Changes

Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled "Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue," [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref name="wnd.com"/>  In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>   

Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled "Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue," [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref name="wnd.com"/>  In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>   

Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: "''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.'' Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices have produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain "inaccuracies", leading the "Daily Mail" to dub it "Iffy-pedia".<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html</ref> The lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever-present shadow over any given piece of information. Many in the [[College|academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[Source|source material]], and with the use of hyperlinks and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary reference tool on the [[Internet]].

Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: "''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.'' Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices have produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain "inaccuracies", leading the "Daily Mail" to dub it "Iffy-pedia".<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html</ref> The lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever-present shadow over any given piece of information. Many in the [[College|academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[Source|source material]], and with the use of hyperlinks and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary reference tool on the [[Internet]].

According to the style manual for the [[Associated Press]], the largest news agency in the United States, Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, but the hyperlinks in articles may be helpful as sources.

According to the style manual for the [[Associated Press]], the largest news agency in the United States, Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, but the hyperlinks in articles may be helpful as sources.

Wikipedia editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch Sarah Stierch] was the volunteer moderator of the Gender Gap email list where she departed from discussing Wikipedia to freely share her negative experiences with men in her life.  In fall 2011, she was hired by the WMF as a Community Fellow to work on creating a "Teahouse" for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}</ref> explained, "If you click through to the Teahouse, it’s clearly aiming to broaden female participation - just look at the pastel background and references to tea." Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, "Because so much time and energy needed to be spend during the pilot on setting up and maintaining the space, we weren't able to focus as much as we'd have liked on gender-targeted strategies for recruiting female guests and hosts. There are clearly more experiments that need to be run in order to better integrate the space with other gender gap efforts and WikiWomen's calls to actions."  The WMF terminated Stierch on January 9, 2014 following complaints of her moonlighting as a paid editor.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/129466.html</ref>

Wikipedia editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch Sarah Stierch] was the volunteer moderator of the Gender Gap email list where she departed from discussing Wikipedia to freely share her negative experiences with men in her life.  In fall 2011, she was hired by the WMF as a Community Fellow to work on creating a "Teahouse" for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}</ref> explained, "If you click through to the Teahouse, it’s clearly aiming to broaden female participation - just look at the pastel background and references to tea." Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, "Because so much time and energy needed to be spend during the pilot on setting up and maintaining the space, we weren't able to focus as much as we'd have liked on gender-targeted strategies for recruiting female guests and hosts. There are clearly more experiments that need to be run in order to better integrate the space with other gender gap efforts and WikiWomen's calls to actions."  The WMF terminated Stierch on January 9, 2014 following complaints of her moonlighting as a paid editor.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/129466.html</ref>

On August 18, 2014, during the Congressional summer recess, the [[Cato Institute]] and Wikimedia DC jointly conducted a seminar to encourage Congressional staff members to edit Wikipedia about pending legislation and policy issues.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/18/a-call-to-edit-congress-and-wikipedia-told-to-peacefully-co-exist/|title=A call to edit: Congress and Wikipedia told to peacefully co-exist|first=Nancy|last=Scola|date=August 18, 2014|accessdate=August 22, 2014|work=Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.c-span.org/video/?321030-1/discussion-wikipedia-government-transparency|date=August 18, 2014|accessdate=August 22, 2014|title=Wikipedia and Congress|work=C-SPAN}}</ref> The panel discussion included Michelle Newby, a full-time Cato employee who edits Wikipedia as a part of her job.  She promised to work with any Congressional Staff that would be interested in editing.

On August 18, 2014, during the Congressional summer recess, the [[Cato Institute]] and Wikimedia DC jointly conducted a seminar to encourage Congressional staff members to edit Wikipedia about pending legislation and policy issues.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/18/a-call-to-edit-congress-and-wikipedia-told-to-peacefully-co-exist/|title=A call to edit: Congress and Wikipedia told to peacefully co-exist|first=Nancy|last=Scola|date=August 18, 2014|accessdate=August 22, 2014|work=Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?321030-1/discussion-wikipedia-government-transparency|date=August 18, 2014|accessdate=August 22, 2014|title=Wikipedia and Congress|work=C-SPAN}}</ref> The panel discussion included Michelle Newby, a full-time Cato employee who edits Wikipedia as a part of her job.  She promised to work with any Congressional Staff that would be interested in editing.

==Flaws in governance structure==

==Flaws in governance structure==