic’s parents, asking their son’s surname be removed from Wikipedia. Citation needed ] On February 9, 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned, with the short rejecting the notion that the parents were being violated. [117]

Criticism of the community

Role of Jimmy Wales

The community of Wikipedia editors has been criticized for placing an irrational emphasis on Jimmy Wales as a person. Wales’ s role in assuming the independence of Wikipedia. [118] [119] 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. [120] [121] [122] [123] [124]

Conflict of interest cases

Business Insider article wrote 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. [125]

Unfair treatment of female contributors

Some female editors have stated that they have been harassed by male editors. [126]

The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has been criticized as unfairly targeting female and female editors. [126]

In an article for Slate , David Auerbach criticized the decisions made by the Arbitration Committee, in a December 2014 case centered around the site’s Gender Gap Task Force . Auerbach was criticized for her involvement in the murder of her husband and his wife. That’s what it’s all about, and that’s what it’s all about. ” [127]

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 a Wikipedia editor alleging unfair treatment. [128] [129] Other commentators, including from Gawker and ThinkProgress , provided additional analysis while sourcing from The Guardian ‘ s Story. [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] Reports in The Washington Post , Slate and Social Text Described thesis items as “flawed” or factually Inaccurate, Pointing out that the Arbitration case had not reached the time of publication; No editor had been banned. [129] [134] [135]After the result was published, Gawker wrote that “ArbCom ruled to punish six editors who could be broadly classified as’ anti-Gamergate ‘and five who are’ pro-Gamergate. All of the supposed “Five Horsemen” were among the editors punished, with one of them being the editor banned due to this case. [136] An article called “ArbitrationGate” regarding this situation was created (and quickly deleted) on Wikipedia, while The Guardian later issued a correction to their article. [129] The Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation issued press statements that the Gamergate article was 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 judgments on the personal views of parties to the case”. [134] [137] Michael Mandiberg , writing in Social Text , unconvinced. [135]

Lack of verifiable identities

Scandals involving administrators and arbitrators

David Boothroyd, a Wikipedia editor and a Labor Party ( United Kingdom ) member, created controversy in 2009. When Wikipedia Review contributor “Tarantino” Discovered That he committed sockpuppeting , editing under the accounts “DBIV”, “Fys” and “Sam Blacketer “, None of which acknowledged his real identity. Boothroyd regained Administrator status with the Sam Blacketer sockpuppet account in April 2007. [138] Later in 2007, Boothroyd ‘s Sam Blacketer is a member of the Wikipedia community. Arbitration Committee. [139] Under the Sam Blackater account, Boothroyd edited many articles related to United Kingdom politics, including that of rival Conservative Party leader David Cameron . [140] [141] Boothroyd then resigned as an administrator and as an arbitrator. [142] [143]

Essjay controversy
Main article: Essjay controversy

In July 2006 The New Yorker ran a feature about Wikipedia by Stacy Schiff about a highly credentialed Wikipedia editor. [144] The initial version of the article was an interview with a Wikipedia administrator known by the pseudonym Essjay, who was described as a tenured professor of theology. [145] Essjay’s Wikipedia user, now removed, said the following:

I am a professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. 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. Citation needed ]

Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (BA), Master of Arts in Religion (MAR), Doctorate of Philosophy in Philosophy in Philosophy, and Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). Essjay specialized in editing articles about religion on Wikipedia, including topics such as “the penitential rite, transubstantiation, the papal tiara”; [144] on one of the statutes of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church . [146] In January 2007, Essjay was hired as a manager with Wikia , a wiki-hosting service founded by Wales and Angela Beesley. In February, Wales appointed Essjay as a member of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee , a group with powers to issue binding rulings in disputes relating to Wikipedia. [147]

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

In late February 2007 The New Yorker added to its article on Wikipedia stating that it had learned that Essjay was Ryan Jordan, a 24-year-old college dropout from Kentucky with no advanced degrees and no teaching experience. [148] Initially Jimmy Wales commented on the issue of Essjay’s identity: “I look at it as a pseudonym and I do not really have a problem with it.” Larry Sanger , co-founder [149] [150] [151] of Wikipedia, responded to Wales on his Citizendium blog by calling Wales ‘initial reaction’ utterly breathtaking, and ultimately tragic. ” Sanger said the controversy ”

Wales, “EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes.” He added: “I have asked EssJay to resign his position of trust within the [Wikipedia] community.” [153] Sanger responded to the next day: “It seems to me that this is not a good thing. As disturbing for Wikipedia. ” [154]

On March 4, Essjay wrote on his Wikipedia page, and he also resigned his position with Wikia. [155] A subsequent section in The Courier-Journal ( Louisville ) suggéré que la new summaryHe Had His posted at Wikia Page was exaggerated. [156] 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. [157]

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

The Essjay episode underlines some of the perils of collaborative efforts like Wikipedia that rely on many contributors acting in good faith, often anonymously and through self-designated user names. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search [158]

