Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:JaylesHowler/Political Correctness

2015-03-10T01:20:33Z

JaylesHowler:

[[Image:PC-PILGRIM.JPG|thumb|400px|A [[satire|satirical]] cartoon which criticizes political correctness.]]
'''Political correctness''' is the avoidance of certain actions—such as using certain words or phrases—which are perceived to be discriminatory, marginalizing, or offensive to people who are seen as socially underprivileged.<ref>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political-correctness</ref> Political correctness has been criticized as a form of censorship by some of its opponents, who compare political correctness to [[newspeak]]<ref>http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm</ref>, a fictional language seen in the [[George Orwell]] novel [[1984]] created by an [[authoritarian]] state intended to prevent certain forms of expression. Words or actions which do not conform to political correctness are called '''politically incorrect''', which can be used both as a positive and as a negative label, by political correctness' opponents and proponents, respectively.

In the 1960's, the proponents of political correctness began promoting—and, in some cases, enforcing—it, in order to prevent expression seen as discriminatory against people of certain religions, nationalities, genders, or sexual orientations. [[Feminists]] criticized the use of ''he'', ''him'', or ''his'' as gender-neutral [[pronouns]], and promoted expressions like ''he or she'', ''him or her'', and ''they'', the last of which, the plural they, is grammatically according to some style guides.<ref>https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/595/01/</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

User:JaylesHowler/Political Correctness

2015-03-10T01:15:51Z

JaylesHowler:

User:JaylesHowler/Political Correctness

2015-03-10T01:12:17Z

JaylesHowler:

User:JaylesHowler/Political Correctness

2015-03-10T01:11:12Z

JaylesHowler:

[[Image:PC-PILGRIM.JPG|thumb|400px|A [[satire|satirical]] cartoon which criticizes political correctness.]]
'''Political correctness''' is the avoidance of certain actions—such as using certain words or phrases—which are perceived to be discriminatory, marginalizing, or offensive to people who are seen as socially underprivileged.<ref>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political-correctness</ref> Political correctness has been criticized as a form of censorship by some of its opponents, who compare political correctness to [[newspeak]]<ref>http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm</ref>, a fictional language seen in the [[George Orwell]] novel [[1984]] created by an [[authoritarian]] state intended to prevent certain forms of expression. Words or actions which do not conform to political correctness are called '''politically incorrect''', which can be used both as a positive and as a negative label by political correctness' opponents and proponents, respectively.

In the 1960's, the proponents of political correctness began promoting—and, in some cases, enforcing—it, in order to prevent expression seen as discriminatory against people of certain religions, nationalities, genders, or sexual orientations.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

User:JaylesHowler/Political Correctness

2015-03-10T01:10:39Z

JaylesHowler:

[[Image:PC-PILGRIM.JPG|thumb|400px|A [[satire|satirical]] cartoon which criticizes political correctness as a form of [[censorship]]]]
'''Political correctness''' is the avoidance of certain actions—such as using certain words or phrases—which are perceived to be discriminatory, marginalizing, or offensive to people who are seen as socially underprivileged.<ref>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political-correctness</ref> Political correctness has been criticized as a form of censorship by some of its opponents, who compare political correctness to [[newspeak]]<ref>http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm</ref>, a fictional language seen in the [[George Orwell]] novel [[1984]] created by an [[authoritarian]] state intended to prevent certain forms of expression. Words or actions which do not conform to political correctness are called '''politically incorrect''', which can be used both as a positive and as a negative label by political correctness' opponents and proponents, respectively.

In the 1960's, the proponents of political correctness began promoting—and, in some cases, enforcing—it, in order to prevent expression seen as discriminatory against people of certain religions, nationalities, genders, or sexual orientations.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

User:JaylesHowler/Political Correctness

2015-03-10T00:54:25Z

JaylesHowler:

'''Political correctness''' is the avoidance of certain actions—such as using certain words or phrases—which are perceived to be discriminatory, marginalizing, or offensive to people who are seen as socially underprivileged.<ref>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political-correctness</ref> Political correctness has been criticized as a form of censorship by some of its opponents, who compare political correctness to [[newspeak]]<ref>http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm</ref>, a fictional language seen in the [[George Orwell]] novel [[1984]] created by an [[authoritarian]] state intended to prevent certain forms of expression.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

User:JaylesHowler/Political Correctness

2015-03-10T00:46:12Z

JaylesHowler:

User:JaylesHowler/Political Correctness

2015-03-10T00:44:25Z

JaylesHowler: Created page with "'''Political correctness''' is the avoidance of certain actions—such as using certain words or phrases—which are perceived to be discriminatory, marginalizing, or insulting t..."

'''Political correctness''' is the avoidance of certain actions—such as using certain words or phrases—which are perceived to be discriminatory, marginalizing, or insulting to people who are seen as socially underprivileged.

Wikipedia

2015-03-10T00:39:47Z

JaylesHowler: /* Origins */ Removed double image(two of the same image on the same page)

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|The multilingual Wikipedia home page]]
'''Wikipedia''' is an [[internet|online]] [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]] hosted and owned by the non-profit organization [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and financially supported by a $20 million annual online fundraising drive<ref>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_announces_tenth_annual_fundraising_campaign</ref>, as well as other grants. Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publically by both registered and anonymous editors<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=wMhBQ0WdjF4C&pg=PA199#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>, mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>

Wikipedia was co-founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimbo Wales]], and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was originally created to complement the now defunct peer-reviewed online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]] as a way for collaboration on articles. However, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also hosts various related websites, known as "sister projects", such as ''Wikinews'' and ''Wikibooks''.

Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain [[Examples of bias in Wikipedia|systemic bias]]<ref name=howtheleft>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>, and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. <ref name=hnn>http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437</ref> The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and [[bias]], examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libellious content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose. <ref name=hnn/> Wikipedia was also criticized for having a [[liberal bias]] in its articles about politics, despite of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. <ref name=howtheleft/>

__TOC__

== Continuing loss of influence ==

Wikipedia's traffic level stems from its high placement in Google searches, and that many people rely upon it for quick research regarding trivial facts. However, users are turning to alternatives such as the voice-based iPhone application [[Siri]] or the Knowledge Graph display on Google search result pages of key facts about search targets.<ref name=timesindia>{{cite news|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Google-eating-into-Wikipedia-page-views/articleshow/29072825.cms?referral=PM|title=Google eating into Wikipedia page views?|work=Times of India|first=Subodh |last=Varma|date=January 20, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> Wikipedia page-views dropped by 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Wikipedia's most popular versions are leading the decline: page-views of the English Wikipedia dropped by 12 per cent, those of German version slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per cent.<ref name=timesindia/>

In addition to the number of visitors declining, there continues to be a drop in active editors as well. In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus [[Quora]] is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref> At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was "Wikipedia's worst nightmare".<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus Quora is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref>

== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==

Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But editors can delete, without collaboration, any text or entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors.

As the contribution of volunteer editors has declined, some of the void has been replaced by paid public relations professionals. These paid editors seek to present their client companies or individuals in the best possible light. This has resulted in many articles being transformed into paid advertising pieces that take advantage of the English Wikipedia's high placement on Google search results. This chronic problem has become so severe that the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed amending its terms of service to require disclosures of paid editing conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment|title=Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment|date=February 21, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> In the competition to control content, the paid PR editors win out because they are monitoring pages as a full time job, while editors seeking to keep content more balanced are only part-time volunteers.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</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>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is 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 [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s 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.

Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and mundane topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there were more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> As of February 2014, there are more than 4.4 million "content" pages, many of which lack educational value. On important topics, the information is often misleading due to the unchecked, [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|systematic liberal bias]] that dominates Wikipedia.

==Origins==
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

== Leftist bias ==

See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in the proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262</ref>

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:
{{cquote|There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s ''The Wikipedia Revolution'', is a libertarian and [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Randian]] [[Objectivism|Objectivist]]. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and [[anarchism|anarchist]] thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] ideal that human beings are more prone to [[altruism]] rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipedia, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>}}

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]

=== Research ===

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]] and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]] which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/[[liberal]] bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

==Purported "Tertiary" Source and Arbitrary Standards==
Wikipedia purports to be a "tertiary" source, relying on edited work from reputable sources. The policy is meant to build on the work of qualified editors of secondary sources. Some accuse Wikipedia, therefore, of relying on [[hearsay]], and discouraging the application of [[logic]] and new development of new insights. The result is a agglomeration of reheated "consensus" with little or no intellectual merit of its own; in particular, it is impossible to challenge orthodoxy, received wisdom or commonly held misconceptions through the Wikipedia system, no matter how factually incorrect those orthodoxies might be.

Supporters of Wikipedia would claim that relying on secondary sources encourages reliability and objectivity. However, there are cases of Wikipedia applying it's standards arbitrarily. For example, the case of Wikipedia editor "Yeoberry" (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about "Icons" on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source and so he needed to find reliable secondary sources. On April 4, 2013, Yeoberry again added largely the same material, this time citing a newly published academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal. The information was again removed, with editors, at least some of whom religiously affiliated with the organization supporting icons, claiming the editor had a "COI" (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with "edit warring." When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely and then his access to his own talk page was also blocked.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=548948980#Proposal:_Indefinite_Block</ref>

Wikipedia articles, especially on controversial or political and religious topics, are often guarded by editors who have an interest in slanting the content of the article, may have no formal education on the topic, and can find a so-called reason for suppressing the information they want to suppress. Editors can claim the source is unreliable (as they interpret that); that information gives "UNDUE" weight to the topic the information is about; peer-reviewed, academic articles written by scholars can be removed by editors if, in the opinion of an editor, the view expressed is "Fringe" or if the contributor has a "COI" (conflict of interest) if he's the author of the secondary source or has an advanced education or other interest in the topic; etc. Editors with advanced education in a topic, citing sources from peer-reviewed journals, can have their contributions deleted and their participation prohibited if a few other editors, without such qualification but with enough knowledge of the Wikipedia jargon, decide to suppress him or her.

Originally, encyclopedias were written by scholars, either by one or a few whose knowledge is considered "encyclopedic" (i.e. very broad) or each article is written by an expert in the field. But in Wikipedia, expertise in a given field can disqualify one from contributing in that field resulting in Wikipedia being accused of being a "[[idiocracy]]".

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in [[venture capital]]. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/|title=Wikipedia: Special Treatment for Wikia and some other Wikis|author=Nik Cubrilovic|date=April 28, 2007|accessdate=July 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

For the past few years, Wikipedia has added banners begging for money from its viewers. The site claims to be in need of more funding, but in fact it is "awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating."<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?], 20 December 2012</ref>

Wikipedia, a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, is used also by services like WikiExperts.us, which is declared as not being affiliated with it.
WikiExperts.us accepts money to write Wikipedia entries for businesses and is included in American business ventures of Alex Konanykhin, the Former Russian oligarch, who has been wanted in Russia since Yeltsin’s days to face charges relating to embezzlement and financial fraud.<ref>{{cite web |title='Not terrorists': Hysteria over MH17 fails to take account of both law and facts |author=Roslyn Fuller |date=July 25, 2014 |accessdate=July 26, 2014 |url=http://rt.com/op-edge/175496-hysteria-mh17-ukraine-facts-terrorists/}}</ref>

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

Further evidence of the decline in Wikipedia is that the number of editors who voted in the 2012 Arbitration Committee elections has dropped to 858.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#Turnout|title=Arbitration Commitee Elections December 2012|accessdate=December 18, 2012}}</ref> For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low. Active editors are discouraged from voting because all voters are subject to automatic investigation and invasion of their privacy to determine if they are "sockpuppets" of other voters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-s-scrutineers-snoop-on-living-arrangements-of-contributors|title=Wikipedia's "scrutineers" snoop on living arrangements of contributors|work=Examiner|first=Greg|last=Kohs|date=December 11, 2013|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref>

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref> Wales' booking agent for speaking engagements claims that Wales is "the founder" of Wikipedia, which results in surprised clients when that claim is challenged. The false "founder" claim is on Wales' webpage.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://jimmywales.com/about-jimmy/|title=About Jimmy|accessdate=February 6, 2015}}</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist [[Daniel Brandt]], a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&st=0&p=36485&mode=linear#entry36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.
==Robert Clark Young revenge edits==
From 2006 to 2013, Robert Clark Young, an author who had only published one novel to mixed reviews, edited Wikipedia extensively with 13,000 edits under username "Qworty." He engaged in aggressive behavior making revenge edits to biographical articles of his rival authors and other people against whom he held grudges. He also puffed up his own Wikipedia autobiography, and repeatedly denied that he was connected to Young. He also created other single purpose accounts to further his campaign.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Geri_Litton|title=Geri Litton sockpuppet investigation|date=2007|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qworty/Archive|title=Quorty sockpuppet inviestigant|date=2013|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref> Only after his true identity was revealed in a salon.com article,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> was Young banned<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> and efforts made to reverse his vindictive edits. In essence, he would remove favorable items from the biographies of his enemies or nominate them for deletion. The salon.com article concluded,
<blockquote>But Qworty’s example tells us that even when people call attention to a rogue editor, even when that editor’s temper tantrums come to the attention of the founder of Wikipedia, it’s quite possible that no action will be taken.</blockquote>

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by the user to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

However, beginning June 15, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation began transitioning content on Wikipedia to be dual licensed under both the GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes</ref>

==Cyberbullying==
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref><ref name="ABCLocal">[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com]</ref><ref name="LATimes2">{{cite news |title=Student arrested for violent threats on Wikipedia |first= |last= |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/04/wiki.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571abd811970b |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=29 April 2008}}</ref> An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,<ref name="LATimes" /><ref name="ABCLocal" /><ref name="LATimes2" /> and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_baef01f3-e56f-52e1-b9af-e90eb83e811b.html|title=Teen charged after threat to school on Wikipedia|date=31 October 2006|agency=Associated Press |publisher=Pantagraph.com|accessdate=26 January 2011|location=Bloomington, IL}}</ref>
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by [[atheism|atheists]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref>

