Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia/Archive 3

message: I contributed all the valuable information in my head about Desert Combat Extended being I'm the guy who started the whole thing. But you know how stupid some Wikipedia editors can be; they kept answering "You need to specify your source!" Hello Dipshit! I AM THE SOURCE! What better way to get the correct information from the original source? Then there was the whole "neutrality" of the article. Once again: HELLO! I AM THE SOURCE! I even offered many forms of proof and they rejected them all. One of which was the second forum that was created after the original disappeared after Desert Combat Extended was discontinued. What else does Wikipedia Editors want? Indiviual testimonies from all the 100,000+ players that played DCX (Desert Combat Extended) over it's 3 year lifespan?
It's a good thing the Desert Combat Extended article is blocked. My strategy worked; keep posting until they block it off. I rather have that than Wikipedia's inaccurate and incomplete article about my creation.
I also must say that Wikipedia is incorrect about many articles as well. One of which is my employer. There are many errors on that page that I could correct if not for the fact that I believe Wikipedia will do some Ninja Edits and remove thruthful information.
No wonder professors ban all information coming from Wikipedia. It's useless! True encyclopedias are written by people in the know, not some bunch of clueless clowns with editor powers.
Wikipedia... you suck!
Zeuser
(The founder of DCX)
--Zeuser 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "fallacial" even a word?  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he meant fallapalooza. Casey Abell 21:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he tried to say something that mattered to him, without being made fun of. Why don't you try to resolve this problem instead of poking "fun" at him? --Kaizer13 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe the evidence-free, virtually meaning-free "suckapedia" comment did matter to him. But such comments serve no purpose in writing Criticism of Wikipedia. If the anon editor has verifiable, detailed and documented material to add to the article, it is welcome. "Suckapedia" doesn't qualify as verifiable, detailed and documented. Casey Abell 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, facetious responses to such comments are equally pointless, so that's hardly a compelling argument.  --ToobMug 10:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that a pointless and counterprodutive remark like the "suckapedia" comment deserves a facetious response. Casey Abell 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia "editors" are clueless 

message: It's not often that I revert an edit by Jimmy Wales. And it now seems to me that my edit summary was borderline incivil, for which I apologize. I also screwed up "screwed up" — which just shows that anybody can, well, screw up.
Truth to tell, I came this close (hold your thumb and forefinger a half-millimeter apart) to a complete revert of Jimbo's edit. In my opinion, "out of mediocrity, excellence" is a clever and completely unobjectionable summary of Wikipedia's fundamantal idea: average people, working together and often lacking conventional credentials, can produce superb encyclopedia articles.
Frankly, I'm not convinced by Jimmy's Google-based argument. Still, I can understand why some might be uncomfortable with the harshness of the term "mediocrity", which has acquired so many negative connotations. So I didn't revert entirely, though I was tempted. The first part of the edit, which (no doubt unintentionally) messed up most of the footnotes, had to be reverted, of course. I just wish I had been gentler, and a better typist, in my edit summary. Casey Abell 13:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial revert of Jimbo 

message: From "censorship", I removed "it took less time to delete this page than the time it takes to read it" as it's badly worded and not really in the right place. It has an interesting point at it's center, but I can't think how to rephrase it correctly. If anyone can think how to edit that in properly, feel free to do so. --h2g2bob 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed text 

message: "Additionally, the issue of vandalism detection is an important one. Most vandalism is detected via "Recent changes", a listing of all recent edits. As such, even obvious vandalism that slips by those who watch for vandalism may remain undetected for several weeks, or even months"
This certainly is wrong or vandalized itself, it implies that recent changes feature makes obvious vandalism to remain undected for several weeks. "As such" is not the right wording. My last "vandalism"/"test", was to make that point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.62.130.226 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it. Is it better now? – Qxz 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of grammar or logic 

message: How about this for a section? —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. And given that everyone else who has used the words "commodity" and "truthiness" in the same sentence today has been reverted, neither does anyone else – Qxz 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've taken my wikiality a bit too seriously. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was either that or revert you – Qxz 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truthiness as a commodity 

message: Just did some edits for grammar and readability.
The Suitability as an encyclopaedia section has this: "Critics such as Robert McHenry have said that Wikipedia errs in billing itself as an encyclopedia, because that word implies a level of authority and accountability that they believe cannot be possessed by an openly editable reference." This is the editor of Britannica, the online version of which defines Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia - contradiction there, so is this sentence an inaccurate paraphrase or a direct quote?
The Exposure to vandalism section has this: "Most undetected vandalizing edits are done by registered users, which are often reviewed less often than those by anonymous users." I don't know what this means.--Shtove 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your second question, "anonymous" users are those who do not log in under a user name, but simply edit without logging in; they show up as just IP addresses in the edit logs. But I have a feeling you already knew that. What the sentence is saying is that anonymous users' edits tend to be viewed with more suspicion than the edits of registered users, so vandalism committed by registered users is more likely to go undetected. --Tkynerd 16:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Your way of putting it is much better. The point about registered users' vandalism is plausible, but is it surmise or assertion - this is more likely to happen, or does actually happen? And I wonder what source will back it up?--Shtove 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best to remove it, unless someone does find a source somewhere. I very much doubt there's a reliable, independent source saying vandalism from registered users is noticed less; I'm not sure there's even a Wikipedia project page that says it — in any case, it's really just speculation based on our intuition as contributors, which unfortunately is original research – Qxz 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar edits & queries 

message: Is anyone else sick of seeing "There was a problem with your search. This is probably temporary; try again in a few moments, or you can search Wikipedia through an external search service:?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.150.200.99 (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Unfortunately it seems we can't afford better hardware to run the search function on, and it keeps getting overloaded with requests. – Qxz 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  search engine 

message: The quote is as follows: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him."
The Page History sort of throws the quote out the window, doesn't it?  I know who used the facilities, it was 127.0.0.1 and RandomUser13, and I can see they did this yesterday and that an hour ago.  thoughts?  --MulletManDan 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But do you know who that really was? Anonymous knows. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert McHenry quote 

message: uh,y would wiki put this here?24.144.137.244 18:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? – Qxz 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from 24.144.137.244 

message: Quote:
Likewise, Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica said in November 2004: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him."[10]
What Mr. McHenry describes sounds awfully familiar... perhaps like the history tab? This quote has been bothering me for some time, because everybody knows exactly who used the facilities before them. I would like to see a sentence or so pointing out this fact, just a thought. Comments? --Hojimachongtalkcon 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the history, but you still don't know who the editors are - I think the point is that the edits are made by people whose bona fides you can't check or have confidence in. BTW - online Brittannica defines WP as an encyclopedia, contradicting McHenry's quoted comments in the suitability section of this article.--Shtove 11:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, most articles in the "Micropedia" part of the print Britannica aren't signed, so you really have no idea who wrote or edited them. The encyclopedia only gives a general list of people who worked on the Micropedia. Also, a number of signed articles in both sections of the encyclopedia have an "Ed." attached to the signature, indicating that non-specified editor(s) contributed significantly to the article. So many times a reader can't be sure exactly who wrote or contributed to a Britannica article. This hasn't prompted McHenry to compare the Britannica to a public restroom. Casey Abell 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Britanica purports to have editorial oversight, so it doesn't matter which junior editor wrote an article in Britanica because you're supposed to be able to trust that fact checking was done on it. There is no editorial oversight at WP which is why so much importance is heavily placed on verifiability through reliable, third-party, non-trivial sources that do have fact checking editorial processes. Now, whether or not you trust Britanica's editorial process as much as you trust those signs in restrooms that say, "Employees are required to wash hands before returning to work," is up to you. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Anybody can "purport to have" anything, and anybody can be "supposed to trust" anything. Many errors have been found in Britannica, which indicates that its editorial oversight is hardly infallible. I agree that a decision to trust Britannica's oversight is completely subjective. What is objectively true is that many (actually, most) articles in the print Britannica are unsigned and thus not attributable to specific individuals. Casey Abell 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: There are a number of issues being raised about the article as stated above, but nothing to convincingly justify the necessity of a complete re-write. Even if this step were taken, the page would undoubtedly be amended and edited so as to re-address the exact same issues, thus accomplishing nothing.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.240.76.159 (talk • contribs).
: Many of the criticisms currently in the article shouldn't be there. Some of them are internal problems that are unknown to anyone not actively participating in Wikipedia because they have not been mentioned by independent reliable sources. These need (and have) discussion on appropriate project pages but do not belong in this article. Others have been added by disgruntled former or banned contributors and it's debatable whether they are valid criticisms at all; there certainly aren't verifiable sources for them. The article should stick to what has been covered in the media, who largely stick to the issues of accuracy and reliability – Qxz 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  complete re-write 

message: Is there any reason he was identified as "former Nupedia editor-in-chief" instead of "Wikipedia co-founder"?  I think his criticism is better noted on the basis of him having a connection to Wikipedia instead of simply him having a connection to just the Wiki process. To leave out his involvement in Wikipedia lessens the impact of his criticism.Dookama 12:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably has something to do with this: , . —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are.... interesting and slightly disturbing logs. --Dookama 19:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Sanger 

message: Just so it's known, the Daniel Brandt article was deleted without review by Yanksox and it's currently being disputed.  I'd reccommend leaving the link in until the issue is resolved.  --Dookama 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Link 

message: I cant find it mentioned anywhere, that there is so much US biased content on wikipedia. It was mentions that English speaking nations had more contributers but this does not cover the nauseating viewpoints of Americans for example the article on WW2 has the war in the pacific at the top of it despite the fact that the war in Europe was more important and interesting and this is one of the most popular articles in wikipedea. The article railroad car should be called a proper correct English term as railways were invented in the UK, this would match wikipedias own rules, but Americans must have their egos pandered to. As for the article Empire State express I deleted ridicules claims by Americans out only to be accused of being anti American. I can bet you there will be a yank who will remove this information as he will be unable to accept the truth.Oxyman42 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick perusal of Talk:Empire State Express shows that you engaged in personal attacks and unwarranted, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry there. As for the name of Railroad car, that name follows WP:NAMING and WP:ENGVAR, so there's no reason to change it. --Tkynerd 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise that your response is an ad hominem attack, right? --ToobMug 10:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like having british spellings of english words rammed down my throat, but I just deal with it, ok?  And who is to say that the war in the pacific isn't more interesting than the european portion of WW2?  Assuming that the european portion of WW2 was more interesting is a very egotistical eurotrash point of view.  And as for an american propaganda machine, would that really be worse than a european/british propaganda machine?  The complaints presented here are so ridiculous that it is almost laughable.  76.188.14.219 01:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would personally enjoy a Wikipedia free of British (mis)spellings, even though I happily make reverts like this one in order to follow Wikipedia policy. --Tkynerd 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: An "English" Wikipedia with biases towards British viewpoints would be no better than an American-biased Wikipedia: BOTH ARE BIASED. Period. Neutrality means that all significant viewpoints get their fair shake, and by definition if they are relevant MUST include American viewpoints but should also not be biased in favor of them. Nor should it be biased in favor of any other country's viewpoints. Just because America may not be all that great doesn't mean that everyone else is automatically the best. There are countries out there just as bad if not worse. This tends to get lost a lot. mike4ty4 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nauseating American viewpoints 

message: Notice how pointing out in this entry problems can cause them to be solved? There is a portion that talks about how the entry of 'feminist science fiction' was deleted, but now links to that entry, alive and of seemingly good quality, for instance.
Maybe we should state the existence of the phenomenon explicitly in the entry, as well as putting mentions of resolved problems properly in past tense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.67.178.229 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Phenomenon of Improvement 

message: Should we add info from this link? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it's considered to be a reliable source, and if those criticisms appear in another, independently published work. —Psychonaut 04:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Grauniad has A fact of one's own as an opinion piece which mentions this list. ... dave souza, talk 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservapedia 

message: I have a great idea for a new article which parts of this article may be applied. Please start a new article titled Criticism of Wikipedians and I will meet you at the stub. --QuackGuru 17:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the navel-gazing on this article bad enough? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This new article proposal is a wonderful idea. It will keep us honest, improve policy, and avoid scandals in the future. --QuackGuru 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At present only two Wikipedians have notable criticisms as Wikipedians- Jimbo and Essjay. That isn't enough for an article. JoshuaZ 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Make that three - Alan Mcilwraith However, I have my doubts whether there should be an article specifically to critise other editors unless we are happy to have it soley as a troll magnet - Munta 18:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Allowing internal policy considerations to drive mainspace article content seems a bad idea because the purpose of articles should be to inform the reader.  Efforts such as you are talking about more appropriately belong in project space. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So... we shouldn't... inform the reader about criticism of Wikipedians just because it would be written by Wikipedians and (probably) looked at the most by Wikipedians? I think what you're implying with "the purpose of articles should be to inform the reader" is that people don't care about Wikipedians -- just Wikipedia. I disagree with that and think that at some time, it would be appropriate to make a Criticism of Wikipedians article. As it is, there are enough people to make the article, but I think it should wait until there's more substance to make the article. --Dookama 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was simply analyzing QuackGuru's reasons for proposing such an article, which were that the article would serve as useful self-criticism.  If there is outside interest (i.e., reliable sources have written about it) in such criticism, WP should do an article on it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ObiterDicta (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the way you worded that it just sounded like you were saying that there is not and should never be an article about criticism of Wikipedians -- and while I don't think there's enough out there to merit an article now, I think there probably will be in the future. --Dookama 23:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticism of Wikipedians]] 

message: I was browsing through the junk heap that is Wikipedia looking for some scrap that I might be able to use in a Usenet post or two when I came across these remarks on someone's user page. Can you honestly read that and tell me that the person isn't completely crazy? Since when is Wikipedia trying to push itself on the entire Internet? This is ludicrous, and if it's true I really, REALLY feel like going out onto random websites and saying obscene and nasty things about Wikipedia contributors. --The Bede 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved from article namespace --h2g2bob 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullying and attempted control of outside mediums 

message: I removed the section on Hillary Clinton's biography but it was put back.  Space was the main reason for removing it, as the article is already becoming too long.  The error mentioned in Hillary Clinton's biography was an inaccuracy rather than a glaring mistake, and even professional journalists do this sort of thing from time to time.  It is not in the same league as the Seigenthaler affair and is probably not worth a whole section.--Ianmacm 07:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reluctant to remove it as it makes a valid point against the theory that articles can be expected to continuously improve and that errors can be expected to be caught and removed quickly. I did move it and the section immediately above it into the first section ("Criticism of the concept") because they don't belong in "Criticism of the contributors." I also removed the first sentence of the Clinton material because it made the whole thing sound like a debate rebuttal. --Tkynerd 13:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This single example doesn't deserve an entire section, but it's a helpful reminder of the difficulty of fact-checking. So I moved it to, you guessed it, the "Difficulty of fact-checking" section. I also cleaned up the footnotes and squeezed the material into a single paragraph. The article is getting awfully long, but it's hard to decide what to axe. Maybe we can cut down the Essjay stuff after the main article on the controversy finally stabilizes. Casey Abell 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary Rodham Clinton's biography 

message: Would anyone be interested in doing such a thing? --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 03:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to try to get Wikipedia itself up to featured status, before doing such a thing with the related articles. It's a good article already, but there are/were problems (see recent peer review). This article needs improvement to get it up to even "good article"-ish level, though I'm not sure it would actually be approved as one even then – Qxz 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much more improvement until this article receives featured status? 

message: Per this edit, I removed material. 1) anon blogs are *not* WP:RS compliant. 2) the other cited source from Info Week doesn't talk about the other attack site. Thanks, - Denny (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you may be right in accordance with a strict interpretaton of policy, it is rather ironic that you deal with a complaint that Wikipedia censors out references to certain critical sites by... well... censoring out references to those sites.  (See Self reference) *Dan T.* 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would any main article space article be exempt from policy? - Denny (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed the funniest edit I have yet to witness on this project, SqueakBox 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the criticism or criticizing website is worthwhile or notable, it will meet RS. ;) - Denny (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Like Wikipedia Watch. Would your new attack proposal want to ban that from this article were it ever to be made policy? SqueakBox 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on concensus/judgement of a policy nature, I suppose. Do you think that the hivemind and hivemind2 pages are "attack sites"? - Denny (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the hivemind page is an attack site, IMO, yes. I am not happy to see my real name there because while it never took much to figure out who I am I have never given out my name on wikipedia, and he may have outed me through another third party blog ()from annon banned occasional wikipedia user). I was linking to hivemind on my user page and was asked not to which I was happy to do on my user space but even as an attack site I think there are strong arguments (a) to link to it on wikipedia and (b) to make those links live. its also controlled by a web master and thus mucgh easier to judge to be an attack site than a forum would be, but if it was to be labelled as such I would want that either to be through consensus on this page or another page where community discussion occurs (as in afd's, rfa's etc), SqueakBox 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unsourced and non-RS compliant material. 

message: People can edit Wikipedia for 24 hours straight without sleep. I think this leads to dominant editing of Wikipedia. 
There should be a limit of say twelve hours per day. Dhammapal 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have thought it would lead to dormant editing, and obviously there's a limit of 24 hours. Surely no-one can edit continuously, but your scheme would prevent insomniacs from making any edits during odd hours. Just a thought, must take a nap. .. dave souza, talk 10:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be possible for the Wikipedia computer to pick up where someone has made at least one edit every hour for 12 hours. I am not suggesting a curfew (there are different time zones), but more of what we call in Australia a cooling-off period.Dhammapal 10:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No limit to hours per day editing 

