Wikipedia

{{bronze}}[[image:bouncywikilogo.gif|165px||right|thumb|<center>Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.]]{{internet}}

'''Wikipedia''' is an [[Internet]]  free project that aims to create a comprehensive encyclopedia by allowing anyone to create and edit its articles. The project was created in 2001 as a project of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), an organization created by the owners of 
{{wpl|Bomis}}, including Jimmy Wales (who also co-founded Wikipedia). In January 2021, its 20th anniversary attracted media coverage.

As of 2021, Wikipedia boasts over 63 million articles<ref name=listofwikipedias/> in over 300 [[language]]s.<ref name=listofwikipedias>[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#All_Wikipedias_ordered_by_number_of_articles All Wikipedias ordered by number of articles], Wikimedia Foundation</ref> 6.8 million of these articles are on the English language Wikipedia.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Special:Statistics]]</ref> Despite criticisms over accuracy and content (most famously from the people who produce the well-established ''Encyclopædia Britannica''), the site is frequently used as a basic reference and a starting point for deeper research.

Wikipedia attempts to maintain a [[neutral point of view]], and despite its admitted difficulty in attaining one, efforts are constantly made to try to filter out and resist pervasive [[bias]]. In practice, normal people find it quite useful. Although Wikipedia articles cannot be used in writing an essay or research paper, its bibliographies can help. Furthermore, a well-written Wikipedia article can help people review or start learning about a new topic.

The Wikipedia project has inspired a great many other, smaller [[wiki]]s, most of which are focused on more specific topics or aim to provide an alternative to Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Sites such as Homestar Runner Wiki,<ref>[http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page Homestar Runner Wiki]</ref> [[Conservapedia]], and [[Citizendium]]<ref>[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page Main Page], Citizendium</ref> are run using the same wiki software, MediaWiki, developed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Although many are encyclopedic in nature, some such as Flu Wiki<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120301155901/http://www.fluwiki.info/ Flu Wiki]</ref> are used for information sharing for a specific purpose. Some wikis, such as [[Uncyclopedia]]<ref>[https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Main_Page Uncyclopedia]</ref> and [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]], are parodies of the wiki phenomenon. Others, such as [[RationalWiki]], are used to explore [[critical thinking]], while [[Fandom]] is a wiki farm and a monument to obsessive fandoms of all kinds (the wiki for ''Star Wars'' is, for instance, named — of course — Wookieepedia).<ref>https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page</ref>

==Size==
Wikipedia boasts over 50 million articles in 302 languages (each language has a separate Wikipedia subdomain, such as en.wikipedia.org for English), from the popular ones like English and Cebuano (a language of the [[Philippines]]) to far smaller projects such as in the Afar and Muscogee languages.<ref name=listofwikipedias/> Wikipedia has been compared once positively to ''Encyclopædia Britannica''.<ref>[https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/ Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica], CNET, Dec 16, 2005</ref> Despite this, however, it's often frowned upon to use it as a reference in any serious work due to the lack of formal quality control (and because it's usually better to cite original sources).

==The management==
===Admins===
English Wikipedia has about 1,100 administrators (200 of them being active), who have the power to perform certain tasks that could be disruptive in the wrong hands, such as deleting articles. They're also in charge of enforcing over 2,600 different guidelines, primarily through the use of user blocks and topic bans (where a user is banned from a set of pages, but not the entire site).

A common misconception is that administrators oversee Wikipedia's content.<ref>For example, see this [http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=72EBBF1D04B1565BA77B397F6BF5796A?doi=10.1.1.163.5109&rep=rep1&type=pdf academic paper] on Wikipedia</ref> This is not their intended role; in fact, the site's policy ''expressly forbids'' administrators from using their authority to influence content. In practice, however, administrators have quite a few ways to influence content, including tools such as "protection" (which prevents other editors from editing an article), user blocks, and the authority to "close" debates (including deletion discussions), in effect declaring one side a winner and enacting their views.

Administrators are appointed for life and have complete autonomy (like other editors, but with greater powers). They can intervene in any dispute they like, and being human, play favorites — sometimes blatantly, sometimes unconsciously. The admin corps is for the most part well-meaning and well-behaved, but with very little oversight, it pretty much takes the wiki equivalent of a shooting spree before an admin's powers are revoked. Accusations of "rogue" administrators are common, since all administrators ''are'' rogue agents.

Mainly due to periodic bouts of admin accounts being hacked and posting images of goatse on the main page (and penises on [[Donald Trump]]'s bio),<ref>[https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/24/18110545/wikipedias-trump-penis-vandalism-account-hacking Wikipedia’s Trump penis vandals have struck again] Recent attacks hacked admin accounts to get around edit blocks; Russell Brandom, Nov 24, 2018.</ref> admin accounts that are not used for a long time have their admin rights removed. If the admin comes back within a certain period, they can get their rights back on a simple request.

===ArbCom===
Particularly contentious disputes, including ones involving administrators, are handled by a committee of arbitrators — Wikipedia's equivalent of the [[Supreme Court]]. As with the admins, the arbitrators are expected to focus solely on behavioral issues and avoid any role in shaping content.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Avoid_asking_for_content_rulings Wikipedia guide to arbitration], (English) Wikipedia</ref> Arbitrators have much less autonomy than administrators: they handle only high-profile disputes, there are only 12 or so arbitrators at any given time, they must act jointly, and most importantly, they must undergo community-wide re-election every two years (half are re-elected each year). As a consequence, Wikipedia's arbitrators do, for the most part, 
act cautiously and impartially
 make grand, sweeping statements about principles without doing anything that anyone relevant 
might complain about
 doesn't force them to do.

The chief problem with Wikipedia's arbitration committee is that it is the sole 
legalistic
 body on the site with any supposed power, and the arbitration process is so arduous that they can only handle a few 
dozen
 cases a year. All other disputes, little and big, are left for editors to hash out amongst themselves, through much screaming, edit-warring (the doing and undoing of content changes), and the occasional admin swooping in to declare one side a winner, until the fight flares up again a few months (or days) later. Normally, the fight will end up on a "dramaboard" where both sides wind each other up, bait each other, and goad the other into losing their mind. The side that goes insane first is banned or blocked.

Thus, the ultimate arbiter of who gets to shape Wikipedia is ''persistence''. Whoever insists on their version of content (at the article level) or policy (at the project level) day after day, year after year, while staying within behavioral norms, and not going insane, will ultimately win. (This is not to say that an individual can overpower a crowd; a group tends to have more stamina than an individual, and can get a particularly pesky Don Quixote 
beaten
 banned.)

===The Grand Poobahs===
In theory, there is a formal layer of management on Wikipedia, that of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, and their employee, the Executive Director of the Foundation. In practice, the Foundation is in charge of little more than Wikipedia's ongoing hosting (software, hardware and technicians) and funding. They make occasional grandiose speeches about the importance of Wikipedia, and are responsible for the well-received<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-16/Fundraiser</ref> slogan 
"Wikipedia Forever"
 "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER".<ref>Considered but rejected: "Wikipedia: The Dark Knight Rises" and "Wikipedia: Arkham Asylum"</ref> Their oversight of Wikipedia's content mostly takes the form of embracing restrictive "Biographies of Living Persons" and "Non-free Content" policies for fear that one big lawsuit could bring the project to its knees. The upshot of this is that you cannot mention gerbils anywhere in the proximity of Richard Gere's 
anus
 article, even to point out that it's a [[hoax]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosex/gerbil.asp |title=From Gere to eternity |date=2001-11-18 |author=Barbara and David P. Mikkelson |work=Urban Legends Reference Pages |publisher=[[snopes.com]]}}</ref><ref>{{wpl|Special:Permalink/316851501#Gerbil}}</ref> or post [[copyright]]ed (but [[fair use]]) content anywhere that would make sense, such as putting a picture of a Muppet on the {{wpl|List of Muppets|List of Muppets}} page.

Following Wikipedia's inability to address [[Child predators on the Internet|online child predators]], the WMF established a Trust and Safety staff to handle these cases, and banned a number of people from all projects without publicly stating any reason and without any avenue of appeal. When this staff was established, its scope was limited to serious issues such as child protection, leaving editing disputes or "[[Civility|incivility]]" to the specific Wikipedia projects. However, in 2018, the Foundation expanded their role to include "incivility", and discussed this change only with user groups associated with minority or disadvantaged populations. In 2018, Laura Hale, the significant other of the Foundation Board Chair, filed a series of complaints with Trust and Safety claiming that a long-time and respected administrator Fram, was harassing her based on his challenging the competence of many of her edits. On June 10, 2019, Trust and Safety blocked Fram for a year, which triggered a firestorm of protests and resignations among English Wikipedia administrators.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/28/wikipedia-editors-revolt-over-sites-ban-of-veteran-administrator/|title=Wikipedia Editors Revolt over Site’s Ban of Veteran Administrator|date=June 28, 2019|accessdate=2019-06-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/wikipedia-ban-editor-culture-war|title=The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia|date=June 27, 2019|accessdate=2019-06-30}}</ref> The first response of executive director Katherine Maher was to tweet that the Buzzfeed News article was "shitty".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1144394019893460993|title=When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares.|auther=Katherine Maher|date=June 27, 2019|accessdate=2019-06-30}}</ref>

==Criticisms of Wikipedia==
Wikipedia itself states "'''{{wpl|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source|Wikipedia is not a reliable source}}''' for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because, as a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong."

It is certainly true that Wikipedia's open-editing policy sometimes causes problems, known as vandalism or "[[wandalism]]". This is the main criticism brought up in popular [[media]], where actual [[knowledge]] of how the wiki operates is seldom in evidence. While it's true that anyone can add misinformation, it's also true that anyone can ''remove'' it. The MediaWiki software even has a handy button to do this, and numerous bots and editors patrol recent edits to make sure none are obviously malicious — the average unwanted edit usually lasts about one minute on Wikipedia (although in some cases obvious vandalism can last much longer<ref group=note>As one example, a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fusulinida&diff=prev&oldid=870799816 case] of small-case vandalism of the {{wpl|Fusulinida}} page was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fusulinida&diff=prev&oldid=1176703756 reverted] five years later.</ref>). Coupled with the fact that any article likely to receive attention from vandals is protected or semi-protected from [[anonymous]] editing,{{efn|Every time [[xkcd]] mentions something obscure, the relevant Wikipedia article which would explain the joke gets locked down pretty tight.}} the wiki isn't in much danger of being overridden by ''obvious'' vandalism. More subtle vandalism, errors, and distortions (intentional or otherwise) are another matter entirely.

In [[reality]], one of the major drawbacks of Wikipedia is its excessive [[Bureaucrat|bureaucracy]] that is evident when you get deeply involved in writing for it or patrolling its edits. Its pages on policy and style are numerous, and probably larger than the whole of RationalWiki (that's including talk and non-mainspace entries). The implementation of its rules in letter rather than spirit by its senior members is also an issue.

===Quality control===
While Wikipedia has several rules, how those rules are read by the various editors is a problem. Misunderstandings of what qualifies as original research, what qualifies as a reliable source (it took a good effort to finally [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Ossuary remove Scientific Research Publishing from the James Ossuary page] even though [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing Wikipedia itself showed that odds were the publisher itself wasn't reliable and the journal should never have been used as a source]), and how to address conflict between different reliable sources (like did [[World War II]] begin in 1931{{efn|The [[Japanese]] invasion of Manchuria}}<ref>Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) ''Imperial Japan's World War Two'' Transaction Publishers pg 7</ref><ref>Spencer C. Tucker (23 December 2009). ''A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East.'' ABC-CLIO. p. 1850. ISBN 978-1-85109-672-5</ref><ref>Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) ''The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro'' Peter Lang Page 116</ref><ref>Stein, R. Conrad (1994) ''World War II in the Pacific: "Remember Pearl Harbor"'' Enslow Publishers Page 117</ref><ref>Olson, James Stuart (2001) ''Historical Dictionary of the Great Depression, 1929-1940'' Greenwood Publishing Group pg 160</ref><ref>Rollins, Peter (2008) ''Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History'' University Press of Kentucky Page 246</ref><ref>''Prelude to War'' (1942) US Government</ref> or 1939?{{efn|The [[German]] invasion of [[Poland]]}}) abound.

Part of the issue is how Wikipedia uses the word "reliable"; There is the {{wpl|Wikipedia:Reliable sources}} criteria which sets the standards for which references can even be used in an article, the {{wpl|Wikipedia:Verifiability}} policy which while related to reliability is actually slightly different (this is where the "'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer" {{sic}} policy is stated), {{IdEst}} reliable as in accurate ({{wpl|Wikipedia:Inaccuracy||),}} and finally what a particular profession considers reliable. It is easy for totally unreliable material (such as journals with poor quality control) to sneak in.

One of the more insidious tricks is to make up something and cite a large high quality (in terms of reference) book and hope no one has the time or means to cross-check. The Little Red Riding Hood article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Little_Red_Riding_Hood had this] where it was said "These early variations of the tale, do differ from the currently known version in several ways. The antagonist is not always a wolf, but sometimes an ogre, [[vampire]], (Beckett, S. L. (2008). Little Red Riding Hood. In D. Haase, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales and Fairytales: G-P (pp. 466-492). Greenwood Publishing Group.). But the talk page reveals that this reference in fact '''didn't exist'''. If the work didn't exist in a format that was searchable, odds are that this piece of false information would still be in the article.

Also how references are handled is left to the whims of the various editors; it is not uncommon to find raw URLs with no clue in the article to what they refer to being used as references (making it hard to re-find the reference if the link ever breaks, which is common with news sites which change the URL once the story stops being current news).

A particular instance of failed quality control was revealed in August 2020, when it transpired that a male [[North Carolina]] teenager had created ''thousands'' of articles on the Scots Wikipedia (sco.wikipedia.org) by simply changing a few words from the equivalent English text, as he had no actual command of the language himself. The [[Reddit]] user who first commented on the matter called the matter, "cultural vandalism on a hitherto unprecedented scale."<ref>Libby Brooks and Alex Hern: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-us-teenager-wrote-huge-slice-of-scots-wikipedia Shock an aw: US teenager wrote huge slice of Scots Wikipedia], ''The Guardian'', 26 August 2020</ref><ref>Karl McDonald: [https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/scots-wikipedia-language-articles-native-speaker-mistakes-610689 Scots Wikipedia taken over by American teenager who wrote thousands of ‘very odd’ articles without learning language], ''i'', 26 August 2020</ref>

From 2014 through part of 2022, a fictional Alan MacMasters from Scotland was the inventor of the toaster if one believes everything that one reads on Wikipedia.<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/the-reporters-63622746 Alan MacMasters: How the great online toaster hoax was exposed] (by Marco Silva (19 November 2022).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20220719134902/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_MacMasters lan MacMasters] ''Wikipedia'' (archived from July 19, 2022).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20220719134902/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_MacMasters Alan MacMasters] ''Wikipedia'' (archived from July 19, 2022).</ref> In fact, Wikipedia has an entire page on the times that someone pulled their chain, Reliability of Wikipedia,<ref>{{wpa|Reliability of Wikipedia}}</ref> but would you believe that page?

That different editors can interpret the same rules differently and the problem that {{sl|ArbCom}} has very limited capacity for dispute resolution means that closely-related pages can come to different conclusions on the same topic if they are watched over by different editors.

===Bias in Wikipedia===
Wikipedia attempts to maintain a neutral point of view, and although there is admitted difficulty in attaining this goal,<ref>[http://www.xkcd.com/545/ Perhaps they should just delete and protect the article?]</ref> policies are in place to try to filter out and resist pervasive bias. Unfortunately, almost no one agrees on what "neutrality" actually means.

[[File:Wikipedian protester.png|thumb|300px|[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection|Semi-protect]] the [[Constitution]].]]

When used by [[wingnut]]s, the phrase "[[Conservapedia:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|bias in Wikipedia]]" is insider [[jargon]] for Wikipedia's aspirations to objectivity, citable [[fact]], and [[reality]], rather than subjectivity, [[irrationality]], and extreme points of view in the <del>creation</del> [[evolution]] of their encyclopedic articles. [[Hostile media effect|Naturally]], wingnuts consider everything else (especially things that are ''neutral'') to have a [[liberal bias]]. When one considers that anything not [[far-right]] is, by its very nature, to the ''left'' of that conservative stance, their [[logic]] is impeccable.

When used by [[moonbat]]s, the phrase "bias in Wikipedia" means that the site is run by [[libertarian]] [[drone]] armies and controlled by the [[CIA]].

When used by [[altie]]s, the phrase "bias in Wikipedia" means that [[science]] that works has better references and this is unfair.

This bias even extends to what sources are considered reliable. Take the start of [[WWII]] for example. The page claims "World War II is generally considered to have begun on 1 September 1939" in the lede. This is in spite of material made even during the war (including Prelude to War '''by the United States Army''', which pointed to September 18, 1931 as the start date), as is the case with least five 21st-century ''reliable'' sources.<ref>Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) ''Imperial Japan's World War Two'' Transaction Publishers pg 7</ref><ref>Spencer C. Tucker (23 December 2009). ''A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East.'' ABC-CLIO. p. 1850. ISBN 978-1-85109-672-5</ref><ref>Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) ''The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro'' Peter Lang Page 116</ref><ref>Olson, James Stuart (2001) ''Historical Dictionary of the Great Depression, 1929-1940'' Greenwood Publishing Group pg 160</ref><ref>Rollins, Peter (2008) ''Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History'' University Press of Kentucky Page 246</ref> It then tries to put up a fig leaf using sources that talk about when the war in ''Europe'' started and comically contradicts itself in the body text ("The dates for the beginning of war in the Pacific include the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War on 7 July 1937, or the earlier Japanese invasion of Manchuria, on 19 September 1931.") with reliable sources from what the lede in claims.

In some cases, the reliable sources used can be flat-out wrong, which can be proved by other reliable sources.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inaccuracy Wikipedia:Inaccuracy]</ref>

Various well-heeled organizations, including the CIA, [[Microsoft]], [[Fox News]], [[Scientology]], [[Elsevier]], and Diebold, along with many presumably less well-heeled celebrities, [[hagiography|have altered Wikipedia entries]] to suit their own agendas and make themselves look good.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=1 See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign], ''Wired''</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ Wikipedia Scanner]</ref><ref>[http://www.cracked.com/article_16939_5-celebrity-wikipedia-entries-they-clearly-wrote-themselves.html 5 Celebrity Wikipedia Entries They Clearly Wrote Themselves], Cracked.com</ref> Promotional language is easy to spot once you're used to Wikipedia's dull gray house style, and Wikipedia regulars can get ''very'' good at picking up on it.

As everywhere on the Internet, many articles touching upon controversial subjects, such as [[antisemitism]], have been subject to frequent [[edit war]]s and even more than one arbcom cases.<ref>[[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland]]</ref><ref>[[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]]</ref> And that's all we're gonna say about this issue here.{{nofact}} Contentious [[science]] topics are more likely to be vandalized than non-contentious topics: [[global warming]] (111 words/day) and evolution (142 words/day) vs. [[continental drift]] (24 words/day) and [[general relativity]] (20 words/day), thus making it harder for scientists to monitor the accuracy of contentious topics.<ref>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/contentious-science-topics-wikipedia-subject-editing-mischief?mode=magazine&context=190830&tgt=nr Contentious science topics on Wikipedia subject to editing mischief: Politically charged issues such as global warming are prime targets for online sabotage] by Meghan Rosen (3:54pm, August 19, 2015) ''Science News''.</ref><ref>[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134454 Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale] by Adam M. Wilson & Gene E. Likens (August 14, 2015) ''PLoS One'' DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134454</ref>

One bias to which Wikipedia admits is a policy of discouraging [[crime]]. Wikipedia tries to deflect attention away from people not notable except for their crimes and towards their innocent victims. For example, the article on the 2008 murder of Travis Alexander by Jodi Arias is called the "Murder of Travis Alexander", rather than "Murder committed by Jodi Arias" or simply "Jodi Arias". In fact, "Jodi Arias" just redirects to "Murder of Travis Alexander". People don't get Wikipedia articles just for committing a murder, even for executed offenders, and if someone does try to make one, it will be taken down quickly (speedy deletion). The exceptions are people who are well known for assassinating a high-profile figure, people who were/are famous before the horrible crime (John Wilkes Booth), people who were subsequently exonerated (Alfred Dreyfus), high-profile appellate cases, or mass or serial killers (let alone serial mass killers such as [[Saddam Hussein]]). The argument is that infamy is not valid cause for getting a web page created and maintained that extols one's horrific deed.{{cn}}

===Attitude toward expertise===
{{cquote|The Wikipedia [[philosophy]] can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War — and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge — get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.|||Lore Sjöberg<ref>Lore Sjöberg, [http://web.archive.org/web/20081224020557/http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670 The Wikipedia FAQK.] ''Wired'', 19 April 2006.</ref>}}

One of Wikipedia's more controversial points is that experts and expertise count for nothing. The site's "[[Argumentum ad populum|anyone can edit]]" ethos means that someone who has published dozens of journal articles on a topic gets no more consideration than a certifiable moron. All material must be cited to established secondary sources with no "original research" ({{IdEst}}, the editor's own knowledge or interpretation).{{efn|The "no original research" rule was established to get the [[physics]] cranks to STFU.{{fact}} As it turns out, it's a good summary of what an encyclopedia is: a secondary or tertiary source.}} The intent was to avoid [[credential]] bullying. Actually verifying people's credentials can be time-consuming (try checking how reputable an overseas university is, especially if you don't speak the language on the degree certificate), and judging what credentials to require isn't easy (is a degree in alt [[woo]] sufficient for editing an article on alt woo?). While the need to cite secondary sources is in principle a good thing, in practice, there are so many sources saying so many different things that [[crank]]s can often find an obscure source to support them, or [[cherry picking|selectively quote]] from more prominent sources. Wikipedia recognizes this, and has [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Randy in Boise|a page on the "Randy in Boise" problem]].

Experts get sick of dealing with perpetual blithering idiocy and being expected to just put up with it — then being penalised when they finally blow their top. That said, you can hardly move on Wikipedia without bumping into a Ph.D. Wikipedia is not for everyone, and genuine experts quickly learn that what matters is not their knowledge, but their ability to remain unfailingly polite in the face of provocation.

===Homophobia and transphobia===
{{cquote|If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a [[dog]], or a [[cat]], would they change it to reflect such a non-sense<sup>[sic]</sup>? Biologically he is a man and will die a man|||Comment on the talk page of [[Chelsea Manning]], deemed acceptable by Wikipedia's operators.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute Wikipedia's "arbitration case" on "Manning naming dispute" (with sub pages)]</ref>}}

Wikipedia has been strongly criticized for [[transphobia]] and [[homophobia]] among its editors and even in the upper echelons of its management. For example, on the {{wpl|Croatian Wikipedia||,}} a group of far-right administrators have imposed both a dirtbag [[worldview]] in particular and routinely banned opposing editors from the site, even leading Croatia's Minister of Education to warn against using Wikipedia because of its "falsified" and [[extremist]] content.<ref>[http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trolls-hijack-wikipedia-turn-articles-against-gays170913 Trolls hijack Wikipedia to turn articles against gays]</ref><ref>[http://www.dailydot.com/politics/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/ How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history]</ref>

In September 2013, following a discussion rife with [[hate speech]] against trans people, the English version of Wikipedia decided to move the article on Chelsea Manning back to her birth name,<ref>[http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-chelsea-bradley-manning-transgender-debate/ Wikipedia decides Chelsea Manning will remain 'Bradley' for now]</ref> despite her wish to be referred to as Chelsea, in a move widely described as transphobic:<ref> [http://suegardner.org/2013/09/04/how-wikipedia-got-it-wrong-on-chelsea-manning-and-why/ Even Wikimedia's Sue Gardner is calling it out.]</ref>

{{quotebox|The fact that a group of people held a vote on whether or not to call a trans woman by her preferred name, and then lost that vote, is seen as yet more evidence of a painful lack of diversity of experience amongst active Wikipedia editors.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/alex-hern/2013/09/chelsea-manning-gets-put-back-closet-wikipedia Chelsea Manning gets put back in the closet by Wikipedia], ''New Statesman''</ref>}}

In October 2013, the page was eventually returned to her true name after a lengthy discussion.<ref>{{wpl|Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request|October 2013 move request}}</ref> Despite an arbitration case following this incident, very few of the editors who had made transphobic comments were banned. The move was met with condemnation from [[LGBT]] rights groups such as Trans Media Watch and widely criticized for "implying that accusations of transphobia are as bad as actual incidents of transphobia."<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/24/chelsea-manning-name-row-wikipedia-editors-banned-from-trans-pages Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages], ''The Guardian''</ref><ref>[http://twitter.com/TransMediaWatch/status/395162342184341504 Another editor has left Wikipedia following arguments over Chelsea Manning], Trans Media Watch</ref>

The [[German]] version of Wikipedia demonstrates an equally strong and unusual bias, insisting on referring to Manning by her deadname and as "he" months after she came out as transgender. On the talk page, many editors reject the very existence of transgender people and the [[scientific consensus]] in the [[medical]] community, one editor arguing: "A wolf in sheep's clothing is not much of a sheep."<ref>[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning German Wikipedia discussion on Chelsea Manning]</ref> The [[French]] version of Wikipedia continues to refer to Lana Wachowski as "he" even years after she came out as transgender. One editor argued that transphobia is "strongly encouraged in… France."<ref>[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Andy_et_Lana_Wachowski French Wikipedia discussion on the Wachowskis]</ref>

===White male editors===
Regular editors of English Wikipedia tend to be white, male, and from Europe or North America.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/29/the-five-wikipedia-biases-pro-western-male-dominated Wikipedia biases], The Guardian, 29 July 2018</ref> Unsurprisingly, editors of English Wikipedia tend to have English as their first or only language. This means that editors are not representative of the population of the world as a whole and are able to access certain sources more easily than others, so the interests and expertise of the editors lead to a number of biases in the encyclopedia's coverage (lots of video games, few women artists of color). In particular its coverage of women is often criticised, for example by Jess Wade who has campaigned to create pages on more women scientists, and the Jewish Museum in New York has held events to increase coverage of women artists.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jul/24/academic-writes-270-wikipedia-pages-year-female-scientists-noticed Academic writes 270 Wikipedia pages in a year to get female scientists noticed], The Guardian, 24 July 2018</ref><ref>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/erinspencer1/2019/03/01/where-are-all-the-women-artists-nmwas-latest-campaign-aims-to-find-the-answer/#75df4c835bb5 Where Are All The Women Artists? NMWA's Latest Campaign Aims To Find The Answer], Forbes, March 1, 2019</ref> Because early contributors tended to come from a particular [[hacker]] subculture, Wikipedia coverage and policies reflected their interests and beliefs, including a resistance to rules and ideas like diversity, and a tolerance of difficult, abrasive, even [[misogynist]] people.<ref name=nygendergap/> This also relates to problems with trans rights, homophobia, and other biases discussed on this page.

Topics appealing to women are likely to be covered in less depth, shown for example in a comparison of the length of articles on boys' and girls' toys (e.g. baseball cards vs. friendship bracelets), or TV shows with a male vs. female viewership (''The Sopranos'' vs. ''Sex and the City'').<ref name=nygendergap>[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List], New York Times, Jan 31, 2011</ref> A study showed differences in language used to write about men and women, reflecting gender bias, as well as differences in content (such as articles about women being more likely to mention family and [[children]]).<ref>[https://www.fastcompany.com/3041871/more-like-dude-ipedia-study-shows-wikipedias-sexist-bias ore Like Dude-ipedia: Study Shows Wikipedia’s Sexist Bias], Fast Company, Feb 2, 2015</ref> There are also claims that articles on black musicians are more likely to focus on negatives like their run-ins with the law than white musicians, due to the biases of Wikipedia editors.<ref>[https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/bewailing-wikipedia-s-white-male-bias Bewailing Wikipedia's white male bias], Eureka Street</ref> Historical biases mean less information is available about women and non-European subjects through history and even in present-day publications, and Wikipedia policies require a certain amount of published coverage of a figure to allow an article on them, which means injustices elsewhere are replicated in Wikipedia's coverage.

In its defence, Wikipedia recognises many of these problems, and has articles on {{wpl|Gender bias on Wikipedia||,}} {{wpl|Racial bias on Wikipedia||,}} and the overarching {{wpl|Wikipedia:Systemic bias||.}}

===Circularity===
{{main|Circular reasoning}}
A fact on Wikipedia is supposed to be cited to an external source, such as a newspaper or book. However, Wikipedia is now so popular as a source of information that many newspaper articles and books publish facts that they got from Wikipedia, and these sources can be added to the Wikipedia article to justify its truth. Wikipedia has a page on the phenomenon which includes several examples, such as the fictional claim that the {{wpl|coati}} (a raccoony animal) is also known as the Brazilian aardvark.<ref>{{wpa|Circular reporting}}</ref> Another example is actor Sacha Baron Cohen (of Borat and Ali G fame) being named as a former [[Goldman Sachs]] employee: this was entered on Wikipedia in 2006, probably as a joke by employees of Goldman Sachs or an associated company, and subsequently repeated in ''[[The Guardian]]'' and ''The Independent'' newspapers.<ref>[https://techdebug.com/blog/2008/04/19/wikipedia-article-creates-circular-references/ Wikipedia Article creates Circular references], TechDebug, April 19, 2008</ref> The solution is for both Wikipedia editors and non-Wikipedia writers to check the actual sources of information. This phenomenon, where adding any claim to Wikipedia automatically means it's true, is also known as citogenesis and is a subtype of what is more generally known as the {{wpl|Woozle effect||,}} where non-facts are elevated to perceived wisdom by [[Argumentum ad nauseam|repetition]].<ref>[https://xkcd.com/978/ Citogenesis], XKCD</ref>

In 2017, it was confirmed that text from Wikipedia pages shapes peer-reviewed [[chemistry]] publications (and presumably in other science fields).<ref>[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3039505 Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence From a Randomized Control Trial] by Neil Thompson & Douglas Hanley (Posted: 20 Sep 2017 Last revised: 16 Aug 2019) ''MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5238-17.</ref> In 2022, it was confirmed that lower-level US judges did in fact rely on Wikipedia pages rather than the actual legal judgements in their rulings.<ref name=cohen>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/08/05/judges-rely-wikipedia-their-opinions-new-study-finds/ Judges rely on Wikipedia for their opinions, a new study finds: We all use the online encyclopedia, but is it good that legal decisions make frequent use of its community-based scholarship?] by Noam Cohen (August 5, 2022 at 2:31 p.m. EDT) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> The one benefit to these findings (besides exposing this behavior) is that it is [[#Attitudes towards expertise|pushing Wikipedia to become more accepting of experts who are editors]].<ref name=cohen/>