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]
== Trademarks and domain names ==
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) uses the licensing of its trademarks as a tool to control local chapters. Although each local chapter is in theory an autonomous organization, each chapter signs an contract with the WMF as a condition for using its trademarks. The WMF also tried to stake out control over many domain names that contain the word "wiki" including "[[wikileaks]]". WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. ("Wiki" describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia |title=Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia |work=Wikipedia |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wiki-giants-on-a-collision-course-over-shared-name-2065561.html |title=Wiki giants on a collision course over shared name |last1=Rawlinson |first1=Kevin |first2=Tom |last2=Peck |date=30 August 2010 |work=The Independent |location=London |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.<ref name=wikia>{{cite web |url=http://www.wikia.com/Press:Wikia_Does_Not_Own_Wikileaks_Domain_Names |title=Press:Wikia Does Not Own Wikileaks Domain Names |work=[[Wikia]] |publisher=[[Wikia]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia started to transfer those domain names to wikileaks on June 14, 2007, but the transfer was never completed, and Wikia held those domain names when the "Wikileaks scandal" broke.<ref name=wikia/>

== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

"...dealing with the Wikipedians is like walking into a mental hospital: the floors are carpeted, the walls are nicely padded, but you know there’s a pretty good chance at any given moment one of the inmates will pick up a knife.” - quote from a ''[[New York Times]]'' article on Wikipedia written by the journalist and author Judith Newman<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/fashion/Wikipedia-Judith-Newman.html?smid=pl-share Wikipedia-Mania: Wikipedia, What Does Judith Newman Have to Do to Get a Page?]</ref>

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.<ref>[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]</ref>

Seth Meyers noted on his ''Late Night'' program, "Wikipedia is now accepting donations using the online currency Bitcoin. So now you can support information you're not sure is true with currency you're not sure is money."<ref>http://www.thespec.com/living-story/4733681-tuesdayfile/ Retrieved August 8, 2014</ref>

When obscure author [[Patrick Modiano]] was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in October 2014, few journalists knew much about him. The person updating his Wikipedia biography to reflect the prize added this warning to the article, "To the Reporter Now Copying From Wikipedia: Be careful boy. Primary sources are still best for journos."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/09/nobel_prize_winner_patrick_modiano_s_wikipedia_page_changed_to_add_note.html|title=A Reminder to Journalists Writing About the New Nobel Prize Winner, From Wikipedia|first=Forrest |last=Wickman|date=October 9, 2014|work=Slate|accessdate=October 10, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Modiano&diff=prev&oldid=628920987</ref>
=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

==Unbiased editor recruitment==
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. It is to an extent, its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the "24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change" conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to recruit more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.

Wikipedia editor [http://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=http://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.

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikimedia Foundation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])
*[[Deletionpedia]]
*[[Essay:Wikipedia and Citizendium]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/01/2013-is-starting-off-to-be-bad-year-for.html Study shows that the world's biggest pro-evolution website is driving away newcomer editors! Also, video shows evolutionists at Wikipedia are clowns!]
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipediocracy]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies Wikipedia's List of Wikipedia controversies]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]

User:JaylesHowler

2015-03-10T00:38:45Z

JaylesHowler:

New unfinished proposed draft for wikipedia article: [[User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia]]
Unfinished draft for the article [[Political correctness]]: [[User:JaylesHowler/Political Correctness]]

Wikipedia

2015-03-03T00:14:19Z

JaylesHowler: Rewording

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|The multilingual Wikipedia home page]]
'''Wikipedia''' is an [[internet|online]] [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]] hosted and owned by the non-profit organization [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and financially supported by a $20 million annual online fundraising drive<ref>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_announces_tenth_annual_fundraising_campaign</ref>, as well as other grants. Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publically by both registered and anonymous editors<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=wMhBQ0WdjF4C&pg=PA199#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>, mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>

Wikipedia was co-founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimbo Wales]], and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was originally created to complement the now defunct peer-reviewed online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]] as a way for collaboration on articles. However, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also hosts various related websites, known as "sister projects", such as ''Wikinews'' and ''Wikibooks''.

Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain [[Examples of bias in Wikipedia|systemic bias]]<ref name=howtheleft>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>, and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. <ref name=hnn>http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437</ref> The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and [[bias]], examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libellious content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose. <ref name=hnn/> Wikipedia was also criticized for having a [[liberal bias]] in its articles about politics, despite of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. <ref name=howtheleft/>

__TOC__

== Continuing loss of influence ==

Wikipedia's traffic level stems from its high placement in Google searches, and that many people rely upon it for quick research regarding trivial facts. However, users are turning to alternatives such as the voice-based iPhone application [[Siri]] or the Knowledge Graph display on Google search result pages of key facts about search targets.<ref name=timesindia>{{cite news|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Google-eating-into-Wikipedia-page-views/articleshow/29072825.cms?referral=PM|title=Google eating into Wikipedia page views?|work=Times of India|first=Subodh |last=Varma|date=January 20, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> Wikipedia page-views dropped by 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Wikipedia's most popular versions are leading the decline: page-views of the English Wikipedia dropped by 12 per cent, those of German version slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per cent.<ref name=timesindia/>

In addition to the number of visitors declining, there continues to be a drop in active editors as well. In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus [[Quora]] is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref> At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was "Wikipedia's worst nightmare".<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus Quora is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref>

== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==

Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But editors can delete, without collaboration, any text or entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors.

As the contribution of volunteer editors has declined, some of the void has been replaced by paid public relations professionals. These paid editors seek to present their client companies or individuals in the best possible light. This has resulted in many articles being transformed into paid advertising pieces that take advantage of the English Wikipedia's high placement on Google search results. This chronic problem has become so severe that the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed amending its terms of service to require disclosures of paid editing conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment|title=Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment|date=February 21, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> In the competition to control content, the paid PR editors win out because they are monitoring pages as a full time job, while editors seeking to keep content more balanced are only part-time volunteers.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</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>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is 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 [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s 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.

Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and mundane topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there were more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> As of February 2014, there are more than 4.4 million "content" pages, many of which lack educational value. On important topics, the information is often misleading due to the unchecked, [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|systematic liberal bias]] that dominates Wikipedia.

==Origins==
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

== Leftist bias ==

See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in the proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262</ref>

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:
{{cquote|There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s ''The Wikipedia Revolution'', is a libertarian and [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Randian]] [[Objectivism|Objectivist]]. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and [[anarchism|anarchist]] thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] ideal that human beings are more prone to [[altruism]] rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipedia, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>}}

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]

=== Research ===

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]] and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]] which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/[[liberal]] bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

==Purported "Tertiary" Source and Arbitrary Standards==
Wikipedia purports to be a "tertiary" source, relying on edited work from reputable sources. The policy is meant to build on the work of qualified editors of secondary sources. Some accuse Wikipedia, therefore, of relying on [[hearsay]], and discouraging the application of [[logic]] and new development of new insights. The result is a agglomeration of reheated "consensus" with little or no intellectual merit of its own; in particular, it is impossible to challenge orthodoxy, received wisdom or commonly held misconceptions through the Wikipedia system, no matter how factually incorrect those orthodoxies might be.

Supporters of Wikipedia would claim that relying on secondary sources encourages reliability and objectivity. However, there are cases of Wikipedia applying it's standards arbitrarily. For example, the case of Wikipedia editor "Yeoberry" (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about "Icons" on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source and so he needed to find reliable secondary sources. On April 4, 2013, Yeoberry again added largely the same material, this time citing a newly published academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal. The information was again removed, with editors, at least some of whom religiously affiliated with the organization supporting icons, claiming the editor had a "COI" (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with "edit warring." When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely and then his access to his own talk page was also blocked.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=548948980#Proposal:_Indefinite_Block</ref>

Wikipedia articles, especially on controversial or political and religious topics, are often guarded by editors who have an interest in slanting the content of the article, may have no formal education on the topic, and can find a so-called reason for suppressing the information they want to suppress. Editors can claim the source is unreliable (as they interpret that); that information gives "UNDUE" weight to the topic the information is about; peer-reviewed, academic articles written by scholars can be removed by editors if, in the opinion of an editor, the view expressed is "Fringe" or if the contributor has a "COI" (conflict of interest) if he's the author of the secondary source or has an advanced education or other interest in the topic; etc. Editors with advanced education in a topic, citing sources from peer-reviewed journals, can have their contributions deleted and their participation prohibited if a few other editors, without such qualification but with enough knowledge of the Wikipedia jargon, decide to suppress him or her.

Originally, encyclopedias were written by scholars, either by one or a few whose knowledge is considered "encyclopedic" (i.e. very broad) or each article is written by an expert in the field. But in Wikipedia, expertise in a given field can disqualify one from contributing in that field resulting in Wikipedia being accused of being a "[[idiocracy]]".

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in [[venture capital]]. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/|title=Wikipedia: Special Treatment for Wikia and some other Wikis|author=Nik Cubrilovic|date=April 28, 2007|accessdate=July 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

For the past few years, Wikipedia has added banners begging for money from its viewers. The site claims to be in need of more funding, but in fact it is "awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating."<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?], 20 December 2012</ref>

Wikipedia, a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, is used also by services like WikiExperts.us, which is declared as not being affiliated with it.
WikiExperts.us accepts money to write Wikipedia entries for businesses and is included in American business ventures of Alex Konanykhin, the Former Russian oligarch, who has been wanted in Russia since Yeltsin’s days to face charges relating to embezzlement and financial fraud.<ref>{{cite web |title='Not terrorists': Hysteria over MH17 fails to take account of both law and facts |author=Roslyn Fuller |date=July 25, 2014 |accessdate=July 26, 2014 |url=http://rt.com/op-edge/175496-hysteria-mh17-ukraine-facts-terrorists/}}</ref>

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

Further evidence of the decline in Wikipedia is that the number of editors who voted in the 2012 Arbitration Committee elections has dropped to 858.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#Turnout|title=Arbitration Commitee Elections December 2012|accessdate=December 18, 2012}}</ref> For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low. Active editors are discouraged from voting because all voters are subject to automatic investigation and invasion of their privacy to determine if they are "sockpuppets" of other voters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-s-scrutineers-snoop-on-living-arrangements-of-contributors|title=Wikipedia's "scrutineers" snoop on living arrangements of contributors|work=Examiner|first=Greg|last=Kohs|date=December 11, 2013|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref>

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref> Wales' booking agent for speaking engagements claims that Wales is "the founder" of Wikipedia, which results in surprised clients when that claim is challenged. The false "founder" claim is on Wales' webpage.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://jimmywales.com/about-jimmy/|title=About Jimmy|accessdate=February 6, 2015}}</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist [[Daniel Brandt]], a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&st=0&p=36485&mode=linear#entry36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.
==Robert Clark Young revenge edits==
From 2006 to 2013, Robert Clark Young, an author who had only published one novel to mixed reviews, edited Wikipedia extensively with 13,000 edits under username "Qworty." He engaged in aggressive behavior making revenge edits to biographical articles of his rival authors and other people against whom he held grudges. He also puffed up his own Wikipedia autobiography, and repeatedly denied that he was connected to Young. He also created other single purpose accounts to further his campaign.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Geri_Litton|title=Geri Litton sockpuppet investigation|date=2007|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qworty/Archive|title=Quorty sockpuppet inviestigant|date=2013|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref> Only after his true identity was revealed in a salon.com article,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> was Young banned<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> and efforts made to reverse his vindictive edits. In essence, he would remove favorable items from the biographies of his enemies or nominate them for deletion. The salon.com article concluded,
<blockquote>But Qworty’s example tells us that even when people call attention to a rogue editor, even when that editor’s temper tantrums come to the attention of the founder of Wikipedia, it’s quite possible that no action will be taken.</blockquote>

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by the user to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

However, beginning June 15, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation began transitioning content on Wikipedia to be dual licensed under both the GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes</ref>

==Cyberbullying==
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref><ref name="ABCLocal">[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com]</ref><ref name="LATimes2">{{cite news |title=Student arrested for violent threats on Wikipedia |first= |last= |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/04/wiki.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571abd811970b |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=29 April 2008}}</ref> An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,<ref name="LATimes" /><ref name="ABCLocal" /><ref name="LATimes2" /> and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_baef01f3-e56f-52e1-b9af-e90eb83e811b.html|title=Teen charged after threat to school on Wikipedia|date=31 October 2006|agency=Associated Press |publisher=Pantagraph.com|accessdate=26 January 2011|location=Bloomington, IL}}</ref>
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by [[atheism|atheists]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref>

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]
== Trademarks and domain names ==
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) uses the licensing of its trademarks as a tool to control local chapters. Although each local chapter is in theory an autonomous organization, each chapter signs an contract with the WMF as a condition for using its trademarks. The WMF also tried to stake out control over many domain names that contain the word "wiki" including "[[wikileaks]]". WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. ("Wiki" describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia |title=Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia |work=Wikipedia |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wiki-giants-on-a-collision-course-over-shared-name-2065561.html |title=Wiki giants on a collision course over shared name |last1=Rawlinson |first1=Kevin |first2=Tom |last2=Peck |date=30 August 2010 |work=The Independent |location=London |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.<ref name=wikia>{{cite web |url=http://www.wikia.com/Press:Wikia_Does_Not_Own_Wikileaks_Domain_Names |title=Press:Wikia Does Not Own Wikileaks Domain Names |work=[[Wikia]] |publisher=[[Wikia]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia started to transfer those domain names to wikileaks on June 14, 2007, but the transfer was never completed, and Wikia held those domain names when the "Wikileaks scandal" broke.<ref name=wikia/>

== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

"...dealing with the Wikipedians is like walking into a mental hospital: the floors are carpeted, the walls are nicely padded, but you know there’s a pretty good chance at any given moment one of the inmates will pick up a knife.” - quote from a ''[[New York Times]]'' article on Wikipedia written by the journalist and author Judith Newman<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/fashion/Wikipedia-Judith-Newman.html?smid=pl-share Wikipedia-Mania: Wikipedia, What Does Judith Newman Have to Do to Get a Page?]</ref>

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.<ref>[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]</ref>

Seth Meyers noted on his ''Late Night'' program, "Wikipedia is now accepting donations using the online currency Bitcoin. So now you can support information you're not sure is true with currency you're not sure is money."<ref>http://www.thespec.com/living-story/4733681-tuesdayfile/ Retrieved August 8, 2014</ref>

When obscure author [[Patrick Modiano]] was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in October 2014, few journalists knew much about him. The person updating his Wikipedia biography to reflect the prize added this warning to the article, "To the Reporter Now Copying From Wikipedia: Be careful boy. Primary sources are still best for journos."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/09/nobel_prize_winner_patrick_modiano_s_wikipedia_page_changed_to_add_note.html|title=A Reminder to Journalists Writing About the New Nobel Prize Winner, From Wikipedia|first=Forrest |last=Wickman|date=October 9, 2014|work=Slate|accessdate=October 10, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Modiano&diff=prev&oldid=628920987</ref>
=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

==Unbiased editor recruitment==
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. It is to an extent, its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the "24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change" conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to recruit more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.

Wikipedia editor [http://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=http://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.

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikimedia Foundation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])
*[[Deletionpedia]]
*[[Essay:Wikipedia and Citizendium]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/01/2013-is-starting-off-to-be-bad-year-for.html Study shows that the world's biggest pro-evolution website is driving away newcomer editors! Also, video shows evolutionists at Wikipedia are clowns!]
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipediocracy]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies Wikipedia's List of Wikipedia controversies]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]

Wikipedia

2015-03-03T00:09:09Z

JaylesHowler: Changed to the lead for my proposed verson; please revert if you believe my version to be inaccurate

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|The multilingual Wikipedia home page]]
'''Wikipedia''' is an [[internet|online]] [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]] hosted and owned by the non-profit organization [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and financially supported by a $20 million annual online fundraising drive<ref>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_announces_tenth_annual_fundraising_campaign</ref>, as well as other grants. Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publically by both registered and anonymous editors<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=wMhBQ0WdjF4C&pg=PA199#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>, mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>

Wikipedia was co-founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimbo Wales]], and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was originally created to complement the now defunct peer-reviewed online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]] as a way for collaboration on articles. However, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also hosts various "sister projects", such as ''Wikinews'' and ''Wikibooks''.

Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain [[Examples of bias in Wikipedia|systemic bias]]<ref name=howtheleft>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>, and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. <ref name=hnn>http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437</ref> The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and [[bias]], examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libellious content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose. <ref name=hnn/> Wikipedia was also criticized for having a [[liberal bias]] in its articles about politics, despite of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. <ref name=howtheleft/>

__TOC__

== Continuing loss of influence ==

Wikipedia's traffic level stems from its high placement in Google searches, and that many people rely upon it for quick research regarding trivial facts. However, users are turning to alternatives such as the voice-based iPhone application [[Siri]] or the Knowledge Graph display on Google search result pages of key facts about search targets.<ref name=timesindia>{{cite news|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Google-eating-into-Wikipedia-page-views/articleshow/29072825.cms?referral=PM|title=Google eating into Wikipedia page views?|work=Times of India|first=Subodh |last=Varma|date=January 20, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> Wikipedia page-views dropped by 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Wikipedia's most popular versions are leading the decline: page-views of the English Wikipedia dropped by 12 per cent, those of German version slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per cent.<ref name=timesindia/>

In addition to the number of visitors declining, there continues to be a drop in active editors as well. In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus [[Quora]] is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref> At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was "Wikipedia's worst nightmare".<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus Quora is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref>

== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==

Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But editors can delete, without collaboration, any text or entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors.

As the contribution of volunteer editors has declined, some of the void has been replaced by paid public relations professionals. These paid editors seek to present their client companies or individuals in the best possible light. This has resulted in many articles being transformed into paid advertising pieces that take advantage of the English Wikipedia's high placement on Google search results. This chronic problem has become so severe that the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed amending its terms of service to require disclosures of paid editing conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment|title=Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment|date=February 21, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> In the competition to control content, the paid PR editors win out because they are monitoring pages as a full time job, while editors seeking to keep content more balanced are only part-time volunteers.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</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>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is 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 [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s 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.

Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and mundane topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there were more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> As of February 2014, there are more than 4.4 million "content" pages, many of which lack educational value. On important topics, the information is often misleading due to the unchecked, [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|systematic liberal bias]] that dominates Wikipedia.

==Origins==
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

== Leftist bias ==

See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in the proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262</ref>

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:
{{cquote|There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s ''The Wikipedia Revolution'', is a libertarian and [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Randian]] [[Objectivism|Objectivist]]. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and [[anarchism|anarchist]] thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] ideal that human beings are more prone to [[altruism]] rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipedia, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>}}

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]

=== Research ===

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]] and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]] which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/[[liberal]] bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

==Purported "Tertiary" Source and Arbitrary Standards==
Wikipedia purports to be a "tertiary" source, relying on edited work from reputable sources. The policy is meant to build on the work of qualified editors of secondary sources. Some accuse Wikipedia, therefore, of relying on [[hearsay]], and discouraging the application of [[logic]] and new development of new insights. The result is a agglomeration of reheated "consensus" with little or no intellectual merit of its own; in particular, it is impossible to challenge orthodoxy, received wisdom or commonly held misconceptions through the Wikipedia system, no matter how factually incorrect those orthodoxies might be.

Supporters of Wikipedia would claim that relying on secondary sources encourages reliability and objectivity. However, there are cases of Wikipedia applying it's standards arbitrarily. For example, the case of Wikipedia editor "Yeoberry" (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about "Icons" on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source and so he needed to find reliable secondary sources. On April 4, 2013, Yeoberry again added largely the same material, this time citing a newly published academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal. The information was again removed, with editors, at least some of whom religiously affiliated with the organization supporting icons, claiming the editor had a "COI" (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with "edit warring." When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely and then his access to his own talk page was also blocked.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=548948980#Proposal:_Indefinite_Block</ref>

Wikipedia articles, especially on controversial or political and religious topics, are often guarded by editors who have an interest in slanting the content of the article, may have no formal education on the topic, and can find a so-called reason for suppressing the information they want to suppress. Editors can claim the source is unreliable (as they interpret that); that information gives "UNDUE" weight to the topic the information is about; peer-reviewed, academic articles written by scholars can be removed by editors if, in the opinion of an editor, the view expressed is "Fringe" or if the contributor has a "COI" (conflict of interest) if he's the author of the secondary source or has an advanced education or other interest in the topic; etc. Editors with advanced education in a topic, citing sources from peer-reviewed journals, can have their contributions deleted and their participation prohibited if a few other editors, without such qualification but with enough knowledge of the Wikipedia jargon, decide to suppress him or her.

Originally, encyclopedias were written by scholars, either by one or a few whose knowledge is considered "encyclopedic" (i.e. very broad) or each article is written by an expert in the field. But in Wikipedia, expertise in a given field can disqualify one from contributing in that field resulting in Wikipedia being accused of being a "[[idiocracy]]".

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in [[venture capital]]. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/|title=Wikipedia: Special Treatment for Wikia and some other Wikis|author=Nik Cubrilovic|date=April 28, 2007|accessdate=July 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

For the past few years, Wikipedia has added banners begging for money from its viewers. The site claims to be in need of more funding, but in fact it is "awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating."<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?], 20 December 2012</ref>

Wikipedia, a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, is used also by services like WikiExperts.us, which is declared as not being affiliated with it.
WikiExperts.us accepts money to write Wikipedia entries for businesses and is included in American business ventures of Alex Konanykhin, the Former Russian oligarch, who has been wanted in Russia since Yeltsin’s days to face charges relating to embezzlement and financial fraud.<ref>{{cite web |title='Not terrorists': Hysteria over MH17 fails to take account of both law and facts |author=Roslyn Fuller |date=July 25, 2014 |accessdate=July 26, 2014 |url=http://rt.com/op-edge/175496-hysteria-mh17-ukraine-facts-terrorists/}}</ref>

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

Further evidence of the decline in Wikipedia is that the number of editors who voted in the 2012 Arbitration Committee elections has dropped to 858.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#Turnout|title=Arbitration Commitee Elections December 2012|accessdate=December 18, 2012}}</ref> For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low. Active editors are discouraged from voting because all voters are subject to automatic investigation and invasion of their privacy to determine if they are "sockpuppets" of other voters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-s-scrutineers-snoop-on-living-arrangements-of-contributors|title=Wikipedia's "scrutineers" snoop on living arrangements of contributors|work=Examiner|first=Greg|last=Kohs|date=December 11, 2013|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref>

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref> Wales' booking agent for speaking engagements claims that Wales is "the founder" of Wikipedia, which results in surprised clients when that claim is challenged. The false "founder" claim is on Wales' webpage.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://jimmywales.com/about-jimmy/|title=About Jimmy|accessdate=February 6, 2015}}</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist [[Daniel Brandt]], a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&st=0&p=36485&mode=linear#entry36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.
==Robert Clark Young revenge edits==
From 2006 to 2013, Robert Clark Young, an author who had only published one novel to mixed reviews, edited Wikipedia extensively with 13,000 edits under username "Qworty." He engaged in aggressive behavior making revenge edits to biographical articles of his rival authors and other people against whom he held grudges. He also puffed up his own Wikipedia autobiography, and repeatedly denied that he was connected to Young. He also created other single purpose accounts to further his campaign.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Geri_Litton|title=Geri Litton sockpuppet investigation|date=2007|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qworty/Archive|title=Quorty sockpuppet inviestigant|date=2013|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref> Only after his true identity was revealed in a salon.com article,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> was Young banned<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> and efforts made to reverse his vindictive edits. In essence, he would remove favorable items from the biographies of his enemies or nominate them for deletion. The salon.com article concluded,
<blockquote>But Qworty’s example tells us that even when people call attention to a rogue editor, even when that editor’s temper tantrums come to the attention of the founder of Wikipedia, it’s quite possible that no action will be taken.</blockquote>

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by the user to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

However, beginning June 15, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation began transitioning content on Wikipedia to be dual licensed under both the GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes</ref>

==Cyberbullying==
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref><ref name="ABCLocal">[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com]</ref><ref name="LATimes2">{{cite news |title=Student arrested for violent threats on Wikipedia |first= |last= |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/04/wiki.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571abd811970b |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=29 April 2008}}</ref> An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,<ref name="LATimes" /><ref name="ABCLocal" /><ref name="LATimes2" /> and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_baef01f3-e56f-52e1-b9af-e90eb83e811b.html|title=Teen charged after threat to school on Wikipedia|date=31 October 2006|agency=Associated Press |publisher=Pantagraph.com|accessdate=26 January 2011|location=Bloomington, IL}}</ref>
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by [[atheism|atheists]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref>

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]
== Trademarks and domain names ==
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) uses the licensing of its trademarks as a tool to control local chapters. Although each local chapter is in theory an autonomous organization, each chapter signs an contract with the WMF as a condition for using its trademarks. The WMF also tried to stake out control over many domain names that contain the word "wiki" including "[[wikileaks]]". WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. ("Wiki" describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia |title=Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia |work=Wikipedia |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wiki-giants-on-a-collision-course-over-shared-name-2065561.html |title=Wiki giants on a collision course over shared name |last1=Rawlinson |first1=Kevin |first2=Tom |last2=Peck |date=30 August 2010 |work=The Independent |location=London |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.<ref name=wikia>{{cite web |url=http://www.wikia.com/Press:Wikia_Does_Not_Own_Wikileaks_Domain_Names |title=Press:Wikia Does Not Own Wikileaks Domain Names |work=[[Wikia]] |publisher=[[Wikia]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia started to transfer those domain names to wikileaks on June 14, 2007, but the transfer was never completed, and Wikia held those domain names when the "Wikileaks scandal" broke.<ref name=wikia/>

== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

"...dealing with the Wikipedians is like walking into a mental hospital: the floors are carpeted, the walls are nicely padded, but you know there’s a pretty good chance at any given moment one of the inmates will pick up a knife.” - quote from a ''[[New York Times]]'' article on Wikipedia written by the journalist and author Judith Newman<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/fashion/Wikipedia-Judith-Newman.html?smid=pl-share Wikipedia-Mania: Wikipedia, What Does Judith Newman Have to Do to Get a Page?]</ref>

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.<ref>[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]</ref>

Seth Meyers noted on his ''Late Night'' program, "Wikipedia is now accepting donations using the online currency Bitcoin. So now you can support information you're not sure is true with currency you're not sure is money."<ref>http://www.thespec.com/living-story/4733681-tuesdayfile/ Retrieved August 8, 2014</ref>

When obscure author [[Patrick Modiano]] was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in October 2014, few journalists knew much about him. The person updating his Wikipedia biography to reflect the prize added this warning to the article, "To the Reporter Now Copying From Wikipedia: Be careful boy. Primary sources are still best for journos."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/09/nobel_prize_winner_patrick_modiano_s_wikipedia_page_changed_to_add_note.html|title=A Reminder to Journalists Writing About the New Nobel Prize Winner, From Wikipedia|first=Forrest |last=Wickman|date=October 9, 2014|work=Slate|accessdate=October 10, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Modiano&diff=prev&oldid=628920987</ref>
=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

==Unbiased editor recruitment==
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. It is to an extent, its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the "24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change" conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to recruit more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.

Wikipedia editor [http://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=http://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.

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikimedia Foundation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])
*[[Deletionpedia]]
*[[Essay:Wikipedia and Citizendium]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/01/2013-is-starting-off-to-be-bad-year-for.html Study shows that the world's biggest pro-evolution website is driving away newcomer editors! Also, video shows evolutionists at Wikipedia are clowns!]
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipediocracy]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies Wikipedia's List of Wikipedia controversies]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T18:40:05Z

JaylesHowler: /* Reliablility */

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T18:39:13Z

JaylesHowler: /* Reliablility */

User:JaylesHowler

2015-02-09T18:34:41Z

JaylesHowler: Created page with "New proposed draft for wikipedia article: User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia"

New proposed draft for wikipedia article: [[User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia]]

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T01:48:35Z

JaylesHowler:

This is a proposed new version for the article [[Wikipedia]]/

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|The multilingual Wikipedia home page]]
'''Wikipedia''' is an [[internet|online]] [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]] hosted and owned by the non-profit organization [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and financially supported by a $20 million annual online fundraising drive<ref>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_announces_tenth_annual_fundraising_campaign</ref>, as well as other grants. Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publically by both registered and anonymous editors<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=wMhBQ0WdjF4C&pg=PA199#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>, mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>

Wikipedia was co-founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimbo Wales]], and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was originally created to complement the now defunct peer-reviewed online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]] as a way for collaboration on articles. However, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also hosts various "sister projects", such as ''Wikinews'' and ''Wikibooks''.

Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain [[bias|systemic bias]]<ref name=howtheleft>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>, and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. <ref name=hnn>http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437</ref> The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and [[bias]], examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libellious content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose. <ref name=hnn/> Wikipedia was also criticized for having a [[liberal bias]] in its articles about politics, despite of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. <ref name=howtheleft/>
__TOC__
== History ==

Wikipedia originated as a website intended to complement the now-defunct [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]]. The encyclopedia was intended as a "feeder" website: the user created articles would be introduced into Nupedia after passing a peer-review process. <ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html</ref> Wikipedia later overtook Nupedia and became an independent project. In 2007, Wikipedia became the largest encyclopedia in the world by article count, surpassing the 1408 Yongle encyclopedia.

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company co-founded by [[Jimmy Wales]], which also sold [[pornography|pornographic pictures]] and other forms of adult entertainment.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and [[Conservapedia]].<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

== Reliablility ==

Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But editors can delete, without collaboration, any text or entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors.

As the contribution of volunteer editors has declined, some of the void has been replaced by paid public relations professionals. These paid editors seek to present their client companies or individuals in the best possible light. This has resulted in many articles being transformed into paid advertising pieces that take advantage of the English Wikipedia's high placement on Google search results. This chronic problem has become so severe that the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed amending its terms of service to require disclosures of paid editing conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment|title=Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment|date=February 21, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> In the competition to control content, the paid PR editors win out because they are monitoring pages as a full time job, while editors seeking to keep content more balanced are only part-time volunteers.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</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>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is 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 [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s 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.

Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and mundane topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there were more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> As of February 2014, there are more than 4.4 million "content" pages, many of which lack educational value. On important topics, the information is often misleading due to the unchecked, [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|systematic liberal bias]] that dominates Wikipedia.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T01:48:14Z

JaylesHowler:

This is a proposed new version for the article [[Wikipedia]]/

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|The multilingual Wikipedia home page]]
'''Wikipedia''' is an [[internet|online]] [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]] hosted and owned by the non-profit organization [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and financially supported by a $20 million annual online fundraising drive<ref>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_announces_tenth_annual_fundraising_campaign</ref>, as well as other grants. Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publically by both registered and anonymous editors<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=wMhBQ0WdjF4C&pg=PA199#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>, mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>

Wikipedia was co-founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimbo Wales]], and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was originally created to complement the now defunct peer-reviewed online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]] as a way for collaboration on articles. However, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also hosts various "sister projects", such as ''Wikinews'' and ''Wikibooks''.

Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain [[bias|systemic bias]]<ref name=howtheleft>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>, and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. <ref name=hnn>http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437</ref> The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and [[bias]], examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libellious content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose. <ref name=hnn/> Wikipedia was also criticized for having a [[liberal bias]] in its articles about politics, despite of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. <ref name=howtheleft/>

_TOC_

== History ==

Wikipedia originated as a website intended to complement the now-defunct [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]]. The encyclopedia was intended as a "feeder" website: the user created articles would be introduced into Nupedia after passing a peer-review process. <ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html</ref> Wikipedia later overtook Nupedia and became an independent project. In 2007, Wikipedia became the largest encyclopedia in the world by article count, surpassing the 1408 Yongle encyclopedia.

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company co-founded by [[Jimmy Wales]], which also sold [[pornography|pornographic pictures]] and other forms of adult entertainment.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and [[Conservapedia]].<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

== Reliablility ==

Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But editors can delete, without collaboration, any text or entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors.

As the contribution of volunteer editors has declined, some of the void has been replaced by paid public relations professionals. These paid editors seek to present their client companies or individuals in the best possible light. This has resulted in many articles being transformed into paid advertising pieces that take advantage of the English Wikipedia's high placement on Google search results. This chronic problem has become so severe that the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed amending its terms of service to require disclosures of paid editing conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment|title=Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment|date=February 21, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> In the competition to control content, the paid PR editors win out because they are monitoring pages as a full time job, while editors seeking to keep content more balanced are only part-time volunteers.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</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>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is 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 [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s 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.

Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and mundane topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there were more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> As of February 2014, there are more than 4.4 million "content" pages, many of which lack educational value. On important topics, the information is often misleading due to the unchecked, [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|systematic liberal bias]] that dominates Wikipedia.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T01:47:10Z

JaylesHowler:

This is a proposed new version for the article [[Wikipedia]]/

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|The multilingual Wikipedia home page]]
'''Wikipedia''' is an [[internet|online]] [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]] hosted and owned by the non-profit organization [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and financially supported by a $20 million annual online fundraising drive<ref>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_announces_tenth_annual_fundraising_campaign</ref>, as well as other grants. Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publically by both registered and anonymous editors<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=wMhBQ0WdjF4C&pg=PA199#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>, mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>

Wikipedia was co-founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimbo Wales]], and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was originally created to complement the now defunct peer-reviewed online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]] as a way for collaboration on articles. However, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also hosts various "sister projects", such as ''Wikinews'' and ''Wikibooks''.

Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain [[bias|systemic bias]]<ref name=howtheleft>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>, and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. <ref name=hnn>http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437</ref> The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and [[bias]], examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libellious content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose. <ref name=hnn/> Wikipedia was also criticized for having a [[liberal bias]] in its articles about politics, despite of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. <ref name=howtheleft/>

== History ==

Wikipedia originated as a website intended to complement the now-defunct [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]]. The encyclopedia was intended as a "feeder" website: the user created articles would be introduced into Nupedia after passing a peer-review process. <ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html</ref> Wikipedia later overtook Nupedia and became an independent project. In 2007, Wikipedia became the largest encyclopedia in the world by article count, surpassing the 1408 Yongle encyclopedia.

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company co-founded by [[Jimmy Wales]], which also sold [[pornography|pornographic pictures]] and other forms of adult entertainment.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and [[Conservapedia]].<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

== Reliablility ==

Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But editors can delete, without collaboration, any text or entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors.

As the contribution of volunteer editors has declined, some of the void has been replaced by paid public relations professionals. These paid editors seek to present their client companies or individuals in the best possible light. This has resulted in many articles being transformed into paid advertising pieces that take advantage of the English Wikipedia's high placement on Google search results. This chronic problem has become so severe that the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed amending its terms of service to require disclosures of paid editing conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment|title=Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment|date=February 21, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> In the competition to control content, the paid PR editors win out because they are monitoring pages as a full time job, while editors seeking to keep content more balanced are only part-time volunteers.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</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>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is 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 [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s 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.

Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and mundane topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there were more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> As of February 2014, there are more than 4.4 million "content" pages, many of which lack educational value. On important topics, the information is often misleading due to the unchecked, [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|systematic liberal bias]] that dominates Wikipedia.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T01:37:00Z

JaylesHowler:

This is a proposed new version for the article [[Wikipedia]]/

'''Wikipedia''' is an [[internet|online]] [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]] hosted and owned by the non-profit organization [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and financially supported by a $20 million annual online fundraising drive<ref>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_announces_tenth_annual_fundraising_campaign</ref>, as well as other grants. Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publically by both registered and anonymous editors<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=wMhBQ0WdjF4C&pg=PA199#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>, mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>

Wikipedia was co-founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimbo Wales]], and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was originally created to complement the now defunct peer-reviewed online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]] as a way for collaboration on articles. However, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also hosts various "sister projects", such as ''Wikinews'' and ''Wikibooks''.

Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain [[bias|systemic bias]]<ref name=howtheleft>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>, and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. <ref name=hnn>http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437</ref> The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and [[bias]], examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libellious content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose. <ref name=hnn/> Wikipedia was also criticized for having a [[liberal bias]] in its articles about politics, despite of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. <ref name=howtheleft/>

== History ==

Wikipedia originated as a website intended to complement the now-defunct [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]]. The encyclopedia was intended as a "feeder" website: the user created articles would be introduced into Nupedia after passing a peer-review process. <ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html</ref>

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T01:22:05Z

JaylesHowler:

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T01:21:33Z

JaylesHowler:

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T01:16:35Z

JaylesHowler:

User:JaylesHowler/Wikipedia

2015-02-09T01:15:27Z

JaylesHowler: Created page with "This is a proposed new version for the article Wikipedia/ '''Wikipedia''' is an online wiki-based encyclopedia hosted and owned by the non-profit organi..."

North Korea

2015-01-25T20:25:23Z

JaylesHowler: /* Censorship */ changed hyphens to em-dashes

{{Country
|name =조선민주주의인민공화국 Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk ''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''
|map =Korea north rel 2005.jpg
|map2 =NorthKorea location.png
|flag =Flag of North Korea.png
|arms =Arms of North Korea.png
|capital =P'yongyang
|government =Communist totalitarian state
|language =Korean
|area =46,526 sq mi
|pop =23,301,725(2007)
|gdp-year =$22.85 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$1,007 (2006)
|currency = North Korean won
}}
'''North Korea''' is the world's most severe [[totalitarian]] [[dictatorship]] and one of the poorest and most [[famine]]-stricken nations on earth. It lies in eastern Asia and occupies the Korean peninsula north of a line that roughly follows the 38th parallel.
It was ruled by self-absorbed dictator and "Dear Leader" [[Kim Jong Il]], who succeeded his father the "Great Leader" [[Kim Il Sung]]. Upon Kim Jong-Il's death, his son [[Kim Jong-un]] officially took over.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/world/asia/packaging-of-Kim-Jong-un-in-north-korea.html?pagewanted=all New York Times; 1 February; To Sell a New Leader, North Korea Finds a Mirror Is Handy]</ref>

Its official name is '''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''', but its government does not follow Western ideas of [[democracy]]. Rather, it is organized along [[Stalinism|Stalinist]] lines. Its Supreme People's Assembly is merely a [[rubber stamp]] parliament.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/05/21/North-Korea-slammed-over-Cheonan-sinking/UPI-48941274459460/</ref>

The official North Korean ideology is known as [[Juche]] (which roughly translates as "national self-reliance"), and since the mid 1990s, [[Songun]] ("military first"). A cult-like devotion to the "Great Leader" and "Dear Leader" is expected of citizens, and heavily promoted in the North Korean news media which has little actual news and mostly consists of effusive praise toward [[Kim Jong Un]], grandiose and unsubstantiated claims about great feats by him and his father, and repetitious admonitions that the Korean people are totally united as one behind his leadership. In contrast between 600,000 and 3.5 million North Koreans have died of starvation in recent years because the Kim government has so mismanaged the economy, particularly agriculture, and has hampered outside efforts at relief.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/COMMENTARY/110090010/1012&template=nextpage</ref>

==People==
*Population (2006): 23.1 million.
*Annual growth rate: About +0.98%.
*Ethnic groups: [[Korean]]; small ethnic Chinese and Japanese populations.
*Religions: [[Buddhism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Shamanism]], [[Chongdogyo]], [[Christian]]; autonomous religious activities have been virtually nonexistent since 1945.
*Language: Korean.
*Education: Years compulsory--11. Attendance--3 million (primary, 1.5 million; secondary, 1.2 million; tertiary, 0.3 million). Literacy--99%.
*Health (1998): Medical treatment is free; one doctor for every 700 inhabitants; one hospital bed for every 350; there are severe shortages of medicines and medical equipment. Infant mortality rate--23.29 /1,000 (2006 est.). Life expectancy--males 68 yrs., females 74 yrs. (2006 est.)

Amnesty International published a report in June 2010 which alleges that the North Korean health care system is "in shambles". Interviews with 40 individuals who defected from that country indicate a wide-spread shortage of medicine and medical implements; a lack of ambulatory services in major cities; the use of unsterilized needles; major operations and amputations done without anesthesia, on a system which spends the equivalent of one dollar per person per year on health care. This discrepancy is compounded by the fact that many citizens are forced to endure a starvation diet by subsisting on grass, tree bark and roots.<ref>http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100715/Amnesty-International-reveals-the-rotting-health-care-system-in-North-Korea.aspx</ref><ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_crumbling_health_care</ref>

==Religion==
Main article: [[Religion and Atheism in North Korea]]

Government policy and practice severely restricted the practice of religion, and it is a dogmatically [[atheist]] regime. The 2007 KINU White Paper indicated that the regime utilizes authorized religious entities for external propaganda and political purposes, and that citizens are strictly barred from entering places of worship. Ordinary citizens consider such sites to be primarily sightseeing spots for foreigners. KINU concluded that the lack of churches or religious facilities in the provinces indicates that ordinary citizens do not enjoy religious freedom.

Little is known about the day-to-day life of religious persons in the country. Members of government-controlled religious groups did not appear to suffer discrimination. Some reports claimed, and circumstantial evidence suggested, that many, if not most of these groups, have been organized by the regime for propaganda and political purposes, including meeting with foreign religious visitors.

The number of religious believers is unknown but was estimated by the Government to be 10,000 Protestants, 10,000 Buddhists, and 4,000 Catholics. Estimates by South Korean and international church-related groups were considerably higher. In addition, the Chondogyo Young Friends Party, a government-approved group based on a traditional religious movement, had approximately 40,000 practitioners, according to the Government.<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108410.htm U.S. State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref>

In Pyongyang there were reportedly four state-controlled Christian churches: two Protestant churches under lay leadership (Bongsu and Chilgol Churches), the Changchung Roman Catholic Church, and the Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church. The Chilgol Church is dedicated to the memory of former leader Kim Il-sung's mother, Kang Pan-sok, who was a Presbyterian deaconess. The number of congregants regularly worshiping at these churches is unknown.

The Presbyterian Church of Korea in the South was partnering with the Christian Association in North Korea to rebuild Bongsu Church. In the fall of 2006, a delegation of 90 Christians from South Korea visited the Bongsu church to celebrate completion of its first phase of renovation. According to religious leaders who traveled to the country, there were Protestant pastors at these churches, although it was not known if they were resident or visiting.

In its July 2002 report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the Government reported the existence of 500 "family worship centers." However, according to the 2007 Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) White Paper, defectors interviewed were unaware of any such centers. Observers stated that "family worship centers" may be part of the state-controlled Korean Christian Federation, while an unknown number of "underground churches" operate apart from the Federation and are not recognized by the Government. Some NGOs and academics estimate there may be up to several hundred thousand underground Christians in the country. Others question the existence of a large-scale underground church or conclude that no reliable estimate of the number of underground religious believers exists. Individual underground congregations are reportedly very small and confined to private homes. At the same time, some NGOs reported that the individual churches are connected to each other through well-established networks. The regime has not allowed outsiders the access necessary to confirm such claims.

There were an estimated 300 Buddhist temples. Most were regarded as cultural relics, but religious activity was permitted in some. A few Buddhist temples and relics have been renovated or restored in recent years under a broad effort aimed at "preserving the Korean nation's cultural heritage." In 2007 reconstruction was completed on the Shingye or Singyesa (Holy Valley) Temple, which was destroyed during the Korean War. The Republic of Korea (ROK) Government and foreign tourists funded the reconstruction. A South Korean monk, the first to permanently reside in North Korea, has lived at the temple since 2004 but serves primarily as a guide for visiting tourists rather than as a pastor caring for Buddhists living in the area.

The Government announced in June 2007 that 500 monks and Buddhist followers were making day-long pilgrimages to the recently renovated Ryongthong temple in Kaesong strictly for religious purposes. Foreign diplomats in Pyongyang who visited the temple were told that the two monks living there may be joined by more. State-controlled press reported on several occasions that Buddhist ceremonies had been carried out in various locations. Official reporting also linked descriptions of such ceremonies with the broader theme of Korean unification.

The Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church opened in Pyongyang in 2006. The church was reportedly commissioned by Kim Jong-il after he visited an Orthodox cathedral in Russia in 2002. Two North Koreans who studied at the Russian Orthodox Seminary in Moscow have been ordained as priests and are serving at the church. The purported aim of the church was primarily to provide pastoral care of Russians in the country, but one religious leader with access to the country speculated that the church likely extended pastoral care to all Orthodox Koreans as well. Similar to other religious groups, no reliable data exists on the number of Orthodox believers.

Several foreigners residing in Pyongyang attended Korean-language services at the Christian churches on a regular basis. Some foreigners who visited the country stated that church services appeared staged and contained political content supportive of the regime, in addition to religious themes. Foreign legislators attending services in Pyongyang in previous years noted that congregations arrived at and departed services as groups on tour buses, and some observed that they did not include any children. Other foreigners noted that they were not permitted to have contact with congregants. Foreign observers had limited ability to ascertain the level of government control over these groups, but it was generally assumed they were monitored closely. According to the 2007 KINU White Paper, defectors reported being unaware of any recognized religious organizations that maintained branches outside of Pyongyang.

Several schools for religious education exist. There are 3-year colleges for training Protestant and Buddhist clergy. A religious studies program also was established at Kim Il-sung University in 1989; its graduates usually worked in the foreign trade sector. In 2000 a Protestant seminary was reopened with assistance from foreign missionary groups. Critics, including at least one foreign sponsor, charged that the Government opened the seminary only to facilitate reception of assistance funds from foreign faith-based NGOs. The Chosun Christian Federation, a religious group believed to be controlled by the Government, contributed to the curriculum used by the seminary. The Chosun Christian League operates the Pyongyang Theological Academy, a graduate institution that trains pastors affiliated with the Korean Christian Federation.

==Government and Political Conditions==
North Korea has a centralized government under the rigid control of the communist [[Workers' Party of Korea]] (WPK), to which all government officials belong. A few minor political parties are allowed to exist in name only. Kim Il-sung ruled North Korea from 1948 until his death in July 1994. Kim served both as Secretary General of the WPK and as President of North Korea.

Little is known about the actual lines of power and authority in the North Korean Government despite the formal structure set forth in the constitution. Following the death of Kim Il-sung, his son--Kim Jong-il--inherited supreme power. Kim Jong-il was named General Secretary of the KWP in October 1997, and in September 1998, the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) reconfirmed Kim Jong-il as Chairman of the National Defense Commission and declared that position as the "highest office of state." However, the President of the Presidium of the National Assembly, Kim Yong-nam, serves as the nominal head of state. North Korea's 1972 constitution was amended in late 1992 and in September 1998.

The constitution designates the Central People's Committee (CPC) as the government's top policymaking body. The CPC makes policy decisions and supervises the cabinet, or State Administration Council (SAC). The SAC is headed by a premier and is the dominant administrative and executive agency.

Officially, the legislature, the SPA, is the highest organ of state power. Its members are elected every four years. Usually only two meetings are held annually, each lasting a few days. A standing committee elected by the SPA performs legislative functions when the Assembly is not in session. In reality, the Assembly serves only to ratify decisions made by the ruling KWP.

North Korea's judiciary is "accountable" to the SPA and the president. The SPA's standing committee also appoints judges to the highest court for four-year terms that are concurrent with those of the Assembly.

Administratively, North Korea is divided into nine provinces and four provincial-level municipalities--[[Pyongyang]], [[Chongjin]], [[Nampo]], and [[Kaesong]]. It also appears to be divided into nine military districts.

===Principal Party and Government Officials===
*Kim Il-Sung--Eternal President (deceased since 1995)
*Kim Jong-un--First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, First Chairman of the National Defense Commission, Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission; grandson of North Korea's founder Kim Il-sung
*Kim Yong-nam--President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly; titular head of state
*Pak Gil-yon--Ambassador to DPRK Permanent Mission to the UN
*Pak Ui-chun--Minister of Foreign Affairs

===Propaganda===

The DPRK is notorious for its heavy use of political propaganda, revisionist history and [[cult of personality]] surrounding Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il and Kim il-Sung. The media is heavily controlled and only state-controlled radio and television broadcasts are permitted for public consumption. This control allows the regime to propagate its many lies and perceptions of the country.

==== Cult of Personality ====

The North Korean state maintains an intense cult of personality surrounding Kim, his son, Kim Jong-il and his grandson Kim Jong-un. All North Koreans wear badges with an image of either (or both) Kims and portraits of the deceased leader are voluminous both in cities and the countryside. The capital city of Pyonyang has over 600 statues of Kim, including a 25-metre bronze statue built in 1972 for his sixtieth birthday.

Kim's personality cult is largely based on historical revisionism and many absurd "facts" to emphasize his "divine" abilities and power. Among these:

*He was born under a double rainbow on the sacred Baektul Mountain in 1942. At the moment of his birth, a bright star lit up the sky, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring and a double rainbow appeared in the sky.(In truth, he was born in Vyatskoye, Siberia in 1941.)<ref>http://asianhistory.about.com/od/profilesofasianleaders/p/BioKimJongil.htm</ref>

*During the Japanese colonial rule of Korea, he fought in more than 100,000 battles in 15 years (over 20 battles a day). (While Kim was in the Soviet army, he never participated in actual combat.)<ref>http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm</ref>

*He scored eleven holes-in-one the first time he ever played a game of golf.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/kim.birthday.reut/</ref>

*He invented the hamburger. <ref>http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/</ref>

*He scored a perfect 300 the first time he went bowling. <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1222/Kim-Jong-il-Legendary-golfer-and-mythical-powers-even-in-death</ref>

*When he died, "the skies glowed red above Mount Paektu and the impenetrable sheet of ice at the heart of the mystical volcano cracked with a deafening roar." <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/22/kim-jong-il-dies-myths_n_1164755.html</ref>

====Revisionist history====

Despite overwhelming historical and historiographical evidence, North Korean media and schools maintain the myth that the South as well as the United States attacked the North first. They thus responded by counter-attacking to liberate the nation in the "Fatherland Liberation War" <ref>http://www.voanews.com/content/north-koreas-war-history-is-mirror-opposite-world-view-96978424/165902.html</ref>. They also claim that the North was victorious despite the face that there is no peace treaty and no historical evidence to back such a claim.

====Anti-American and other propaganda ====

As well as the state-sponsored propaganda served up to its own citizens, the DPRK attempts to push its message onto South Koreans as well.

The best examples are found on the North Korean side of the DMZ, where massive hillside signs point to the U.S. as an enemy of reunification and boast of a prosperous life in the North. More absurd is Jikong-dong, also known as "Propaganda village," a fake town intended to show the fine living conditions in the North.<ref>http://www.nickspics.net/v/Travel/South_Korea_2009/IMG_2075_5DMK2.JPG.html</ref> The town is devoid of human life and was quickly exposed as a sham when Southern officials noticed that all city lights turned on and off at the same time each day, most windows contained no glass and there was no evident civilian life. The town also boasts the world's tallest flagpole, bearing a North Korean flag weighing 600 pounds.<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrownphotos/3514929586/</ref>

===Censorship===

The North Korean government—which controls and owns all [[mainstream media|media]] and news outlets within its boundaries—censors information going into and out of the country. Television sets and radios distributed within North Korea are set to only allow watching and listening to state controlled programming. <ref name=cjfe>https://cjfe.org/resources/features/north-korea-exposed-censorship-world’s-most-secretive-state</ref> The non-governmental organization Freedom House has rated the regime as "not free" and labeled it as "repressive", due to its censorship of information within its borders. <ref>https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/north-korea#.VJn5qaANAA</ref>

Within North Korea, access to the internet is limited to a select few people. <ref name=cjfe/>Other residents of North Korea who are privileged enough to have access to computers can only access a local intranet called Kwangmyong, meaning "bright". Content hosted on the Kwangmyong is tightly restricted, and the email and chat messages sent on it are monitored.<ref>http://globalnews.ca/news/1124882/surfing-the-intranet-north-koreas-authoritarian-alternative-to-the-world-wide-web/</ref>

===Foreign Relations===
North Korea's relationship with the South has determined much of its post-[[World War II]] history and still undergirds much of its foreign policy. North and South Korea have had a difficult and acrimonious relationship from the Korean War. In recent years, North Korea has pursued a mixed policy--seeking to develop economic relations with South Korea and to win the support of the South Korean public for greater North-South engagement while at the same time continuing to denounce the R.O.K.'s security relationship with the United States and maintaining a threatening conventional force posture on the DMZ and in adjacent waters. Technically, neither the North or the South recognizes its counterpart as an official nation, and both declare themselves to be the sole legitimate government of the Korean peninsula.

The military demarcation line (MDL) of separation between the belligerent sides at the close of the Korean War divides North Korea from South Korea. A demilitarized zone (DMZ) extends for 2,000 meters (just over 1 mile) on either side of the MDL. Both the North and South Korean governments hold that the MDL is only a temporary administrative line, not a permanent border.

During the postwar period, both Korean governments have repeatedly affirmed their desire to reunify the Korean Peninsula, but until 1971 the two governments had no direct, official communications or other contact.

====Reunification Efforts Since 1971====
In August 1971, North and South Korea held talks through their respective Red Cross societies with the aim of reuniting the many Korean families separated following the division of Korea and the Korean War. In July 1972, the two sides agreed to work toward peaceful reunification and an end to the hostile atmosphere prevailing on the peninsula. Officials exchanged visits, and regular communications were established through a North-South coordinating committee and the Red Cross. These initial contacts broke down in 1973 following South Korean President Park Chung-hee's announcement that the South would seek separate entry into the United Nations, and after the kidnapping of South Korean opposition leader Kim Dae-jung--perceived as friendly to unified entry into the UN--by South Korean intelligence services. There was no other significant contact between North and South Korea until 1984.

Dialogue was renewed in September 1984, when South Korea accepted the North's offer to provide relief goods to victims of severe flooding in South Korea. Red Cross talks to address the plight of separated families resumed, as did talks on economic and trade issues and parliamentary-level discussions. However, the North then unilaterally suspended all talks in January 1986, arguing that the annual U.S.-ROK "Team Spirit" military exercise was inconsistent with dialogue. There was a brief flurry of negotiations that year on co-hosting the upcoming 1988 Seoul Olympics, which ended in failure and was followed by the 1987 bombing of a South Korean commercial aircraft (KAL 858) by North Korean agents.

In July 1988, South Korean President Roh Tae-woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges, family reunification, inter-Korean trade, and contact in international forums. Roh followed up this initiative in a UN General Assembly speech in which South Korea offered for the first time to discuss security matters with the North. Initial meetings that grew out of Roh's proposals started in September 1989. In September 1990, the first of eight prime minister-level meetings between North Korean and South Korean officials took place in Seoul. The prime ministerial talks resulted in two major agreements: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation (the "Basic Agreement") and the Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (the "Joint Declaration").

The Basic Agreement, signed on December 13, 1991, called for reconciliation and nonaggression and established four joint commissions. These commissions--on South-North reconciliation, South-North military affairs, South-North economic exchanges and cooperation, and South-North social and cultural exchange--were to work out the specifics for implementing the basic agreement. Subcommittees to examine specific issues were created, and liaison offices were established in Panmunjom, but in the fall of 1992 the process came to a halt because of rising tension over North Korea's nuclear program.

The Joint Declaration on denuclearization was initialized on December 31, 1991. It forbade both sides from testing, manufacturing, producing, receiving, possessing, storing, deploying, or using nuclear weapons and forbade the possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated to verify the denuclearization of the peninsula.

On January 30, 1992, the D.P.R.K. finally signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as it had pledged to do in 1985 when it acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the Joint Declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime.

As the 1990s progressed, concern over the North's nuclear program became a major issue in North-South relations and between North Korea and the United States. The lack of progress on implementation of the Joint Declaration's provision for an inter-Korean nuclear inspection regime led to reinstatement of the U.S.-R.O.K. Team Spirit military exercise for 1993. The situation worsened rapidly when North Korea, in January 1993, refused IAEA access to two suspected nuclear waste sites and then announced in March 1993 its intent to withdraw from the NPT. During the next two years, the United States held direct talks with the D.P.R.K. that resulted in a series of agreements on nuclear matters, including the 1994 Agreed Framework (which broke down in 2002 when North Korea was discovered to be pursuing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons--see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

At his inauguration in February 1998, R.O.K. President Kim Dae-jung enunciated a new policy of engagement with the D.P.R.K., dubbed "the Sunshine Policy." The policy had three fundamental principles: no tolerance of provocations from the North, no intention to absorb the North, and the separation of political cooperation from economic cooperation. Private sector overtures would be based on commercial and humanitarian considerations. The use of government resources would entail reciprocity. This policy set the stage for the first inter-Korean summit, held in Pyongyang June 13-15, 2000.

R.O.K. President Roh Moo-hyun, following his inauguration in February 2003, has continued his predecessor's policy of engagement with the North, though he abandoned the name "Sunshine Policy." The United States supports President Roh's engagement policy and North-South dialogue and cooperation. Major economic reunification projects have included a tourism development in Mt. Geumgang, the re-establishment of road and rail links across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and a joint North-South industrial park near the North Korean city of Kaesong (see further information below in the section on the Economy). In August 2007, the R.O.K. and D.P.R.K. announced plans to hold a second inter-Korean summit, scheduled for October 2-4 in Pyongyang.

===Relations Outside the Korean Peninsula===
Throughout the Cold War, North Korea balanced its relations with China and the Soviet Union to extract the maximum benefit from the relationships at minimum political cost. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, the Soviet-backed Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan created strains between China and the Soviet Union and, in turn, in North Korea's relations with its two major communist allies. North Korea tried to avoid becoming embroiled in the Sino-Soviet split, obtaining aid from both the Soviet Union and China and trying to avoid dependence on either. Following Kim Il-sung's 1984 visit to Moscow, there was an improvement in Soviet-D.P.R.K. relations, resulting in renewed deliveries of Soviet weaponry to North Korea and increases in economic aid.

The establishment of diplomatic relations by South Korea with the Soviet Union in 1990 and with China in 1992 seriously strained relations between North Korea and its traditional allies. Moreover, the fall of communism in eastern Europe in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in a significant drop in communist aid to North Korea. Despite these changes and its past reliance on this military and economic assistance, North Korea continued to proclaim a militantly independent stance in its foreign policy in accordance with its official ideology of "juche," or self-reliance.

Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987. (North Korea is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor is it a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR.)

North Korea has maintained membership in some multilateral organizations. It became a member of the UN in September 1991. North Korea also belongs to the Food and Agriculture Organization; the International Civil Aviation Organization; the International Postal Union; the UN Conference on Trade and Development; the International Telecommunications Union; the UN Development Program; the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the World Health Organization; the World Intellectual Property Organization; the World Meteorological Organization; the International Maritime Organization; the International Committee of the Red Cross; and the Nonaligned Movement.

In the mid-1990s, when the economic situation worsened dramatically and following the death of D.P.R.K. founder Kim Il-sung, the North abandoned some of the more extreme manifestations of its "self reliance" ideology to accept foreign humanitarian relief and create the possibility, as noted below, for foreign investment in the North. In subsequent years, the D.P.R.K. has continued to pursue a tightly restricted policy of opening to the world in search of economic aid and development assistance. However, this has been matched by an increased determination to counter perceived external and internal threats by a self-proclaimed "military first" ("Songun") policy.

During the present period of limited, extremely cautious opening, North Korea has sought to broaden its formal diplomatic relationships. In July 2000, North Korea began participating in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), with Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun attending the ARF ministerial meeting in Bangkok. The D.P.R.K. also expanded its bilateral diplomatic ties in that year, establishing diplomatic relations with Italy, Australia, the Philippines, Australia, Canada, the U.K., Germany, and many other European countries.

In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement issued at the end of the fourth round of Six-Party Talks, the United States and the D.P.R.K. committed to undertake steps to normalize relations (see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula). The D.P.R.K. and Japan also agreed to take steps to normalize relations and to discuss outstanding issues of concern, such as abductions. The U.S.-D.P.R.K. and Japan-D.P.R.K. bilateral working groups on normalization of relations met in March and September 2007.

====Terrorism====
The D.P.R.K. is not known to have sponsored terrorist acts since the 1987 bombing of KAL flight 858. Pyongyang continues to provide sanctuary to members of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction (JRA) who participated in the hijacking of a Japan Airlines flight to North Korea in 1970.

The D.P.R.K. has made several statements condemning terrorism. In October 2000, the United States and the D.P.R.K. issued a joint statement on terrorism in which "the two sides agreed that international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global security and peace, and that terrorism should be opposed in all its forms." The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to support the international legal regime combating international terrorism and to cooperate with each other to fight terrorism. The D.P.R.K. became a signatory to the Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism and a party to the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages in November 2001. In the February 13, 2007 Initial Actions agreement, the [[United States of America]] agreed to begin the process of removing the designation of the D.P.R.K. as a state sponsor of terrorism. On Saturday October 11, 2008. The United States officially removed North Korea from the Terrorism Watch List. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436382,00.html North Korea no longer a recognized Terrorist sponsor.]</ref>

====Abductions====
In the past, the D.P.R.K. has also been involved in the abduction of foreign citizens. In 2002, Kim Jong-il acknowledged to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi the involvement of D.P.R.K. "special institutions" in the kidnapping of Japanese citizens between 1977 and 1983 and said that those responsible had been punished. While five surviving victims and their families were allowed to leave the D.P.R.K. and resettle in Japan in October 2002, 12 other cases remain unresolved and continue to be a major issue in D.P.R.K.-Japanese relations. In October 2005, the D.P.R.K. acknowledged for the first time having kidnapped R.O.K. citizens in previous decades, claiming that several abductees, as well as several POWs from the Korean War, were still alive. In June 2006, North Korea allowed Kim Young-nam, a South Korean abducted by the North in 1978, to participate in a family reunion.

In 2001, a series of articles in foreign and Russian Federation newspapers, resting on reports from Russian Federation human rights activists and Amnesty International and the New York based Human Rights Watch alleged the D.P.R.K. abduction of up to 30,000 North Korean dissidents as well as common citizens to work in the Siberian labor and forestry camps in a scheme to pay off billions owed by North Korea to the Russia of both Soviet and Federation times. This forced labor was similar in nature and form to the gulags of Soviet Russia (see [[Essay: KAL 007 Survivors and Gulags of Russia]]).

===United States policy towards North Korea===
====U.S. Support for North-South Dialogue and Reunification====
The United States supports the peaceful reunification of Korea on terms acceptable to the Korean people and recognizes that the future of the Korean Peninsula is primarily a matter for them to decide. The United States believes that a constructive and serious dialogue between the authorities of North and South Korea is necessary to resolve outstanding problems, including the North's nuclear program and human rights abuses, and to encourage the North's integration with the rest of the international community.

====Efforts to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula====
[[File:DPKR camps and nukes.png|right|200px|thumb|Locations of major hard-labor/re-education camps where the inmate population exceeds 20,000 each, nuclear-related facilities, and the test bomb site]]
North Korea joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state in 1985. North and South Korean talks begun in 1990 resulted in the 1992 Joint Declaration for a Non-Nuclear Korean Peninsula (see, under Foreign Relations, Reunification Efforts Since 1971). However, the international standoff over the North's failure to implement an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the inspection of the North's nuclear facilities led Pyongyang to announce in March 1993 its intention to withdraw from the NPT. A UN Security Council Resolution in May 1993 urged the D.P.R.K. to cooperate with the IAEA and to implement the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Statement. It also urged all UN Member States to encourage the D.P.R.K. to respond positively to this resolution and to facilitate a solution to the nuclear issue.

The United States opened talks with the D.P.R.K. in June 1993 and eventually reached agreement in October 1994 on a diplomatic roadmap, known as the Agreed Framework, for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Agreed Framework called for the following steps:
*North Korea agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and allow monitoring by the IAEA.
*Both sides agreed to cooperate to replace the D.P.R.K.'s graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants, by a target date of 2003, to be financed and supplied by an international consortium (later identified as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or KEDO).
*As an interim measure, the United States agreed to provide North Korea with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the first reactor was built.
*The United States and D.P.R.K. agreed to work together to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that did not involve reprocessing in the D.P.R.K.
*The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
*The two sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
*The two sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
In accordance with the terms of the Agreed Framework, in January 1995 the U.S. Government eased economic sanctions against North Korea in response to North Korea's freezing its graphite-moderated nuclear program under United States and IAEA verification. North Korea agreed to accept the decisions of KEDO, the financier and supplier of the LWRs, with respect to provision of the reactors. KEDO subsequently identified Sinpo as the LWR project site and held a groundbreaking ceremony in August 1997. In December 1999, KEDO and the (South) Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) signed the Turnkey Contract (TKC), permitting full-scale construction of the LWRs.

In January 1995, as called for in the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States and D.P.R.K. negotiated a method to store safely the spent fuel from the D.P.R.K.'s five-megawatt nuclear reactor. Under this method, United States and D.P.R.K. operators worked together to can the spent fuel and store the canisters in a spent fuel pond; canning began in 1995. In April 2000, canning of all accessible spent fuel rods and rod fragments was completed.

In 1998, the United States identified an underground site in Kumchang-ni, North Korea, which it suspected of being nuclear-related. In March 1999, after several rounds of negotiations, the United States and D.P.R.K. agreed that the United States would be granted "satisfactory access" to the underground site at Kumchang-ni. In October 2000, during D.P.R.K. Special Envoy Marshal Jo Myong-rok's visit to Washington, and after two visits to the site by teams of U.S. experts, the United States announced in a Joint Communiqué with the D.P.R.K. that U.S. concerns about the site had been resolved.

As called for in former Defense Secretary William Perry's official review of U.S. policy toward North Korea, the United States and the D.P.R.K. launched Agreed Framework Implementation Talks in May 2000 The United States and the D.P.R.K. also began negotiations for a comprehensive missile agreement, pursuant to the Perry recommendations.

In January 2001, the Bush Administration discontinued nuclear and missile talks, specifying that it intended to review the United States' North Korea policy. The Administration announced on June 6, 2001, that it was prepared to resume dialogue with North Korea on a broader agenda of issues--including North Korea's conventional force posture, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues.

In October 2002, a U.S. delegation confronted North Korea with the assessment that the D.P.R.K. was pursuing a uranium enrichment program, in violation of North Korea's obligations under the NPT and its commitments in the 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the Agreed Framework. North Korean officials asserted to the U.S. delegation, headed by then-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly, the D.P.R.K.'s "right" to a uranium enrichment program and indicated that that it had such a program. The U.S. side stated that North Korea would have to terminate the program before any further progress could be made in U.S.-D.P.R.K. relations. The United States also made clear that if this program were verifiably eliminated, it would be prepared to work with North Korea on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. Subsequently, the D.P.R.K. has denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. In November 2002, the member countries of KEDO's Executive Board agreed to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea pending a resolution of the nuclear dispute.

In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment at Yongbyon, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and U.S. "hostile policy." Beginning in mid-2003, the North repeatedly claimed to have completed reprocessing of the spent fuel rods previously frozen at Yongbyon and publicly said that the resulting fissile material would be used to bolster its "nuclear deterrent force." There is no independent confirmation of North Korea's claims. The KEDO Executive Board suspended work on the LWR Project beginning December 1, 2003.

President Bush has made clear that the United States has no intention to invade or attack North Korea. The President has also stressed that the United States seeks a peaceful end to North Korea's nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea's neighbors, who are directly affected by the threat the nuclear program poses to regional stability and security.

In early 2003, the United States proposed multilateral talks on the North Korean nuclear issue. North Korea initially opposed such a process, maintaining that the nuclear dispute was purely a bilateral matter between the United States and the D.P.R.K. However, under pressure from its neighbors and with the active involvement of China, North Korea agreed to three-party talks with China and the United States in Beijing in April 2003 and to Six-Party Talks with the United States, China, R.O.K., Japan and Russia in August 2003, also in Beijing. During the August 2003 round of Six-Party Talks, North Korea agreed to the eventual elimination of its nuclear programs if the United States were first willing to sign a bilateral "non-aggression treaty" and meet various other conditions, including the provision of substantial amounts of aid and normalization of relations. The North Korean proposal was unacceptable to the United States, which insisted on a multilateral resolution to the issue and opposed provision of benefits before the D.P.R.K.'s complete denuclearization. In October 2003, President Bush said he would consider a multilateral written security guarantee in the context of North Korea's complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons program.

China hosted a second round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing in February 2004. The United States saw the results as positive, including the announced intention of all parties to hold a third round by the end of June and to form a working group to maintain momentum between plenary sessions.

At the third round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing, in June 2004, the United States tabled a comprehensive and substantive proposal aimed at resolving the nuclear issue. All parties agreed to hold a fourth round of talks by the end of September 2004. Despite its commitment, the D.P.R.K. refused to return to the table, and in the months that followed issued a series of provocative statements. In a February 10, 2005, Foreign Ministry statement, the D.P.R.K. declared that it had "manufactured nuclear weapons" and was "indefinitely suspending" its participation in the Six-Party Talks. In Foreign Ministry statements in March, the D.P.R.K. said it would no longer be bound by its voluntary moratorium on ballistic missile launches, and declared itself a nuclear weapons state.

Following intense diplomatic efforts by the United States and other parties, the fourth round of Six-Party Talks were held in Beijing over a period of 20 days from July-September 2005, with a recess period in August. Discussions resulted in all parties agreeing to a Joint Statement of Principles. In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement, the six parties unanimously reaffirmed the goal of verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. The D.P.R.K. for the first time committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to return, at an early date, to the NPT and to IAEA safeguards. The other parties agreed to provide economic cooperation and energy assistance. The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to take steps to normalize relations subject to bilateral policies, which for the United States includes our concerns over North Korea's ballistic missile programs and deplorable human rights conditions. While the Joint Statement provides a vision of the end-point of the Six-Party process, much work lies ahead to implement the elements of the agreement.

A fifth round of talks began in November 2005, but ended inconclusively as the D.P.R.K. began a boycott of the Six-Party Talks, citing the "U.S.' hostile policy" and specifically U.S. law enforcement action that had led in September to a freeze of North Korean accounts in Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA). The United States held discussions in Kuala Lumpur (July 2006) and New York in (September 2006) with other Six-Party partners, except North Korea, along with representatives from other regional powers in the Asia-Pacific region, to discuss Northeast Asian security issues, including North Korea. On July 4-5, 2006 (local Korea time), the D.P.R.K. launched seven ballistic missiles, including six short- and medium-range missiles and one of possible intercontinental range. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1695 on July 15, which demands that the D.P.R.K. suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and reestablish existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching. The resolution also requires all UN Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology from being transferred to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, prevent the procurement of missiles or related items, materials, goods and services from the D.P.R.K., and the transfer of any financial resources in relation to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or WMD programs. The D.P.R.K. immediately rejected the resolution.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced the successful test of a nuclear explosive device, verified by the United States on October 11. In response, the United Nations Security Council, citing Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously passed Resolution 1718, condemning North Korea and imposing sanctions on certain luxury goods and trade of military units, WMD and missile-related parts, and technology transfers. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm</ref>

The Six-Party Talks resumed in December 2006 after a 13-month hiatus. Following a bilateral meeting between the United States and D.P.R.K. in Berlin in January 2007, another round of Six-Party Talks was held in February 2007. On February 13, 2007, the parties reached an agreement on "Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement" in which North Korea agreed to shut down and seal its Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and to invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verification of these actions as agreed between the IAEA and the D.P.R.K. The other five parties agreed to provide emergency energy assistance to North Korea in the amount of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the initial phase and the equivalent of 950,000 tons of HFO in the next phase of North Korea's denuclearization. The six parties also established five working groups to form specific plans for implementing the Joint Statement in the following areas: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, normalization of D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations, normalization of D.P.R.K.-Japan relations, economic and energy cooperation, and a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. All parties agreed that the working groups would meet within 30 days of the agreement, which they did. The agreement also envisions the directly-related parties negotiating a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum. As part of the initial actions, North Korea invited IAEA Director General ElBaradei to Pyongyang in early March for preliminary discussions on the return of the IAEA to the D.P.R.K.

The sixth round of Six-Party Talks took place on March 19-23, 2007. The parties reported on the first meetings of the five working groups. At the invitation of the D.P.R.K., Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang in June 2007 as part of ongoing consultations with the six parties on implementation of the Initial Actions agreement. In July 2007, the D.P.R.K. shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility, as well as an uncompleted reactor at Taechon, and IAEA personnel returned to the D.P.R.K. to monitor and verify the shut-down and to seal the facility. In July 2007, the R.O.K. provided the first shipment of 50,000 tons of HFO under the Initial Actions agreement. The Six-Party Heads of Delegation met July 18-20, 2007 to discuss implementation of the D.P.R.K.'s next phase commitments, including the D.P.R.K.'s provision of a complete declaration of all nuclear programs and disablement of existing nuclear facilities. All five working groups met in August and September to discuss detailed plans for implementation of the next phase of the Initial Actions agreement, and will report the results of those discussions to the next Six-Party plenary meeting. As part of the denuclearization process, the D.P.R.K. invited a team of experts from the United States, China, and Russia to visit the Yongbyon nuclear facility in September 2007 to discuss specific steps that could be taken to disable the facility.

==Military==

Although North Korea has no enemies, its government says it needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against "the U.S. nuclear threat".<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_parliament North Korea denounces new Obama nuclear strategy]"</ref>

North Korea now has the fourth-largest army in the world. It has an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, compared to about 680,000 in the South. Military spending is estimated at as much as a quarter of GNP, with about 20% of men ages 17-54 in the regular armed forces. North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (between 2 and 3 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has perhaps the world's second-largest special operations force, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime. While the North has a relatively impressive fleet of submarines, its surface fleet has a very limited capability. Its air force has twice the number of aircraft as the South, but, except for a few advanced fighters, the North's air force is obsolete.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/air-force-equipment.htm North Korea Air Force Equipment]</ref> The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ). Several North Korean military tunnels under the DMZ were discovered in the 1970s.

Over the last several years, North Korea has moved more of its rear-echelon troops to hardened bunkers closer to the DMZ. Given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ (some 25 miles), South Korean and U.S. forces are likely to have little warning of any attack. The United States and South Korea continue to believe that the U.S. troop presence in South Korea remains an effective deterrent. North Korea's nuclear weapons program has also been a source of international tension (see below, Reunification Efforts Since 1971; Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

In 1953, the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) was created to oversee and enforce the terms of the armistice. Over the past decade, North Korea has sought to dismantle the MAC in a push for a new "peace mechanism" on the peninsula. In April 1994, it declared the MAC void and withdrew its representatives.

=== North Korea the Nuclear-Weapon State: A Likely [[Nuclear target structures|Nuclear Target Structure]]===

North Korea is considered a "nuclear-weapon state" (NWS) since it has [[nuclear weapon]] capabilities making it one of the [[Nuclear_target_structures#Primary_Targets|primary targets]] among the world's major [[nuclear target structures]] in a possible [[nuclear war]]<ref>[http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/north-korea/nuclear/ ''Nuclear Country Profile''], [[Washington, DC]]: Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), Last updated: May, 2014. Accessed January 15, 2015</ref>.

==Economy==
North Korea's economy declined sharply in the 1990s with the end of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of bloc-trading with the countries of the former socialist bloc. Gross national income per capita is estimated to have fallen by about one-third between 1990 and 2002. The economy has since stabilized and shown some modest growth in recent years, which may be reflective of increased inter-Korean economic cooperation. Output and living standards, however, remain far below 1990 levels. Other centrally-planned economies in similar situations opted for domestic economic reform and liberalization of trade and investment. North Korea formalized some modest wage and price reforms in 2002, and has increasingly tolerated markets and a small private sector as the state-run distribution system has deteriorated. The regime, however, seems determined to maintain control. In October 2005, emboldened by an improved harvest and increased food donations from South Korea, the North Korean Government banned private grain sales and announced a return to centralized food rationing. Reports indicate this effort to reassert state control and to control inflation has been largely ineffective. Another factor contributing to the economy's poor performance is the disproportionately large share of GDP (thought to be about one-fourth) that North Korea devotes to its military.

North Korean industry is operating at only a small fraction of capacity due to lack of fuel, spare parts, and other inputs. Agriculture is now 30% of GDP, even though agricultural output has not recovered to early 1990 levels. The infrastructure is generally poor and outdated, and the energy sector has collapsed. About 80% of North Korea's terrain consists of moderately high mountain ranges and partially forested mountains and hills separated by deep, narrow valleys and small, cultivated plains. The most rugged areas are the north and east coasts. Good harbors are found on the eastern coast. Pyongyang, the capital, near the country's west coast, is located on the Taedong River.
*GNI (2004 estimate): $20.8 billion; 26.7% in agriculture and fishery, 27.2% in mining, 13.7% in manufacturing, 32.3% in services (2004).
*Per capita GNI (2004): $914.
*Agriculture: Products--[[rice]], [[potato]]es, [[soybean]]s, [[cattle]], [[pig]]s, [[pork]] and [[egg]]s.
*Mining and manufacturing: Types--military products; machine building; chemicals; mining (gold, coal, iron ore, limestone, magnesite, etc.); metallurgy; textiles; food processing; tourism.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$1.47 billion: minerals, non-ferrous metals, garments, machinery, electric and electronic products, chemicals, precious metals, wood products, and shellfish products. The D.P.R.K. is also thought to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from the unreported sale of missiles, narcotics and counterfeit cigarettes, and other illicit activities. Imports--$2.88 billion: minerals, petroleum, machinery, textiles, chemicals, non-ferrous metals, and animal products.
*Major trading partners (2006): (1) China, (2) R.O.K., (3) Thailand, (4) Russia and (5) Japan.

North Korea experienced a severe famine following record floods in the summer of 1995 and continues to suffer from chronic food shortages and malnutrition. The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) provided substantial emergency food assistance beginning in 1995 (2 million tons of which came from the United States), but the North Korean Government suspended the WFP emergency program at the end of 2005. It has since permitted the WFP to resume operations on a greatly reduced scale through a Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation. External food aid now comes primarily from China and South Korea in the form of grants and long-term concessional loans. South Korea also donates fertilizer and other materials, while China provides energy. South Korea suspended food and fertilizer shipments to the North in response to North Korea's missile launches in July 2006. However, when severe floods later that month threatened to produce another humanitarian crisis, South Korea announced a one-time donation of 100,000 tons of food, matching contributions from South Korean non-governmental organizations (NGOs). South Korea resumed fertilizer shipments to North Korea in late March 2007. In early July, South Korea announced that it would provide $20 million worth of food assistance to the D.P.R.K. through the World Food Program. South Korea also resumed bilateral food aid in June 2007. Following severe flooding in North Korea in August 2007, South Korea announced that it would provide $7.5 million worth of emergency aid materials to North Korea, and $3.2 million to NGOs providing flood assistance in North Korea. The R.O.K. also provided $39.4 million in construction materials to the D.P.R.K. to assist with reconstruction efforts following the floods. The United States provided $100,000 to two U.S. NGOs for antibiotics in the wake of the floods. The United States also announced that is was prepared to engage in discussions with the D.P.R.K. of monitoring arrangements to provide additional substantial humanitarian assistance, including food aid, to the country.

====Development Policy====
In 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and termination of subsidized trade arrangements with Russia, other former Communist states, and China, North Korea announced the creation of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the northeast regions of Najin (sometime rendered "Rajin"), Chongjin, and Sonbong. Problems with infrastructure, bureaucracy, and uncertainties about investment security and viability have hindered growth and development of this SEZ. The government announced in 2002 plans to establish a Special Administrative Region (SAR) in Sinuiju, at the western end of the North Korea-China border. However, the government has taken few concrete steps to establish the Sinuiju SAR, and its future is uncertain. In addition, North Korea and South Korea have established a special economic zone near the city of Kaesong, where about 20 South Korean companies operate manufacturing facilities employing North Korean workers (see further information under North-South Economic Ties).

North Korea implemented limited micro- and macroeconomic reforms in 2002, including increases in prices and wages, changes in foreign investment laws, a steep currency devaluation, and reforms in industry and management. Though the changes have failed to stimulate recovery of the industrial sector, there are reports of changed economic behavior at the enterprise and individual level. One unintended consequence of the 2002 changes has been severe inflation. An increasing number of North Koreans now try to work in the informal sector to cope with growing hardship and reduced government support.

====North-South Economic Ties====
Two-way trade between North and South Korea, legalized in 1988, had risen to more than $1 billion by 2005, much of it related to out-processing or assembly work undertaken by South Korean firms in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC). A significant portion of the total also includes donated goods provided to the North as humanitarian assistance or as part of inter-Korean cooperation projects. Although business-based and processing-on-commission transactions continued to grow, the bulk of South Korean exports to North Korea in 2006 was still non-commercial.

Since the June 2000 North-South summit, North and South Korea have reconnected their east and west coast railroads and roads where they cross the DMZ and are working to improve these transportation routes. North and South Korea conducted tests of the east and west coast railroads on May 17, 2007. Much of the work done in North Korea has been funded by the South. The west coast rail and road are complete as far north as the KIC (six miles north of the DMZ), but little work is being done north of Kaesong. On the east coast, the road is complete but the rail line is far from operational. Since 2003, tour groups have been using the east coast road to travel from South Korea to Mt. Geumgang in North Korea, where cruise ship-based tours had been permitted since 1998.

As of August 2007, 26 South Korean firms were manufacturing goods in the KIC, employing nearly 17,000 North Korean workers. Most of the goods are sold in South Korea; a small quantity is being exported to foreign markets. Ground was broken on the complex in June 2003, and the first products were shipped from the KIC in December 2004. Plans envision 250 firms employing 350,000 workers by 2012.

==History==
The Korean Peninsula was first populated by peoples of a Tungusic branch of the Ural-Altaic language family, who migrated from the northwestern regions of Asia. Some of these peoples also populated parts of northeast China (Manchuria); Koreans and Manchurians still show physical similarities. Koreans are racially and linguistically homogeneous. Although there are no indigenous minorities in North Korea, there is a small Chinese community (about 50,000) and some 1,800 Japanese wives who accompanied the roughly 93,000 Koreans returning to the North from Japan between 1959 and 1962. Although dialects exist, the Korean spoken throughout the peninsula is mutually comprehensible. In North Korea, the Korean alphabet (hangul) is used exclusively.

Korea's traditional religions are Buddhism and Shamanism. Christian missionaries arrived as early as the 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that major missionary activity began. Pyongyang was a center of missionary activity, and there was a relatively large Christian population in the north before 1945. Although religious groups exist in North Korea today, the government severely restricts religious activity.

By the first century AD, the Korean Peninsula was divided into the kingdoms of Shilla, Koguryo, and Paekche. In 668 AD, the Shilla kingdom unified the peninsula. The Koryo dynasty--from which Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century derived the Western name "Korea"--succeeded the Shilla kingdom in 935. The Choson dynasty, ruled by members of the Yi clan, supplanted Koryo in 1392 and lasted until Japan annexed Korea in 1910.

Throughout its history, Korea has been invaded, influenced, and fought over by its larger neighbors. Korea was under Mongolian occupation from 1231 until the early 14th century. The unifier of Japan, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, launched major invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1597. When Western powers focused "gunboat" diplomacy on Korea in the mid-19th century, Korea's rulers adopted a closed-door policy, earning Korea the title of "Hermit Kingdom." Though the Choson dynasty recognized China's hegemony in East Asia, Korea was independent until the late 19th century. At that time, China sought to block growing Japanese influence on the Korean Peninsula and Russian pressure for commercial gains there. The competition produced the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Japan emerged victorious from both wars and in 1910 annexed Korea as part of the growing Japanese empire. Japanese colonial administration was characterized by tight control from Tokyo and ruthless efforts to supplant Korean language and culture. Organized Korean resistance during the colonial era was generally unsuccessful, and Japan remained firmly in control of the Peninsula until the end of World War II in 1945. The surrender of Japan in August 1945 led to the immediate division of Korea into two occupation zones, with the United States administering the southern half of the peninsula and the U.S.S.R. taking over the area to the north of the 38th parallel. This division was meant to be temporary until the United States, U.K., Soviet Union, and China could arrange a trusteeship administration.

In December 1945, a conference was convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A five-year trusteeship was discussed, and a joint Soviet-American commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly. Initial hopes for a unified, independent Korea quickly evaporated as the politics of the Cold War and domestic opposition to the trusteeship plan resulted in the 1948 establishment of two separate nations with diametrically opposed political, economic, and social systems. Elections were held in the South under UN observation, and on August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) was established in the South. Syngman Rhee, a nationalist leader, became the Republic's first president. On September 9, 1948, the North established the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (D.P.R.K.) headed by then-Premier Kim Il-sung, who had been cultivated and supported by the U.S.S.R.

Soviet supervision over the setting up and initial administration of the North Korean government was vested in a Soviet Civil Administration Bureau which carried out policies formulated in the Politburo and passed down through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Political Administration Department of the Sovie [[Red Army]]. Through ministrations of this agency, a veritable flood of Soviet advisors permeated the governmental, economic, social and educational structures of North Korea. Although outwardly maintaining an advisory status, Soviet advisors, in fact, exercised control and supervision over all policy matters. In this manner the USSR created a satellite state which was politically subservient and subject to economic manipulation.

By 1949 nationalization of banking, heavy industry and communications, the agrarian [[redistribution]] program and the political monopoly of unions had taken place and the new regime demonstrated a willingness to lower the standard of living of its people by exporting vitally needed foodstuffs and raw materials in order to obtain the instruments of war.

====Korean War of 1950-53====
:''Main article: '''[[Korean War]]'''''
Almost immediately after establishment of the D.P.R.K., guerrilla warfare, border clashes, and naval battles erupted between the two Koreas. North Korean forces launched a massive surprise attack and invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. The United Nations, in accordance with the terms of its Charter, engaged in its first collective action and established the UN Command (UNC), to which 16 member nations sent troops and assistance. Next to South Korea, the United States contributed the largest contingent of forces to this international effort.

North Korean forces quickly overran Southern ones, capturing almost the entire peninsula save the southern city of Busan. To relieve the Busan perimeter, U.S. General [[Douglas MacArthur]] led a massive amphibious landing at Inchon, over 100 miles behind the North Korean flanks. Kim's forces were pushed back and the battle line fluctuated north and south, and after large numbers of Chinese "People's Volunteers" intervened to assist the North, the battle line stabilized north of Seoul near the 38th parallel.

Armistice negotiations began in July 1951, but hostilities continued until July 27, 1953. On that date, at Panmunjom, the military commanders of the North Korean People's Army, the Chinese People's Volunteers, and the UNC signed an armistice agreement. Neither the United States nor South Korea is a signatory to the armistice per se, although both adhere to it through the UNC. No comprehensive peace agreement has replaced the 1953 armistice pact.

====Atrocities of the Korean War====
[[Fred Schwarz]] wrote:
:''When the Communists retreated in North Korea, they took with them all the able-bodied personnel to serve as laborers. Those who could not stand the rigors of the northward journey-- old men and women, pregnant women, very young children and babies-- they massacred and buried in a [[mass grave]] if they belonged to the untrustworthy social classes. The advancing American troops time and again found mass graves filled with the bodies of those murdered by the Communists.''<ref> [http://www.schwarzreport.org/yct/01ycttc.htm You Can Trust the Communists - To Be Communists]
</ref>

==Books==
*''The Aquariums of Pyong Yang'' by Kang Chol-hwan
*''Eyes of the Tailless Animals'' (1999) by Soon Ok Lee
*''North Korea'' by Bruce Cuming
*[http://www.time.com/time/columnist/arnold/article/0,9565,1108801,00.html ''Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea''] (graphic novel) by Guy Deslisle
*[http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/124221.Don_Oberdorfer ''The Two Koreas''] by Don Oberdorfer

==See Also==
* [[Communism]]
* [[Nuclear target structures]]
* [[Big government]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to [[Police state]]
* [[Liberal totalitarianism]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/korea_north/index.html Korea, North - 2007] Geographic.org
*[http://www.worldchristianministries.org/idop/idop3.asp Testimony of a high-ranking defector]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ An Open Secret: the Gulags of the Russian Federation (the North Korean camps on Russian territory)]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}
source= [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm]
{{Asian Countries}}
[[Category:Dictatorships]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Korea]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:Anti-American]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Man-Made Disasters]]
[[Category:Threats]]
[[Category:Survivalism]]
[[Category : Nuclear Target Structures]]

Idolatry

2015-01-25T20:21:42Z

JaylesHowler: Added some information about idols.

'''Idolatry''' is the worship of idols, which are human-made objects meant to represent deities. It is prohibited in the first commandment of the [[Decalogue]]. Modern [[secularism]] is considered to be a form of idolatry.

Idolatry is considered by the Jewish and Christian [[faith|faiths]] to be gravely sinful. Early Jews and Christians accepted [[martyrdom]] rather than comply with orders to commit idolatry.

Muslims consider statues of religious figures to be a form of idolatry, and do not refer to themselves as Muhammadans for the same reason, as they feel that this term implies that they worship Muhammad.<ref>Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. State University of New York Press, 1992.</ref>

Most religions that make use of idols do not actually worship the image itself. Far more often they are regarded as focus points for worship or as a likeness of the god. Only rarely is the image itself considered to be the god. They can also be used to convey or focus on a particular aspect of a many-faceted deity, and this usage is common in Hinduism.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[category:Paganism]]

Bladder

2015-01-25T20:18:55Z

JaylesHowler: /* Muscles */ Copyedit to ensure conciseness

The '''bladder''', specifically called the '''urinary bladder''', is a hollow and muscular sac-like organ in the lower abdomen which stores [[urine]]. <ref>http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/the-bladder</ref> It collects urine from the [[kidney|kidneys]] through the ureters and passes it through the urethra to be excreted. While there are no exact measurements of the volume of the human bladder—doing so is generally seen as virtually impossible—most sources put its maximum volume at 600 to 800 cm3. <ref>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielShaw.shtmlM</ref>

== Structure ==

=== Muscles ===

The bladder wall contains a muscle called the [[detrusor muscle]]. One's bladder fills up when the detrusor muscle relaxes; when the bladder fills, it expands to accommodate urine. Urination is done by contracting the muscle. Contracting the detrusor muscle causes urination, because the action makes the bladder smaller, squeezing urine out. <ref>http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/womenshealth/sui/bladder_005149.htm</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Diseases of the bladder]]
* [[Organ and tissue systems]]
* [[Pathology]] according to [[organ]]
** [[Samprapti]] in [[Ayurvedic medicine]]
** [[Disease classifications in Ayurvedic medicine]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category : Organs]]
[[Category : Bladder]]
[[Category : Organ and Tissue Systems]]
[[Category : Disease Classifications in Ayurvedic Medicine]]
[[Category : Kapha Organs]]
[[Category : Kapha Diseases]]
[[Category : Vata Diseases]]
[[Category : Pitta Diseases]]
[[Category : Kapha]]
[[Category : Anatomy]]

Bladder

2015-01-25T20:13:35Z

JaylesHowler: Added information on the structure of the bladder.

The '''bladder''', specifically called the '''urinary bladder''', is a hollow and muscular sac-like organ in the lower abdomen which stores [[urine]]. <ref>http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/the-bladder</ref> It collects urine from the [[kidney|kidneys]] through the ureters and passes it through the urethra to be excreted. While there are no exact measurements of the volume of the human bladder—doing so is generally seen as virtually impossible—most sources put its maximum volume at 600 to 800 cm3. <ref>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielShaw.shtmlM</ref>

== Structure ==

=== Muscles ===

The bladder wall contains a muscle called the [[detrusor muscle]]. One's bladder fills up when the detrusor muscle relaxes; when the bladder fills, the bladder expands to accommodate urine. Urination is done by contracting the muscle. Contracting the detrusor muscle causes urination, because the action makes the bladder smaller, squeezing urine out. <ref>http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/womenshealth/sui/bladder_005149.htm</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Diseases of the bladder]]
* [[Organ and tissue systems]]
* [[Pathology]] according to [[organ]]
** [[Samprapti]] in [[Ayurvedic medicine]]
** [[Disease classifications in Ayurvedic medicine]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category : Organs]]
[[Category : Bladder]]
[[Category : Organ and Tissue Systems]]
[[Category : Disease Classifications in Ayurvedic Medicine]]
[[Category : Kapha Organs]]
[[Category : Kapha Diseases]]
[[Category : Vata Diseases]]
[[Category : Pitta Diseases]]
[[Category : Kapha]]
[[Category : Anatomy]]

Bladder

2015-01-25T20:08:32Z

JaylesHowler: added information on the bladder's volume

The '''bladder''', specifically called the '''urinary bladder''', is a hollow and muscular sac-like organ in the lower abdomen which stores [[urine]]. <ref>http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/the-bladder</ref> It collects urine from the [[kidney|kidneys]] through the ureters and passes it through the urethra to be excreted. While there are no exact measurements of the volume of the human bladder—doing so is generally seen as virtually impossible—most sources put its maximum volume at 600 to 800 cm3. <ref>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielShaw.shtmlM</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Diseases of the bladder]]
* [[Organ and tissue systems]]
* [[Pathology]] according to [[organ]]
** [[Samprapti]] in [[Ayurvedic medicine]]
** [[Disease classifications in Ayurvedic medicine]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category : Organs]]
[[Category : Bladder]]
[[Category : Organ and Tissue Systems]]
[[Category : Disease Classifications in Ayurvedic Medicine]]
[[Category : Kapha Organs]]
[[Category : Kapha Diseases]]
[[Category : Vata Diseases]]
[[Category : Pitta Diseases]]
[[Category : Kapha]]
[[Category : Anatomy]]

Bladder

2015-01-25T20:03:43Z

JaylesHowler: Added source, minor rewording

Mozilla Firefox

2015-01-25T19:56:40Z

JaylesHowler: Separated parts of article for better organization

[[Image:Firefox-first-run.png|right|thumb|Mozilla Firefox v2.0 running on [[Windows Vista]].|300px]]
: ''[[Firefox]] redirects here. For the novel and film of this title, see [[Firefox (novel and film)]]. For other uses, see [[Firefox (disambiguation)]].''

'''Mozilla Firefox''' is a free, [[open source]] web browser developed by the [http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ Mozilla Foundation]. The software is licensed under the ''Mozilla Public License version 2.0'' and is one of the main competitors of [[Microsoft]]'s [[Internet Explorer]], along with [[Google Chrome]].. The current stable release is version 34.0.5.

Firefox was originally developed as an offshoot of the Mozilla Browser project, developed by [[Netscape]], as a lightweight version of the software. The original Mozilla browser was extremely feature rich, including such things as an [[HTML]] editor, which created a large and correspondingly slow piece of software. Firefox has gone through several name changes, all due to existing trademarks. It was originally named ''Phoenix'', then ''Firebird'' and finally ''Firefox''.

Since its original release in 2002, Firefox has had a continued increase in the market share of web browsers until 2009, then a small decline due to competition from [[Google Chrome]]. Exact numbers are difficult to determine, but as of November 2012 worldwide, Firefox had a 24% share<ref>[http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 Browser market share]</ref>, and as of November 2012, 28.5% in Europe.<ref>[http://en.atinternet.com/Resources/Surveys/Browser-Barometer/Browser-Barometer-April-2011/index-1-2-3-236.aspx AT Internet Institute - Article]</ref>

The browser is officially supported in over 70 languages<ref>[http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html Firefox International Versions]</ref>, and is available for the different versions of Microsoft [[Windows]], [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] Mac [[OS X]], and [[Linux]] operating systems. Unofficial builds are available for Sun Microsystems Solaris, BSD, and other operating systems.

== Political Stance ==

The Mozilla Foundation, which develops the web browser, supports the [[gay agenda]]. After CEO Brendan Eich, the creator of the programming language [[javascript]]<ref>http://www.quirksmode.org/js/intro.html</ref>, was exposed as opposing [[same-sex marriage]] in California's [[Proposition 8]] campaign, he was forced to resign.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/mozilla-ceo-out-for-opposing-gay-marriage/</ref> He held the same exact view as the Obama's did nevertheless, selective outrage is the liberal way.

==See Also==
* [[Tails (operating system)]] and [[TOR]] [[Firefox]] [[browser]] [[encryption]] for [[Internet]] [[anonymity]] to protect [[unalienable rights]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ Firefox Home Page]
*[http://developer.mozilla.org/ Programming Center]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Web browsers]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Free Software]]
[[Category:Software]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Open Source]]

Mozilla Firefox

2015-01-25T19:55:55Z

JaylesHowler: added a bit of information on Brendan Eich

[[Image:Firefox-first-run.png|right|thumb|Mozilla Firefox v2.0 running on [[Windows Vista]].|300px]]
: ''[[Firefox]] redirects here. For the novel and film of this title, see [[Firefox (novel and film)]]. For other uses, see [[Firefox (disambiguation)]].''

'''Mozilla Firefox''' is a free, [[open source]] web browser developed by the [http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ Mozilla Foundation]. The software is licensed under the ''Mozilla Public License version 2.0'' and is one of the main competitors of [[Microsoft]]'s [[Internet Explorer]], along with [[Google Chrome]].. The current stable release is version 34.0.5.

Firefox was originally developed as an offshoot of the Mozilla Browser project, developed by [[Netscape]], as a lightweight version of the software. The original Mozilla browser was extremely feature rich, including such things as an [[HTML]] editor, which created a large and correspondingly slow piece of software. Firefox has gone through several name changes, all due to existing trademarks. It was originally named ''Phoenix'', then ''Firebird'' and finally ''Firefox''.

Since its original release in 2002, Firefox has had a continued increase in the market share of web browsers until 2009, then a small decline due to competition from [[Google Chrome]]. Exact numbers are difficult to determine, but as of November 2012 worldwide, Firefox had a 24% share<ref>[http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 Browser market share]</ref>, and as of November 2012, 28.5% in Europe.<ref>[http://en.atinternet.com/Resources/Surveys/Browser-Barometer/Browser-Barometer-April-2011/index-1-2-3-236.aspx AT Internet Institute - Article]</ref>

The browser is officially supported in over 70 languages<ref>[http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html Firefox International Versions]</ref>, and is available for the different versions of Microsoft [[Windows]], [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] Mac [[OS X]], and [[Linux]] operating systems. Unofficial builds are available for Sun Microsystems Solaris, BSD, and other operating systems.

The Mozilla Foundation, which develops the web browser, supports the [[gay agenda]]. After CEO Brendan Eich, the creator of the programming language [[javascript]]<ref>http://www.quirksmode.org/js/intro.html</ref>, was exposed as opposing [[same-sex marriage]] in California's [[Proposition 8]] campaign, he was forced to resign.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/mozilla-ceo-out-for-opposing-gay-marriage/</ref> He held the same exact view as the Obama's did nevertheless, selective outrage is the liberal way.

==See Also==
* [[Tails (operating system)]] and [[TOR]] [[Firefox]] [[browser]] [[encryption]] for [[Internet]] [[anonymity]] to protect [[unalienable rights]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ Firefox Home Page]
*[http://developer.mozilla.org/ Programming Center]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Web browsers]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Free Software]]
[[Category:Software]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Open Source]]