message: :OK. Lets review the facts:
#It does not matter what Wales' opinion or Sanger's opinion is.
#Undue weight does not apply in this case when facts must be written from a neutral point of view.
#What is th definition of founder. A person who established Wikipedia.
#Two people worked togther to establish and build Wikipedia from the beginning.
#When two people work together and start a project from the very beginning they will be both called co-founders.
#There was never a dispute when Larry Sanger was still part of this project.
#Some article refer to Jimmy Wales as 'the' founder but do not explain the co-foundership issue at hand.
#Mr. Jimmy Wales has never given any documented evidence for his new version (since 2004) of reality (revisionism).
#At the risk of repeating myself, Wales never disputed his co-founder position before 2004.
#I have provided strong evidence (references) to color the picture.
#Here are some references for Wikipedians to get to up to speed on the facts and the history of Wikipedia.
#By the way, the appeal for the verifiability of the facts is exactly what the Wikipedia community demands in its WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's consensus.
#http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/technology/24online.ready.html?#ex=1293080400&en=431aff478b00239e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Early Media Coverage
#http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html Links and more links
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&dir=prev&offset=20040119212409&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Wikipedia pages
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Wikipedia&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Wikipedia pages
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Wikipedia pages
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&offset=20040909053247&limit=500&action=history Early versions of Wikipedia pages
#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2002 Official Wikipedia Press Release of 2002
#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/January_2003 Official Wikipedia Press Release of 2003
#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/February_2004 Official Wikipedia Press Release of 2004
#http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2980046 
#http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9
#http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95
#http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=4
#http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+co-founder+plans+expert+rival/2100-1038_3-6126469
#http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222922,00.html
#http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia/
Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be “fed into the Nupedia process” of authorization. Most of Nupedia’s expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called “Wikipedia.” Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” And, to Sanger’s surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Wikipedia outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed. In late January, Sanger created a Wikipedia discussion list (Wikipedia-L) to facilitate discussion of the project. At the end of January, Wikipedia had seventeen “real” articles (entries with more than 200 characters). By the end of February, it had 150; March, 572; April, 835; May, 1,300; June, 1,700; July, 2,400; August, 3,700. At the end of the year, the site boasted approximately 15,000 articles and about 350 “Wikipedians.”
:Yours Cordially, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been muling over this issue too, at wikinews:user:h2g2bob/JvL. Perhaps the best explanation is Larry's: User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia. As I see it, Larry was a full time employee at Nupedia, so "co-founder" would not be appropriate. However, Larry set up and was project leader for Wikipedia during the early years, for which he deserves considerable credit. --h2g2bob 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no. He was a full time employee of Bomis, so whatever argument goes for Nupedia goes for Wikipedia too.--Shtove 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Library of Alexandria of Links (The True Story of the Co-Founding of Wikipedia) 

message: I think one way to reduce the criticism of Wikipedia is to make the editing process of topics stricter and more difficult to do. Instead of just anyone editing a topic, I think that the edits should be made in the form of a submission that one of a team of editors would inspect, and accept or reject depending on the content. I know this sounds troublesome and complicated, but I can't think of anything else. All I know is that Wikipedia is way too vulnerable to both vandals and people who don't have their facts straight.
Mathew Williams 09:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's philosophy is of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Submissions are reviewed by non-expert volunteers at WP:RCP. Take a look at other models like Citizendium. --h2g2bob 12:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: I have recently found this article where a few known people have commented on and rated their Wikipedia articles. Edwina Currie took the unimpressed approach and expressed her views, which included saying that Wikipedia was "less accurate than most gossip columns." She also quoted what the article stated about her appearance on Hell's Kitchen, which was vandalism unfortunately. I was wondering whether this should be included in the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Regards. Eagle Owl 10:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwina Currie 

message: I think the names of Ryan Jordan and Alan Mcilwraith should be included. The inclusion lends weight to the anecdotal criticism. Removal inserts a marginal POV through exclusion of information. --Dookama 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names included in article 

message: Wikipedia has become a propaganda machine. Wikipedia has a certain political point of view “Political Correctness”, and all articles, which do not comply with this, is deleted or altered. Wikipedia’a policies are often used as an excuse to delete information from articles.
At times only selected sections of articles are deleted. This may change the balance of an article and it promotes only a specific Point of View or political agenda. Links to opposing information is deleted or sabotaged (by changing characters in the links).
It also appears as if official Government agencies are keeping a very close eye on articles in Wikipedia. The moment an article (which does not suit a certain political view) is posted or altered, the posted information is changed or deleted. Even the comments made in the discussion is deleted or altered.
·	It should not be possible for one editor to change the comments of another editor. It is ridiculous that some other person can change or delete the comments you made on Wikipedia. (It is ridiculous that the person you are debating may change your arguments.)
·	Opposing political points of views should be tolerated. It must not be possible to delete the comments of political opponents. This makes articles one sided. This results in the lost of credibility by Wikipedia.
·	Editors (and their sock puppets) which continuously & immediate delete or revert the work of others should also be banned. Well-researched information is sometimes deleted because it does not promote the propaganda machine.
·	The speedy deletion of certain articles is also ridiculous. If somebody starts an article on any political opponent, or person being critical of any matter, the article should not just be deleted. By doing this Wikipedia looses enormous credibility.
·	Political opponents to current administrators need to provide proof of every single comment made on Wikipedia (with references to sources). When the same administrators make comments, they don’t need to provide the sources of information for verification. It is much easier for an administrator (or his sock puppet / friend) to delete opposing information, than to proof an editor wrong by publishing new information. (Let the information speak for itself).--Grasshut 06:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite unfortunately, you are right. And quite saddeningly, certain wikipedians will not go improve themselves only because another "trollish outsider" has taken the time to point out how ridiculous they are. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I almost deleted the above :). Seriously, it was nice of you to provide zero links to the action you have described. --Tom 14:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he did have provided the links to the action he described, wouldn´t they probably be deleted? KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 00:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is a propaganda machine 

message: "Some university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work"
Only some?
As far as I know, there is not one accredited university who's citation requirements accept encyclopaedias. This appear to be a silly use of a weasel word to diminish one of Wikipedia's flaws. --Barberio 19:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, why should the universities cite wikipedia, when wikipedia contains lots of references itself? Unlike older encyclopedias. Wikipedia shouldn't be regarded as an old-fashioned encyclopedia. The criticism is obviously loopsided and compares apples (wikipedia) with pears (encyclopedias). Wikipedia contains much more, with somewhat less factual reliability, but much more extensive references. That's the nature behind interconnecting all facts of Internet (and some pseudofacts) in one information structure. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University citation... 

message: Conservapedia began in November 2006, as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students meeting in New Jersey. 
Conservapedia has since grown enormously, including contributors worldwide. Conservapedia already exceeds the number of entries in the Oxford Dictionary of World History. Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. 
We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts. 
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About"
:And if you get a frontal lobotomy, you might actually find Conservapedia to be your liking. *Dan T.* 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Riiiight. For an example of Conservapedia's "reliability," check out its page on  Robert Byrd.  Two sentences on his Senate career and the rest of the article on his membership in the Ku Klux Klan and how he used the word "nigger" in an interview.  It neglects to mention his opposition to John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign on account of the candidate's Catholicism.  Reading other articles pretty much confirms that its contents are limited to what you can learn from listening to talk radio. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope you're content with it, and I wish you good luck! I'll stick to Wikipedia. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing that Conservapedia has going for it is the requirement that information added to an article be both verifiable and truthful. WP only requires WP:VERIFY and hopes that the fact-checkers of the publisher did their job. Yeah, fat chance. This leads to articles that are incredibly one-sided and often left-of-center in their perepective. Jtpaladin 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm? I was banned from Conservapedia for putting in the up to date unemployment figure for Sweden. The conservatives there liked the five year old figure that they had, to go along with a moronic paragraph showing that this was "proof" that welfare cripples the economy. Didn't work so well with the current (very low) figure, so they reverted it and site-banned me. The whole exercise is a bunch of self-congratulating of people who don't like to think. Sad mouse 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservapedia as alternative to Wikipedia 

message: The Dictionary Conservapedia (a rival of Wikipedia) has an Article about Wikipedia. This article contains links and inforation critical of Wikipedia. 
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia is posted on Conservapedia. 
:A lot of the stuff on that list is just the bias of Conservapedia showing... they consider it "bias" when another site fails to exhibit biases compatible to theirs. *Dan T.* 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can say the same about several Wikipedia editors(and no, I am not a conservatist, nor a liberal. I am already too old for such meaningless labels). KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Wikipedia, as posted on Conservapedia 

message: Gold Seal Campaign:
What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..
1-This page is properly cited.
2-This page has been verified.
This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this. 
As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour. 
-Mattawa
:It is a good idea, but this is the wrong place to suggest it. Also, I would still never allow my students to reference wikipedia because as well as factual problems it has one aspect that makes it unsuitable for referencing - it can be modified. You should be able to go to the reference and see the identical document to what was read at the time of referencing, and in wikipedia you can not. Sad mouse 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Golden Seal 

message: There is a dangerous trend among Wikipedia administrators to take information from corporate web sites as gospel truth and to show complicity in allowing wholesale reproduction of their content. Such is the case of the entry for TV3 (Catalonia). The result of this insidious policy is to remove any critical references to the TV network (even though these are rigorously sourced) and to accept corporate propaganda at face value. Given the vast resources available to corporations, the outcome of such a misguided policy will simply be to replicate much of the "information" spewed out by the PR departments of major companies.
:In fact, the article TV3 (Catalonia) is interesting for the conflict between the author of the above note and another editor. The article has now been locked down for five days by admin Moreschi with an edit summary of "Edit-warring".  We've already got a section in Criticism of Wikipedia about that. Casey Abell 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Clout 

message: Take a look at 
http://de.tmz.com/2007/06/12/sopranos-fans-whack-creators-wiki-entry/
"Sopranos" Fans Whack Creator's Wiki Entry"
It seems that vandalism on wikipages is now being reported as if its organized smear campaigns. 
:--Wowaconia 08:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media protraying vandalism to wiki articles as attack on celebrity himself. 

message: This old revision of the Daniel Brandt article may have information useful for merging into this article.
Please delete the link above when this info has been merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks. Nothing worth merging. Thanks for informing us. This was tried before at this article and rejected. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie doke. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Daniel Brandt]] merge 

message: Question. There was a famous wikipedia hoax article about a fictitious war with Canada for Michigan’s upper peninsula. I don’t remember how I came across it. Can anyone direct me to that page?--Billwsu 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. -- Satori Son 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been deleted again and was last spotted in hiding here or here, not sure where else. I can't find it on web.archive.org at the moment. In any case, it appears to be a take-off on Toledo War, which is a real Wikipedia entry, but is surprisingly well-written for this particular genre. --66.102.80.239 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Porchesia (as a fictitious nation) is also a well-known WP hoax (Uncyclopedia has a page on The Porchesian Holocaust that got featured there). The original article, however, was a substub which had Porchess Island pretty much a "Lebanonese" (sic) overseas territory - it didn't read like fully-encyclopaediac content. --66.102.80.239 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Hoax 

message: point: Wikipedia's open-collaborative nature is the cause why "it has steadily risen in popularity since its inception, and currently ranks among the top ten most-visited websites worldwide, making it the largest encyclopedia ever compiled in human history and is still rapidly growing" (.../wiki/Wikipedia, Retrived 2007-06-23).
antagonist: Wikipedia's anonymity is the cause of:
1) criticisms questioning its reliability and ACCURACY: The truth of a piece of knowledge depends on its "correct" mapping with its referent (the entity of the real-world it reflects/maps).  But subjectivity with which people perceive their surrounding world makes things difficult on to what is "correct".  Then the "trusteness" on the author who says/writes something is a major FACTOR to what is "correct".  Wikipedia has removed this factor and of course increased its criticisms!!!
2) wikipedia's trend to become a TOWER OF BABEL: What characterizes todays world knowledge is the MANY-TO-MANY relationships of concepts and terms (= concept designators).  A concept is denoted with many terms and a term denotes many concepts.  In this CONTEXT, if someone does not know, or misuse these relationships, he/she does not understand the meaning of a text/speech.  The knowledge of the author help us to know (of course not always) the mapping of the terms he/she uses with the concepts he denotes. Wikipedia's anonymity increases the misunderstanding of its content.
Kaseluris, Nikos 10:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CONTRADICTION: OPEN NATURE  -  CLOSED AUTHORS 

message: Currently the section seems jumbled and confused. We have the history of the 3RR policy, we have a few sentences talking about liberal bias and then we have stuff about Wikipedia being the wild-west of encyclopedias and stuff about pro-pedophile activists....
How about we instead break it off to include a mini-section talking about the alleged liberal bias and the formation of Conservapedia (because all that could be expanded) and then we have some of the other stuff about the fanatics. Because, for one, I personally feel that we don't need to group liberal bias in with all this info on fanatics...But more than that it just seems jumbled. |3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |) 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A split of the Fanatics and Special Interests section 

message: I didn't know Wikipedia article itself was this controversial. LOL! I wanted to add the following comment: Though Wikipedia has emerged as the largest tabloid and trivia resource of the Web, its usefulness as a real encyclopaedia for serious topics is hollow. Where can I add it?Anwar 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be your own user page. This article is already too bloody big, and in any case we shouldn't accept random, unattributed thoughts in any article. Their presence is one of the things that tabloidizes us and reduces our usefulness. Regards, --Hollow Man Dan (Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri) 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair.[12]"
In Wikipedias defence this could be down to the fact that Coronation Street has been running for a lot longer than Tony Blairs political carrear. Leaving more to write about  80.229.222.48 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloid & Trivia 

message: It seems to me that the Essjay section deals too much with the details and timeline of the events of this incident, which is already covered in its own article. I think that the section should really should read more like one or two sentences on "what happened" (see how it is handled in the History of Wikipedia), and then start to get into the Criticism of Wikipedia. It is fine to criticize Jimbo's handling of it also, but that does not justify the five paragraphs of "event narrative" that are currently in that section.--76.220.203.159 01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there anything else besides just referring the reader to the Essay controversy and a sentence or two that is needed to explain why it lead to criticism?  Jimbo's reaction caused criticism also, but Sanger makes that clear. I guess my problem is that the Essjay section is disproportionately large, compared to the other sections. Really, the size of the section should be proportional to the Importance of the criticism and the whole Essjay incident did not really change much process-wise. A year from now, the bad press that it gardered will probably seem silly.--76.220.203.159 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know if there is any change in policy or nothing has changed. Is there any references about the ending or outcome to the Essjay story.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo proposed verifying credentials, which became Wikipedia:Credentials which was rejected on March 15. Ryan Jordan has not shown back up in any account that he admits to.  The Essjay fell silent and remains so. All it really did was get people thinking more along the lines that Wikipedia Watch paints the project (well, WW used to be a little more anti-teenager): as run by people who are simply splitting their time between here and, say, MySpace.--76.203.48.177 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essjay section 

message: I do not see anything about cyberstalking on Wikipedia or the incivility allowed here. Stalking is routine and persistant. The incivility is massive. I don't see this ending any time soon. Therefore, this kind of behaviour is only further encouraged. The facts should be in this article.  Mr.Guru  talk  23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens do Wikipedia's editors has not yet become a source of news. If they need to spend a month in hospital detoxing from their wikiholism, that might garner some press. Perhaps all the stalking and incivility are viewed by the outside world as just a bunch of hot air in the same vein as, say, ten of Usenet incivility and stalking were. Oh, but the Usenet article is semi-protected, soo... Peace in Our Time!--76.203.48.177 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete article 

message: I add that the section about Essjay has returned. This article is not about specific criticisms of Wikipedia. It is about the qualities of Wikipedia, both the articles and the community. The Essjay incident is one incident and you do the reader a disservice by suggesting that this was the criticism. Essjay is gone. (Well, Jordan could be back with a new account, but you know what I mean.)  The problem is that Wikipedia has some fraction them are teenagers (by that, I guess I really mean "people who are unlikely to have a college degree" or unlikely to honestly be able to call themselves a professional anything), the unemployed and fringe elements who inexperienced, marginally educated or have hidden agendas. You sometimes get articles that sound like they were the transcript of an Ophrah Winfrey show taken by an intoxicated clerk.  The Essjay incident is not the general problem that results in criticism of Wikipedia — it is the lack of qualifications of many of its editors that preclude them from make higher quality contributions to articles about math, economics, science, engineering and those other things for which, say, Nobel prizes are given and for which encyclopedias build their reputation as credible sources of information. Nobel prize winners do not have time to edit Wikipedia, but some people with qualifications do. The criticism is that they are in the minority at Wikipedia.--76.203.48.177 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The restored Essjay section includes discussion of credentials and their place (or lack of it) on Wikipedia. What the restored section doesn't do – and shouldn't do – is engage in personal editorializing about "teenagers, the unemployed and fringe elements who inexperienced, marginally educated or have hidden agendas" and "articles that sound like they were the transcript of an Ophrah Winfrey show taken by an intoxicated clerk." The restored section is a balanced, thorough, neutrally written account of the incident and the effect it had on Wikipedia's reputation and practices. Casey Abell 12:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A neutrally written account of the Essjay controvery is not a criticism and is redundant. This aricle is not the place for a mini Essjay article. This specific section should focus on the lack of credentials and effects and not Essjay. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have also renamed the section to > lack of credential verification.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Who's the royal "we"? And since when do we (royal or otherwise) not strive for a "neutrally written account" of everything in Wikipedia? Anyway, I have reverted back to the more neutral treatment of the Essjay controversy. There's no need for charged, heavily POV language about "no credentials, faked credentials and unverified credentials." A straightforward, neutrally phrased discussion of the controversy and its effects on Wikipedia is preferable to editorializing about Essjay as a "basis for doubting [Wikipedia's] accuracy and credibility." Also, there's no excuse for omitting any mention of Jimbo's public apology to The New Yorker. Again, we should try to keep the section as NPOV as possible. Casey Abell 12:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should drive sections 

message: I operate a website called: IHateWikipediaDOTcom. It is a domain name I aquired a while back. My current feelings about WP are mixed, and my specific domain name may or may not be rellevant. My site and its related blog are active. If you compare my site to WikiTruthDOTinfo, I think you'll conclude in some ways, my site is more current. Check WikiTruth's history on its main page. Since WikiTruth has a link on the article page, it seems it could be argued that a link to my site could be. It's certainly possible I will be blogging on this request goes? I have varied opinions about Wikipedia, and share some of Wales free market ideas. Have a look at my pages, but more importantly, my blog to see my perspective. Nanabozho 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to wait for other people to recognize your weblog as noteworthy and add a link to it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Kelly Martin's blog is here. I don't think it has much value – it's mostly score-settling with various Wikipedia editors. But occasionally there's some interesting criticism of the project. The latest entry, for instance, discusses possible problems if Wikipedia ever accepts advertising. Casey Abell 12:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a link from this page 

message: I read a brief but interesting piece (Google cache ) that referred to "errors of emphasis," the idea that the size and number of articles in Wikipedia pertaining to certain pop culture and current subjects outweigh those of important historical facts:
While outright factual errors and ease of vandalism are the main raps against Wikipedia, dumb errors of emphasis are incredibly common. Major historical figures get a paragraph or two, while ephemeral TV shows and video games are subject to lengthy treatises. (This is why Wikipedia has 1.9 million articles and the Encyclopedia Brittanica has but 120,000.) 
I note with amusement an entry on a Winnipegger whose main claim to fame was writing a Free Press editorial page column for a few years. 
The piece is longer than the entry on John W. Dafoe, the Free Press’s editor from 1901 to 1944 and one of the most influential journalists Canada has produced.
 
Note that the overall tone of the article is positive and the writer ends by stating his intention to tackle the Dafoe article and improve it.
I guess I notice this most in the summaries of individual TV show episodes.  Should this be added?  A number of people have stated that the article is too long already.  Blotto adrift 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already covered in Systematic bias in coverage. You could add maybe a sentence or two from the article, with a footnote. Casey Abell 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Didn't catch that.  I'm not sure if systemic bias is the phrase I would have used, which is probably why I didn't notice it while scanning headings.Blotto adrift 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Errors of Emphasis" 

message: There seems to be a technical problem on this article. The whole last section is computerese. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia code to fix it myself.
:Are your referring to this version of the article? There was a problem with the ref template that has since been fixed. Casey Abell 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish 

message: I noticed that neither piece is included in this article.  These are the two most serious criticisms of Wikipedia in its history.  Is there a particular reason why they are not included? 123.2.168.215 12:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia Scanner gets a fairly extensive writeup in the section Exposure to political operatives and advocates, with cites from reliable sources. The "SlimVirgin scandal" was a supposed outing that hasn't been confirmed or even discussed in any reliable sources. The former was an inrteresting story but hardly one of the two most serious criticisms of WP in its history. The latter was a personal attack with no reliable sources to cite. Casey Abell 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult to see what you mean by "no reliable sources". Obviously the front page of Slashdot is not a reliable source for outright facts ("SlimVirgin is a spy[1]") but I would think it's notable enough to include something like ("an article appearing on the front page of Slashdot said that SlimVirgin was a spy"). Eleland 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The ultimate source for the story was Ohmynews, a site not commonly regarded as reliable due to its lack of editorial control and self-publishing nature. WP:BLP considerations apply here. We can't just blandly report that allegations were made about a living person on Ohmynews. If reliable, independent sources investigate allegations about a living person published on Ohmynews and produce convincing evidence for them, then we can include such material in Wikipedia. Casey Abell 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Scanner and the SlimVirgin scandal 

message: The quality problem with Wikipedia is not from vandals but from many amateurs who spend many hours each day following their watchlist for changes to their favorite contributions. Experts who work full-time in their fields don’t have the time to revert or even discuss ignorant edits. Does anyone have a solution for this problem? Dhammapal 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its called Citizendium! C.m.jones 22:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a failed project. Try Encarta or Encyclopedia Britannica instead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.191.119 (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts working full-time don’t have time to debate with amateurs 

message: The article is a beautiful example of the very biases it talks about: Not only is it rather long, but simply not about Wikipedia per se. It only talks about how English media criticize the pecularities of the English Wikipedia... which are in part, but not in full similar to other Wikipedias. As it seems impossible that this article will become comprehensive any time soon, I suggest to change the title to something like Criticism of the English Wikipedia. --Ibn Battuta 10:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this particular problem is very widespread on the Wikipedia, mainly because the proportion of contributors who read other languages is quite small. This being said, I do not believe that a move is in order, rather, we should fix up this article by adding international perspective. You could also try ; see Template:Globalize Eleland 11:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased - this is only about English media discussing the English Wikipedia 

message: The paper which is described in this section is certainly very interesting research, but I fail to see why its description is included here (and what it has to do with the heading "Systemic bias in coverage"). Such an uneven distribution is to be expected in almost all encyclopedias and other reference works - I don't think anybody would hold this against the Encyclopédie. I appreciate the work that VasileGaburici has put into summarizing this study, but unless someone explains convincingly how the study's findings consist criticism of Wikipedia, I am going to remove the section as off-topic for this article which has become excessively lengthy at 125,784 bytes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The introductory part of the "systemic bias" section summarizes claims that can only hold true if a minority of editors can impose their views on the rest. Until the GROUP'07 paper, it was unclear whether Wikipedia, being an open system, is subjected to the editorial "bias" of small group as other encyclopedias are, such as the one that you mention. See, "the hive mind" section for critics that claimed that Wikipedia is "produced by the masses", thus a completely different beast. So, a paper (and I dare say the only paper so far) that determines some hard facts about persistent authorship of Wikipedia's content is quite relevant to several topics raised on this page, even if you do not find these findings surprising.BTW, the paper also deals with vandalism as observed by users (unlike all other papers that only measured what was changed server-side). I was in the middle of summarizing its findings on that matter when I saw your post.COI disclaimer: I have no affiliation with the authors, their institution, and I don't do research about Wikipedia on my day job. VasileGaburici (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding page length: I think it's feasible to break the page in two: "criticism of Wikipedia's content" and "criticism of Wikipedia's community". If you think that page length is a problem, go ahead and split it, but I won't be doing that tonight . VasileGaburici (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You were right that this section per se did not constitute criticism. I've moved it to (the new) Academic studies about Wikipedia article, and linked it from here because it provides some relevant background for the "systemic bias" debate. VasileGaburici (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A minority of editors produce the majority of persistent content" section 

message: Should this article discuss the dispute between Wikipedia and artificial intelligence researcher Carl Hewitt? This article, in my view, describes the issues completely  ? (Note that the "Kowalski" quoted there is Robert Kowalski, one of the field's most important researchers.) Prof. Hewitt has begun a systematic critique of Wikipedia as which is worth reading: Corruption of Wikipedia. 
Another academic/wikipedia dispute is with Paul Gann (to whom I am far more sympathetic), who has a paper criticizing Wikippedia. Hewitt quotes it above. The best line, which I think should be quoted in this article, is this:
Are these sources useful? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a summary of the Carl Hewitt article from The Observer to Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Scientific_disputes VasileGaburici (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Hewitt 

message: * The Essjay controversy is covered in a bit too much detail here, given that it has its own page. It needs to be reduced in length by summarizing the main issue instead of detailing the sequence of events. VasileGaburici (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other means to reduce article length 

message: I think the following sections/topics merit discussion on whether they deserve the coverage they get in this article. We could just move them to the "external links" section, without a full story. Feel free to add more to the list, but mention why they are marginal:
* Prediction of failure due to marketers subversion. This based entirely on a law professor's blog posts that come close to "crystal ball" stuff. The only thing that made this story notable is that one newspaper thought his predictions are somehow relevant on technology matters. VasileGaburici (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed blog links, and demoted from section to paragraph. VasileGaburici (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Removed story sourced only from alternet. VasileGaburici (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sections that are probably marginal 

message: A prova da fraude, é que só existem criticas em inglês.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HO249 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fraud]] 

message: The contents of this section is common-sense, but it's unfortunately unsourced, so it's bordering WP:OR. This article is quite long already, and sometimes contentious, so I think we should only keep material that is easily verified. VasileGaburici (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the source would be an enormous dump of talk pages, starting here, I suppose. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia talk pages do not meet WP:BURDEN. VG ☎ 03:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I don't think so. Anonymity effects some problems, so some Wikipedians support real name proposal. And conflict of interest is a problem, or else we don't need Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The article is not controversial; it does reflect many notable internal and external criticisms and problems of Wikipedia. --RekishiEJ (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter if you agree with the statement or not (I agree with it for instance). We cannot have it in the article just because WP:ILIKEIT, even by consensus. It needs to be WP:Verifiable. VG ☎ 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymity and Conflict of Interest section 

message: Wikipedia has too many obscene images on several articles. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is to discuss what (properly sourced) notable criticisms to add to the article, not to make your own criticism of Wikipedia.  If you can suggest reliable sources that have criticized alleged obscenity or indecency of Wikipedia, then this might be able to be added. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscene photographs 

message: During routine surfing about current political events I stumbled into Rush Limbaugh's occasional radio show references to Wikipedia, using transcripts from Limbaugh's website.  Based on a dozen transcripts, I think it would be fair to say the following:
:Since at least 2005, Rush Limbaugh has used Wikipedia as both a general references source (e.g. What is a "Magic Negro"?  Who funds Press TV?) and as a source for biographical details about politicians and other people in the news.  These references are sometimes accompanied by a caveat such as "if you can trust what's on Wikipedia". He has also used it to factcheck himself, asking his staff to verify his own statements.  
Limbaugh has characterized Wikipedia as a "liberal" website.
I've attached the references and quotes I was going to use to justify this short paragraph, but after going to all the trouble to assemble this, I'm not sure if it belongs here, in Limbaugh's biography (perhaps under the section on his views, or in the virtual dustbin.  So for now I only mention it here.  72.244.200.179 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought this was worth including but now I'm not so sure 

message: First, your paragraph is a synthesis about Reliability of Wikipedia rather than any direct criticism Limbaugh has made, so it hardly belongs in this article. Second, your synthesis requires a heavy degree of interpretation of Limbaugh's actions (how do we know you haven't omitted all instances where he said Wikipedia is not reliable from you analysis?), so your paragraph has all the characteristics of original research. Feel free to add the fact that Limbaugh considers Wikipedia liberal, since that is attributable to him. VG ☎ 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: What's so great about Wikiscanner ? It only detects edits by IP's that can be traced. Nobody seriously interested in manipulating Wikipedia on behalf of lobby group, government or political ideology would be so clumsy not to create an account. Most likely hiding behind occassional constructive edits. It's obvious that anybody editing from IP is rather weak in the knowledge of Internet or manipulation and doesn't represent a serious threat to Wikipedia, but just 'clueless' supporter. Did CAMERA guys  edit from IP's of their office ?--Molobo (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be better on the WikiScanner article since it is not part of Wikipedia itself. --76.69.165.84 (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I trimmed the section to focus on  Oliver Kamm's criticism, while still providing sufficient context. The WikiScanner story has been subjected to spin by both Wikipedia fans and critics, hence relevance to this article. Of course, this article should focus on the latter. VG ☎ 14:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiScanner criticism 

message: The examples mentioned in that section seems more like "parody" than "criticism", i.e. the humorous effect of describing WP by overstatements in order to achieve a humorous effect. So in the parody, the gags is the main point, while in criticism qualities of the object is the main point. Or translated to English: parody need not necessarily have any criticising intention. Said User:Svinhund from Uncyclopedia, AKA Said: Rursus (☻) 12:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Wikiality definitely is criticism. VG ☎ 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Humorous criticism" (?) 

message: The following statement occurs in the text:
:A related if somewhat ad hominem criticism is that many Wikipedia editors do not have degrees or other credentials generally recognized in academia.
With it is supplied a citation, with the following footnote:
:
Neither the citation, nor the footnote from the citation actually supports the claim made in the statement. Is there any source that makes such a claim and actually provides proof for it? Mindmatrix 13:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credentials 

message: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/wikiped-panel.htm 
I copied the above from the log.  Wikipedia must really hate Professor Hewitt's criticism since it works so hard to suppress it :-)       --171.66.34.30 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a coherent strategist but many diverse people, and your link does not work. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they meant to link to the web page for for panel discussion at The World that Wikipedia Made: The Ethics and Values of Public Knowledge or perhaps to the audio recording of the panelist presentations here.--67.169.147.85 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hewitt is a respected critic. See Santa Clara University Ethics Center Symposium 

message: This entry does state that Wikipedia does have a bias to male editors, but I would have thought that a more obvious bias of the English Wikipedia is its cultural bias  - I guess that the majority of its editors work within the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada or Australia. This seems to be to lead to biasses in topics covered (there is already a whole article on the Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row, a topic unlikely to generate much interest outside my own country, the United Kingdom, but I am sure that there are topics in other parts of the world which get only scant mention or none -  for example, only quite recently did Wikipedia have an article on the Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama. About the only reference in the article as it currently stands is a mere four lines, on the "U.S.-centric bias" (yes,that is definitely there). However, there are parts of the world, such as Asia, South America or - perhaps especially - Africa, which are getting scant coverage. Did you know that if you look  at the List of Wikipedias, a list of the different language editions of Wikipedia, the list is biassed towards English and the European languages, with Indian languages such as Punjabi or Gujarati being surpringly low down the list? One has to go as low as entry number 78 (which is Afrikaans) before the first African language, and in the whole of the Top 150 languages, there are a mere three African languages - Afrikaans, Yoruba and Amharic. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was the one who added the section about U.S.-centric bias. If you can find more references elaborating on that, nothing stops you from improving that section. VG ☎ 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving more coverage to Wikipedias cultural bias 

message: The series on BBC Radio Four called "Iconoclasts", in the edition broadcast on November 5 and 8 2008, mentioned Wikipedia. Although its main theme was criticism of the Net in general rather than of Wikipedia per se (criticisms were also made of blogs and of sites such as My Space, YouTube or Facebook), criticisms of Wikipedia were discussed. The protagonist on the programme argued that it was difficult to check veracity of Wikipedia and also referred to coverage bias, mentioning that the entry on Star Wars was longer than that on Henry the Eighth; whereas a supporter claimed that inaccuracies on Wikipedia take, on average, four and a half minutes to get corrected. Anonymity on the Net was discussed. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio Four series "Iconoclasts"mentions this subject 

message: Help us develop  learning resources related to Wikipedia collaboratively. You may fact check the multiple choice questions related to Criticism of Wikipedia, Wikipedia reliability, Wikipedia policies, etc. How can it be simplified? Please suggest more questions. Especially, we are interested in examples of common misunderstandings about wikipedia, that may used as distraction in true/false multiple choice questions. Mange01 (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fact check the Wikipedia Quiz about Criticism of Wikipedia 

message: Since I see the tag "controversial topic" on top of this talk page, here are the detailed explanations of my edits:
# : (a) the section in question is about sexual content in general, rather than about porno only, and (b) the word Criticism is redundant
#: I simplified the lead of the section by making it speak immediately to the point of its subject. If someone thinks that  the deleted phrase has an important content, please put it somewhere else, since in this particular place is decreases the readability of the section, being rather off-topic (the topic being "credential verification"). Twri (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits 

message: The following paragraph was deleted by User:Prolog
:Wikipedia has been accused of taking sides in ongoing scientific debates.  For example the Wikipedia Arbitrator Charles Matthews took the side of Robert Kowalski who was engaged in an academic dispute with Carl Hewitt concerning Logic Programming.   This escalated when in an article on Google Knol  Hewitt accused Matthews of instigating Observer journalist, Jenny Kleeman, to write an article attacking him concerning the dispute with Kowalski and other Wikipedia issues. The Knol article goes on to claim that much of the unreliability of Wikipedia stems from its deviation from normal academic practice because it relies on censorship, banning, dishonoring expertise, and allowing administrators to remain anonymous.
Does anyone know why User:Prolog is vandalizing this page?--67.170.201.202 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, but I made the references visible.--67.169.8.136 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific disputes 

message: One thing I've often wondered about Wikipedia is that given its susceptibility to the personal bias of editors and the tyranny of the majority, is Wikipedia really a body of knowledge, or is it more "what most Wikipedia editors happen to think right now"? Sort of a variation on the theme that "history is written by the victors". In a perfect Wikipedia, an article would read virtually the same in any place at any time and irregardless of the editor. But that's not the case and likely won't be the case in years to come. Articles are edited today by editors A, B & C, while years from now editors D, E & F will be (sometimes unintentionally) injecting their own biases and the popular thinking of their time. Has anyone else thought on this and wondered if Wikipedia is really a body of knowledge... or is just an abstract of knowledge as seen through the prism of a majority of Wikipedia editors of a particular time? JBarta (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of bias 

message: I have a WP:BLP concern with regards to this section referencing the alleged "cult of personality" surrounding Jimbo. It feels a bit unbalanced under BLP. Is there not a Wikipedia policy/guideline/statement by Jimbo that specifically states that his opinions, etc. should not be treated as gospel? For the sake of balance, I think this should be referenced here (it's possible one of the cited sources also mentions this, but it should be made clearer). 23skidoo (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Wales role section 

message: The section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Comparative_study_on_scientific_articles_conducted_by_Nature
says "In December 2005 the journal Nature conducted a" and it should read "In December 2005 the journal Nature_(journal) conducted a"
Anyway...the reference is incorrect and I can't change it.Jlorz (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nature]] reference needs to be corrected to [[Nature_(journal)]] 

message: The article says 'Since unregistered editors reveal their IP addresses, which can be used by admins to register complaints with Internet service providers or to put "range blocks" in place.' That sentence seems incomplete or just confused. Since unregistered editors do this which allows that... then what? 87.254.93.202 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the whole paragraph that sentence fall into seems to be unnecessary. The only part of it supported by a cited source is the mention that unregistered users can't create articles - which it then notes has nothing to do with the issue of users such as Griot (the example used in the article) not being identifiable people, which was the criticism being discussed. 87.254.93.202 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymity of editors 

message: In the sentence "In article in The Times of London Jimmy Wales stood by the quality of the presentation in Wikipedia", I wouldn't be surprised if it's some sort of ghastly house style to refer to The Times as 'The Times of London', but I guess we could at least change the start of the sentence to "In an article...". 87.254.93.202 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In article in The Times of London 

message: Why in the devil does it say that Jimmy Wales is the de facto leader of Wikipedia 3 times? I think most readers of this page probably could care less from knowing that he is so much cooler than us "mere mortals", that it has to be mentioned 3 times.
it does not have to be mentioned quite as much because on the first time people see it they realise it is important.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.31.237 (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Facto Leader 

message: Okay, this article seems to be almost set up to be an in-progress EXAMPLE of all the things Wikipedia's critics say about it, and I'm really surprised that nobody pays enough attention to it to even comment after several days on obvious grammatical errors such as those I pointed out above "in article in Times" etc. let alone do anything about them. Let's try this one - the article claims that Judd Bagley is the CEO of Overstock.com. This is not supported by the cited source. It is also untrue. It is also known by lots of people on this site to be untrue (and no I'm not saying it's defamatory to say someone is that. I know, giggle giggle.). Could someone see their way to fixing it? 87.254.80.49 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported and untrue claims about a living person 

message: One of the largest criticisms I've seen among some would-be contributors is how Jimmy Wales speaks quite eloquently about Wikipedia "breaking down the walls" and trying to be the "sum total of human knowledge", and yet the very existence of the notability guidelines intentionally puts up artificial "walls" and intentionally prevents some human knowledge from being included.
Granted, its ridiculous to think that Wikipedia can include every single datum in existence, but "notability" is an amazingly fluid concept.  Some articles that deal with the leading subjects in very narrow areas have been deleted as "not notable enough", yet others that fit the same description (well know, but only to a small group) have been kept because of their very notability.
This is either the effect of an active lack of a single standard, or merely the side-effect of the editors personal prejudices.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.26.82 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't Live Up To Its Own Ideals 

message: Isn't the "Liberal Bias" section rather small? I think pretty much everyone recognizes that Wikipedia is laden with liberal bias. You'd think editors would gather more sources on this unless....oh wait..they're liberals. 65.247.226.99 (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are 100% factually correct. Consensus <> Truth 68.167.94.180 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tricky one - here the US-centric bias and "liberal bias" criticisms conflict: "political" neutrality from a US perspective would impose a Christian-conservative bias on a world-wide readership, and vice versa. The article is already too long, and doesn't need to get into this. --Wragge (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Bias Section 