The Essjay incident received extensive media coverage, comprenant un United States national television broadcast is ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson [159] and the March 7, 2007, Associated Press story. [160]The controversy has a good understanding of what to do and what to do with it. Wikipedia content disputes. [161] The proposal was not accepted. [162]


Wikipedia has-been criticised for Allowing editors to contribuer anonymously (without a registered account and using an auto-generated IP -labeled account) pseudonymously gold (using a registered account), with critics Saying That this leads to a Lack of accountability. [124] [163] This also sometimes leads to uncivil conduct in debates between Wikipedians. [124] [163] For privacy reasons, Wikipedia even forbids editors to reveal information about an anonymous editor on Wikipedia. [164]

orial process

Further information: Academic studies about Wikipedia § Power plays

Level of debate, edit wars and harassment

The standard of debate on Wikipedia has been called into question by persons who have noted that contributors can make a long list of salient points in a wide range of empirical observations. . [165] An academic study of Wikipedia articles found in the Wikipedia editors on controversial topics often degenerated into counterproductive squabbling:

For uncontroversial, “stable” topics self-selection also ensures that members of editorial groups are well-aligned with each other in their interests, backgrounds, and overall understanding of the topics … -selection may produce a strongly misaligned editorial group. It can lead to conflicts among the editorial group members, and may require the use of formal coordination and control mechanisms. These may include intervention by administrators who, in the course of their work, have disaggregated and mediated processes, [or] completely disallowed or limited and coordinated the types and sources of edicts. [166]

In 2008, a team from the Palo Alto Research Center found that, for the first time in a series of years, Edit a month were reverted at 25% rate. [167] According to The Economist magazine (2008), “The behavior 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” ” [168] In view of the decline in the number of Wikipedia editors since the 2007 policy changes, another study stated this was partly down to the way”

Another complaint about Wikipedia focuses on the efforts of contributors with idiosyncratic beliefs , which push their point of view in an effort to dominate articles, especially controversial ones. [170] [171] 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 is actively encouraged before going to this extent. Also, Jimmy Wales has introduced a “three-revert rule”, whereby those users who reverse the effect of others to a 24-hour period may be blocked. [172]

In a 2008 article in The Brooklyn Rail , Wikipedia contributor David Shankbone, Wikipedia, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia David Shankbone Shankbone wrote, “If you have a target on Wikipedia, do not expect a supportive community.” [173]

David Auerbach , writing in Slate magazine, said:

I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka’s The Trial I have ever witnessed, with editors and administrators giving conflicting and confusing advice, complaints getting “boomeranged” to complainants who then face disciplinary action for complaining, and very little consistency In the standards applied. In my short time there, I repeatedly observed editors lawyering an issue with acronyms, only to turn around and declare ” Ignore all rules !” When faced with the same rules used against them. (…) The problem is that the administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they have dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, And therefore antagonize and even persecute them. [174]

Consensus and the “hive mind”

Oliver Kamm , in an article for The Times , said that Wikipedia’s reliance on consensus was dubious: [2]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This page has been proofread.

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

In Wikipedia , debates can be won by stamina. If you care more and argue longer, you will tend to get your way. The result, very often, is that individuals and organizations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tends to win over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable. These less-committed editors simply have at stake and their attention is more distributed. [175]

Wikimedia steward Dariusz Jemielniak says:

Wikipedians […] I have resorted to it many times. [176]

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:

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 Reviews part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism That is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea que la collective is all-wise, That it is desirable to-have influenced 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 futureists, I know and like, doesn ‘ T make it any less dangerous. [177]

Lanier also says the economic trend to reward entities that aggregate information, rather than those that actually generate content. Incomprehensible ] In the lack of “new business models”, the popular demand for happywill be sated by mediocrity, THUS Reducing or Even Eliminating Any monetary incentives for the generation of new knowledge. [177]

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

Neither proponents nor detractors of hive mind have a great deal to say about themselves, because both groups ignore the details … Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The eigenvalues ​​of the Segenthaler and the Kennedy debacle are discussed in the next section. “Digital Maoism” denies is at work. [178]

Excessive rule-making

Various figures involved with the Wikimedia Foundation have argued that Wikipedia’s increasingly complex policies and guidelines are driving away new contributors to the site . Former flesh Kat Walsh has criticized the project in recent years, saying, “It was easier when joined in 2004 … Everything was a little less complicated …. It’s harder and harder for new people to adjust.” [179] Top Wikipedia administrator Oliver Moran also views “policy creep” as the major barrier, writing that “the loose collective running the site today,

In his 2014 book, Common Knowledge ?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia , Jemielniak, the Wikimedia steward, states the same as the sheer complexity of the rules and laws. [6] [7] In a 2013 study, Aaron Halfaker of the University of Minnesota concluded the same thing. [8] Jemielniak suggests actively abridging and rewriting the rules and laws to fall within a fixed and reasonable limit of size and complexity to remedy their excessive complexity and size. [6] [7]

Social stratification

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

DESPITE the perception que la Wikipedia process is democratic, “a small number of people are running the show,” [181] Including administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers, picks, Arbitrators, and oversighters. [10] 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 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. [182]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *