Changes

#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult.  In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems.  The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>

#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult.  In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems.  The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>

# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>

# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>

# A group of editors created a Wikipedia article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order.  Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>

# A group of editors created an article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order.  Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>

# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several Wikipedia policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>

# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several site policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>

# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>

# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>

# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris on February 2017.<ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref> Furthermore, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion, before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story. As such this can be construed as a textbook example of the "[[Streisand effect]]".<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref>

# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris on February 2017.<ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref> Furthermore, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story, as such this can be construed as a textbook example of the "[[Streisand effect]]". The user in question has likely long since succumbed to kidney cancer.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/8hxsh7/rwikipediaafdwatch_is_up_for_adoption/</ref>

# [[BuzzFeed]] has regularly been debunked as fake news and satire.  However, the [[Wikipedia]] article on [[BuzzFeed]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BuzzFeed&oldid=786931798</ref> has very little if any mention of this if any and absolutely zero direct mention of this, only about a bunch of random plagiarism accusations.  The article discussed BuzzFeed printing the full text of the alleged dossier on [[Donald Trump]]. In contrast, the [[Wikipedia]] article for [[Alex Jones]],<ref name=jones>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=786853916</ref> who is the head of [[InfoWars]], says in the final sentence of the first paragraph, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.", and the InfoWars section of the Alex Jones article says, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled by media outlets as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16] Infowars editor is Paul Joseph Watson, who also occasionally guest hosts or co-hosts Jones' radio program."<ref name=jones/>

# [[BuzzFeed]] has regularly been debunked as fake news and satire.  However, the [[Wikipedia]] article on [[BuzzFeed]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BuzzFeed&oldid=786931798</ref> has very little if any mention of this if any and absolutely zero direct mention of this, only about a bunch of random plagiarism accusations.  The article discussed BuzzFeed printing the full text of the alleged dossier on [[Donald Trump]]. In contrast, the [[Wikipedia]] article for [[Alex Jones]],<ref name=jones>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=786853916</ref> who is the head of [[InfoWars]], says in the final sentence of the first paragraph, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.", and the InfoWars section of the Alex Jones article says, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled by media outlets as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16] Infowars editor is Paul Joseph Watson, who also occasionally guest hosts or co-hosts Jones' radio program."<ref name=jones/>

# After the [[Mueller Investigation]] concluded President Trump did not commit any crime, Wikipedia editors downplayed that finding.<ref>Adler, T.D. (April 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/12/wikipedia-editors-post-fake-news-on-summary-of-mueller-probe/ Wikipedia Editors Post Fake News on Summary of Mueller Probe]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 12, 2019.</ref>

# After the [[Mueller Investigation]] concluded President Trump did not commit any crime, Wikipedia editors downplayed that finding.<ref>Adler, T.D. (April 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/12/wikipedia-editors-post-fake-news-on-summary-of-mueller-probe/ Wikipedia Editors Post Fake News on Summary of Mueller Probe]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 12, 2019.</ref>