message: I feel that the sentences "The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper. Several educational institutions have banned the use of Wikipedia as a primary source in the past while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources." are used to colorize the article in a way that is unfairly biased towards the use of traditional encyclopedias. While the statement is factually true, I cannot, at least personally, say that I have ever heard of any brand of encyclopedia every being allowed as a citable source on any academic paper (excluding ones on encyclopedias) throughout grade or university level schooling. I feel that something should be said to address this, if there's some consensus that this is true. Tiger of Doom (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to some extent with Sgore in that I have also experienced my share of university lecturers evincing an extraordinary degree of dislike towards Wikipedia dismissing it as even a starting point for further reference hunting. But I do also agree with Tiger of Doom in the fact that no university would allow any printed encyclopedia either to be cited as a source in an academic paper. It is simply sound academic practice not to cite secondary (or tertiary) sources as reference when there are perfectly good primary sources available. Ironically it would be difficult though to find any references for this (and by the way the reference for the sentence quoted by Tiger of Doom is highly dubious as it seems to be a blog that just represents the opinions of one person with no factual research behind that particular statement). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universities to disallow Wikipedia as a source 

message: I have merged Death by Wikipedia into this article per the AfD. Someone should take a look and do some copyediting and source-checking. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Death by Wikipedia]] 

message: Certain interest groups, including established and admin users, are able to size control over some articles and suppress other outsider editors.--Seemsgranf (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: reference please Hadrian89 (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be included 

message: *Citizendium
*Deletionpedia
*Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español
*Nupedia
*Scholarpedia   
*Veropedia
*Wikiweise 
*WikiZnanie
I think this could eventually end up being its own page, but right now, i think stating acknowledging that other iterations of online encyclopedias with different rules are out there trying to remedy some of the criticisms out there.
-dont forget conservapedia (did I spell that right?)....regardless, its a site coutnering the confirmed systemic socialist-leaning bias of wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of wiki's attempting to address criticisms 

message: The common label which begins with "This article does not cite any references or sources. ..." , should instead, state: "This article does not cite any references nor sources. ...."
:I'd need to see a source for this statement. I believe nor is used only with neither; for example, This article cites neither references nor sources. Please correct me if I am wrong, and point me to a good grammar source that shows it. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, "nor" is used to indicate 'an additional negative', and the popular teaching rhyme "either or, neither nor" is used to show this, but does not mean that the word 'nor' should only be used with 'neither'. I will search for a good (and authoritative) source online to show this. Thanks for your input. Callmeace2001 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who started this topic, but this is not the place to do it (we are not discussing an improvement to the article in question). But, seeing as it has been started... 'or' is acceptable when linking a pair of words, be they adjectives, nouns or (I think) verbs (this article: is not accurate or reliable/does not cite references or sources/does not cite or provide).  Hadrian89 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: You are correct, so I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Cleanup#Nor_._._. in case anybody wants to belabor the issue over there. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Lack Of Grammar In Labels 

message: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/11/international/i090708D96.DTL&tsp=1
Someone with more experience can edit this in for some section with the misinformation section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.60.155 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of newest news concerning fake death quote. 

message: In my opinion, and in that of many others, a large reason for Wikipedia's failure to be a source of credible information is its reliance on newspapers as 'credible sources'.  It is now well known that newspapers dervie a lot of information from the blogosphere.  In fact, a newspaper could get false information from wikipedia, and then wikipedia could then "use" the newspaper as a "credible source" perpetuating a falsehood.  Sources such as the New York Times should be permanently banned from ever being cited as a basis for making information "credible".  Furthermore, newspapers are inherently biased, and any wiki article that substantiates itself with a newspaper, therefore, is biased as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, and in that of many others, everything you said is false. So I guess we're tied until you find a source. Hadrian89 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsigned is just plain wrong. I have worked at many newspapers, large and small, and all reporters and editors strive for accuracy, and if any are misled by sources, then the Corrections column goes into action. Unsigned should take a journalism course or two before making such a silly statement. A friend to all (even to the benighted Unsigned), GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For more from the same IP number, read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=275948114#Ban_My_IP_You_Socialist_Biased_Muther_Fuckers Cheers! GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  another criticism not mentioned 

message: If you have a problem with citing Wikipedia as a source for itself, or wish to hide it's own censorship of its user names allowed, please talk here before making a third revert in 24 hours. --Green021176 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, names are censored on certain criteria, which is applied globally to any registered username, not just those "critical" of WP. To choose a subset from those, and use it as "proof" that there's some conspiracy amongst Wikipedians, is simply cherry-picking to prove a non-existent point. There are many valid criticisms of WP - this isn't one of them.Mindmatrix 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this is an article about notable criticism of Wikipedia, and is therefore not the place for you to be posting your personal criticisms.  Note that all of the other criticisms featured are supported by reliable, independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That anti-Wikipedia names are a subset of the banned names is a criticism, and citing log/discussion pages is valid as it's pure evidence that such action is taking place.  It is reliable, and doesn't need to be independent if it's a self-contained problem.  Not all sources on Wikipedia are external, and certainly not all are from high-brow news sources. --Green021176 (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The bigger problem is still that any criticism of those two username blocks is still original reasearch unless you find some outside sources that are notable, reliable, and independent.  Dawn Bard (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Name Censorship 

message: Most other articles start with the name of the article in bold, then define or expand on that subject. Even if slightly unwieldy, the sentence can be structured to fit with that layout. See Criticism of sport utility vehicles for the precedent. 92.0.150.111 (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Bloviation in this article. Look it up: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define+bloviation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
--------
Sorry, I didn't sign this before. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would I want to do that? If you can't be bothered to explain what your point is, I can't be bothered to find out. Richerman (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloviation. 

message: Many of the mathematical entries in Wikipedia lack the accuracy and the precision expected from any mathematical entry. The problem is compounded by the very poor interface with any TeX, Latex, TeXML code that often sacrifices readability in the HTML formathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_PlanetMath Documented Readability and Coding Problem; however, this is mostly, or at least partially, restored in the PDF format which is also available at Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia, but that is not available at many of the online "Free Encyclopedia"s. This serious TeX compatibility coding problem for mathematical entries needs to be adequately addressed by the Wikipedia's programing team as it does severly limit its contents especially in areas that require diagrams that can be very nicely built in Latex or TeX, etc, but are not available at Wikipedia through its very limiting mathematical interface. Another easy route for improving Wikipedia's mathematical problems is the importing of available entries from mathematically and physically oriented websites that do have acceptable Latex or TeX coding and HTML conversion ability such as PlanetMath or Planetphysics/PlanetPhysics.org where many such useful mathematical and mathematical physics entries are available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_PlanetMath Exchange program between Wikipedia and PlanetMath.org for mathematical entries; the existing exchange program between Wikipedia and Planetmath.orghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_PlanetMath Exchange program between Wikipedia and PlanetMath.org for mathematical entries is a first step in this direction, but so far only relatively few exchanges have taken place between the two Encyclopedia websites (less than 0.1 percent of the available entries) because of the coding conflict problem pointed out in this section Planetmath-- a major Wikipedia limitation that needs to be addressed by Wikipedia programers as soon as possible. On the other hand, the PDF books sections of such websiteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookshttp://planetphysics.org/?op=browse&from=books PlanetPhysics.org Books sectionhttp://planetmath.org/?op=browse&from=books do not suffer from this coding problem, and therefore the percentage exchanged of the GNUL, PDF formatted books is greater than 10 percent at present. Planetphysics/PlanetPhysics.org where many such useful mathematical and mathematical physics entries are available http://planetphysics.org/?op=browse&from=books PlanetPhysics.org Books Section; the existing exchange program between Wikipedia and Planetmath.org is a first step in this direction, but so far only relatively few exchanges have taken place between the two Encyclopedia websites (less than 0.1 percent of the available entries) because of the coding conflict problem pointed out in this section-- a major Wikipedia limitation that needs to be addressed by Wikipedia programers as soon as possible. On the other hand, the PDF books sections of such websites do not suffer from this coding problem, and therefore the percentage exchanged of the GNUL, PDF formatted books is greater than 10 percent at present.   Planetphysics/PlanetPhysics.org where many such useful mathematical and mathematical physics entries are available; the existing exchange program between Wikipedia and Planetmath.org is a first step in this direction, but so far only relatively few exchanges have taken place between the two Encyclopedia websites (less than 0.1 percent of the available entries) because of the coding conflict problem pointed out in this section-- a major Wikipedia limitation that needs to be addressed by Wikipedia programers as soon as possible. On the other hand, the PDF books sections of such websites do not suffer from this coding problem, and therefore the percentage exchanged of the GNUL, PDF formatted books is greater than 10 percent at present.  
- The WP-MATH project at Wikipedia can only address a small part of such coding issues because of the cumbersome and inherently limited/inflexible/difficult to use Wikipedi's coding for mathematical purposes. Last but not least, in the NVOP sense, Wikipedia does have superior graphics and color illustrations in comparison with other online, free Encyclopedia websites, especially on its WikiCommons; such illustrations greatly enhance the explanations, and also substantially facilitate the understanding of the entry contents, with the notable exception of the absence of mathematical diagram building capabilities that Wikipedia now sadly lacks, and that the Latex-based websites, archives, on-line mathematical and theoretical physics journals, and so on, do have right now, and that have had such capabilities for at least the last 10 years. Thus, in terms of the Latex/TeX mathematical encoding abilities, Wikipedia's capabilities for mathematics and theoretical physics are at least ten years out of date, which is a pity.  + The WP-MATH project at Wikipedia can only address a small part of such coding issues because of the cumbersome and inherently limited/inflexible/difficult to use Wikipedi's coding for mathematical purposes. Last but not least, in the NVOP sense, Wikipedia does have superior graphics and color illustrations in comparison with other online, free Encyclopedia websites, especially on its WikiCommons; such illustrations greatly enhance the explanations, and also substantially facilitate the understanding of the entry contents, with the notable exception of the absence of mathematical diagram building capabilities that Wikipedia now sadly lacks, and that the Latex-based websites, archives, on-line mathematical and theoretical physics journals, and so on, do have right now, and that have had such capabilities for at least the last 10 years. Thus, in terms of the Latex/TeX mathematical encoding abilities, Wikipedia's capabilities for mathematics and theoretical physics are at least ten years out of date, which is a pity.
.Bci2Nu 04:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical accuracy and editing diffculties caused by coding problems 

message: :Sorry, we like it this way. You'll just have to deal with it. SharkD (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a  template after Bci2's post so that his inline citations would show up. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This edit deleted a sentence but also deleted the reference needed to verify the previous sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference deleted needed to verfiy the text 

message: In the section on systemic bias is this passage:
Cohen cites the examples of the Wikipedia entries on Maoism (which he implies is unfairly characterised as simply the use of violence to impose political ends) and Socrates who (on Wikipedia at least) is "Plato's teacher who left behind not very many writings". This last, to readers of the Times Higher Education at least, is patent nonsense, but illustrates the shallow knowledge base of editors who then proceed to make sweeping judgements.
The emboldened portion of the above passage is outside of quotes, so it appears to be an assertion of the article rather than Cohen. If so, it should be fixed. Nightscream (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV or Vandalism in this article? 

message: There's much that's succinctly put and dead-on in this article, but one of the concerns I have with Wikipedia that seems to get minor attention here is not only the level of "authority" it may have acquired whether deserving or not, but that the ultimate arbiter is one person. And the clandestine nature of this - it's not going to be clear to the casual user. This is only briefly hinted at in the article. 
I wonder how many of those who have collectively donated a substantial amount of money are truly aware of some of the unsavory aspects of Wikipedia culture?Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't there more emphasis on the role of Jimmy Wales? 

message: As the Senator is now truly dead, I removed his name from this list as someone who reads that info and then goes to look at his article may think that the mention of his death is vandalism, not the truth it now is. 74.211.44.157 (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Ted Kennedy from "Death by Wikipedia" section 

message: I looked this person up after reading this article about his criticism of Wikipedia: . His name redirects here, but he isn't actually mentioned anywhere in the article - presumably the bit about him got removed? It looks to me as though his criticisms could be worth mentioning - does anyone want to add them to the article? If not, the redirect should probably be deleted, as it isn't very helpful at the moment. Robofish (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eric Goldman]] 

message: This link was randomly interspersed in one section which it was not relevant to, but it is relevant to the article and could be used in it, so I'm moving it here: http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/2828/wikipedia-founder-looks-out-number-1 --Cybercobra (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random source 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RFC bot 10:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a new article called Sockpuppeting civil servant Wikifiddles himself. If editors want a Community of Wikipedia page I can start a Criticism of Wikipedia community. There are thousands of references. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Cade Metz as a RS wrt Wikipedia is like using FOX News as a RS wrt the Democratic Party: they're often reliable, but they've got such a bias on this subject that it's not really a good source regardless. Sceptre (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: No one seems to have noticed that presentation is not the same as style (or literacy), and that Jimmy Wales's defence of the level of discourse on Wikipedia bears no relation to either. This entire section is consequently in need of a major re-edit. Any suggestions?BlackMarlin (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of presentation? 

message: Wikipedia moderators are under heavy influence of Islamophobia and Antiislamism. On 29 and 30 November 2009 an anonymous editor tried to contribute on Minaret controversy in Switzerland and Persecution of Muslims articles regrding the Swiss referendum, November 2009 which resulted in the banning the construction of minarets in Switzerland. There were only four minarets in the country at the time of the vote. But a gang of editors and moderators systematically blanked the content provided by the editor even though all the materials were referenced. They even didn't let a hyperlink to Persecution of Muslims in the See Also section of the article titled Minaret controversy in Switzerland. After long arguments on terminology, anonymous editor gave up due to unability of confronting systemating pressure. Eventually all the articles cleaned from any words connoting persecution of Muslims.
--78.162.165.41 (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this not a "talk page" issue. unfortunately this is wikipedia. --78.162.165.41 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamophobia 

message: I had removed :File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png but it was put back. As a WP article it should only include notable information. The image is not notable as far as I can tell. I like the image but it is not a true depiction of WP. Until the image becomes a notable topic it should not be included. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of image 

message: Could the criticism of non-english versions of wikipedia be added?--Ssola (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as its citable, I can't see why not. - Jmabel | Talk 01:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-english versions 

message: By virtue of the amazing editing process here (which ironically only goes to support the contents of this very article), the intro is now down to two sentences. Ridiculous for an article of this length. Pcap ping 05:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not all that surprising that this article's intro may be sub-par. Why? Articles on, for example, ancient Greek art, American Civil War history, or Japanese animation are topics that have devoted enthusiasts and tons of primary and secondary sources. An article on criticism of wikipedia is a text that doesn't have many real-world analogues and is of necessity very ad hoc in reasoning and sources and doesn't have a "fan base". --71.111.229.19 (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro rewrite 

message: There is an article here on the alleged attempt by pharmaceutical compagnies to manipulate wikipedia by Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, it is probably worth adding the info into this entry. If no one takes the task, I gladly will. -RobertMel (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharmaceutical compagnies precedent 

message: Hi. I changed the wording of this line in the "liberal bias" section:
The belief in a liberal bias at Wikipedia led to the creation of Conservapedia.
To:
Andrew Schlafly's belief in a liberal bias at Wikipedia led to the creation of Conservapedia.
But my change was undone by an admin and I'm not sure why. The 2nd version is more accurate, because it was Schlafly in specific who created Conservapedia after he accused Wikipedia of having a liberal bias. The 1st version is much more vague and implies that it is a "generally accepted belief" that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias". Does anyone else have an opinion? Thanks.--Louprothero88 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I prefer your wording as well. It was apparently User:MBK004 who reverted it, but there is no explanation in the edit summary. Most likely the revert was just a mistake, if the user does not object within the next couple of days you can safely reinsert your edit. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreeing as well, though the wikilink to Schlafly can be dropped since it just redirects to Conservapedia. I have notified MBK004 of this thread. Prolog (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I was reverting lots of vandalism at the time and thought someone had just inserted someone's name for fun. That being said, since it is a redirect, it can be safely dropped or turn the redirect into a stub. -MBK004 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done thanks.--Louprothero88 (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia 

message: This is not necessarily related to the content of this page but perhaps someone may appreciate this:
I recently CSDd a page for a fictitious religion named Kishanism and in searching for any evidence to support the existence of it found that the apparent author had written the following on a Facebook page:
--Supertouch (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A vandal's view of Wikipedia's reliability 

message: The two do not equate. __meco (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If this relates to Larry Sanger's criticism, there is no direct overlap between the two. Mike Godwin pointed out: "The Wikimedia Foundation does not originate or develop Wikipedia content or Wikimedia Commons content. This was true in Sanger's day as well as is in the present day."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanger's criticism is of the Wikimedia Foundation. As I could gather from perusing the article just now, this is the only instance of criticism not directed at Wikipedia itself. Should we rename the article or how should we deal with this? I'm not saying it isn't relevant to this article, or at least to some mention somewhere. However, we must deal with this non-overlap somehow. __meco (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanger's decision to report the Wikimedia Foundation to the FBI leads to a problem for this article. While I do not like to be pedantic, the Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible for Wikipedia or Commons content, or decisions relating to it. Other thoughts welcome here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL.  That's really reaching, folks.  Try reading the bottom of EVERY PAGE on Wikipedia: "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization." !!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.86.152 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's referring to the word "Wikipedia". DS (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Wikipedia or of the Wikimedia Foundation? 

message: Jimbo Wales has offered his views on the recent brouhaha over "pornographic content". FWIW, I agree that pornographic images that are unlikely to be context specific in Wikipedia articles are less than ideal for Commons and may cause unnecessary trouble.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More coverage of the story from FOX News here:  which includes the somewhat predictable "A child doing homework research on the educational website could easily stumble upon pornographic photos". FOX also claims the story as an exclusive, although other outlets have covered it. There has never been any secret that there are images with adult content on Commons, and it may now be time to consider whether some of the images are worth the hassle if they are not being used in Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This talk page is for improvements to this article. Please don't clutter it with your opinions about Wikipedia. Go to WP:VPP or WP:VPR for that. There are multiple threads there about this issue. Pcap ping 03:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo on pornography 

message: Wikipedia could be censored in other ways. QuackGuru (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit above was removed because it used a WP:SPS. Here is what it says: "Since WikiPedia allows pedophiles to edit WikiPedia pages and view the IP addresses of children freely, we recommend that you use filtering software to block WikiPedia from access in your household or school." This is technically inept, because it is unlikely that an IP address on its own will identify any person, let alone a child. Children using sites like MySpace, Facebook and Wikipedia are advised not to give any details online that could be used to identify them. Look at the edit history of a Wikipedia article. Does the IP address tell you that the edit was made by a 15-year-old in Pittsburgh? Get real.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to prove a point, here is the IP address from which I am editing Wikipedia at the moment: 92.25.32.176. Here is what a WHOIS search has to say about it: . Nothing much to fap over, is there? A pity that some people talk complete bollocks on the Internet, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

text: You were caught using a blatant hoax as a source, so you should be offering an explanation and an apology, and not reverting the rubbish back in. The organization behind the press release does not exist. The distributor of the "press release", POE News, does not qualify either. Also, a press release from even an existing and notable organization should not be used as a source for wild claims like that. Prolog (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: IP addresses