===Hoaxes===
It's possible for sufficiently skilled editors to insert hoaxes into Wikipedia, which can persist for a long time. Obviously Wikipedia {{wpl|Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia|has a page}} on this, which e.g. lists several hoax articles which existed on Wikipedia for over ten years, as well as significant and long-lasting false claims in other articles. Examples that lasted over a decade include:
* Eric van Viele, an early 20<sup>th</sup> century [[Germany|German]] actor with a fictitious biography.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_van_Viele Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric van Viele]</ref>
* Made-up sports called Bont and Synchronized Football.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bont Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bont]</ref><ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Synchronized_Football Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synchronized Football]</ref>
* Bine, an Akkadian demon that made it into Theresa Bane's ''Encyclopedia of Demons in World Religions and Cultures''. Bine didn't exist, even in the hearts of [[credulous]] Akkads.
* Jar'Edo Wens, an [[Australia]]n Aboriginal god that did not in fact exist.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jar'Edo_Wens_hoax Jar'Edo_Wens_hoax]</ref>
* The claim that the 1924 [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] National Convention was also known as the "[[KKK|Klanbake]]".
* Claims about [[Nazi Germany|Nazi]] death camps for [[Poland|Poles]] in which "200,000" Poles died in the Warsaw "extermination" camp, part of the wider [[Poland#Polish Holocaust|Polish Holocaust]] [[conspiracy theory]]. This claim stayed on Wikipedia for 15 years as "truth" before someone bothered to take it down.<ref>https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-fake-nazi-death-camp-wikipedia-s-longest-hoax-exposed-1.7942233</ref><ref>https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n09/christian-davies/under-the-railway-line</ref> Canadian historian Jan Grabowski wrote 57 pages of litany blasting Wikipedia for condoning [[Holocaust denial|Holocaust distortionism]]<ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939</ref>
* George K. Broomhall, a fictional American brevet Brigadier General in the [[American Civil War]] and allegedly the inventor of cream soda.

==Skepticism on Wikipedia==
As a consequence of Wikipedia's open editing policy, the [[skeptical]] group [[Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia]] is able to work tirelessly to insert a more skeptical line in Wikipedia's articles. Wikipedia's content policies — cite everything, '''genuine''' [[peer-review]]ed science<ref>There are plenty of [[Pseudojournal|journals that claim peer-review but are nothing more than an "article mill" that will publish any paper sent to it]]… [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing#Controversies even those written by a computer program]!</ref> wins — means that this can be done without infringing its policies. Naturally, [[crank|cranks]] are very unhappy with the situation.<ref name=Astrologer1>Robert Currey, [http://www.astrologer.com/tests/wp.htm ''Wikipedia has been hijacked by 'guerrilla skeptics'!''] Astrologer.com</ref> 

Despite being an [[objectivist]], Jimmy Wales has endorsed a sources-based viewpoint. A group of [[alternative medicine]] practitioners created a Change.org petition<ref>[http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing The "Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology"]</ref> asking him to "create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about [[Alternative medicine|holistic approaches to healing]]". This was because they found the existing strict requirements for things like 'facts' and '[[evidence]]' excessively burdensome. Wales' response, in full:

{{quotebox|No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be [[Intellectual honesty|honest]], factual, [[truth]]ful.

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals — that is to say, if you can produce evidence through [[Reproducibility|replicable scientific experiments]], then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of {{wpl|WP:Lunatic charlatans|lunatic charlatans}} is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.}}

==Copycats==
:''For a fuller list, see [[:Category:Wikis]]''

While wikis existed before Wikipedia, it is easily the largest and best known (to the point where many people mistakenly/lazily say "wiki" to mean Wikipedia specifically), and has inspired a great many other, smaller projects using the same Mediawiki software designed by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Some wikis such as Uncyclopedia and [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] are satirical takes on Wikipedia (though the latter is more of a [[wingnut]] [[troll]] echo chamber than a reasonably funny source of humour); others, such as [[WikiSynergy]] or [[Wiki4CAM]], are general projects that aren't necessarily encyclopedic in nature but gather information and resources for people who are interested in certain things and find that Wikipedia is a bit too strict regarding [[:Essay:Why notability is stupid and I hate it|notability]] and neutrality.<ref>Also known as "a bias towards reality"</ref>

===Copying===
Because of its "free license", lots of people copy material from Wikipedia for their own sites. Normally, this just involves taking a snippet from the lead, but some "mirror" sites host copies of entire articles.{{efn|An example is [[New World Encyclopedia]], which was created by the [[Unification Church]]. Though, they alter the copied pages in line with the church's views. [[Frequency illusion|You will now realize just how frequently]] it pops up in your Google search results.}} It is a legal requirement to credit the original authors as required by Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA licence when doing this. However the invention of "smart home" devices such as Amazon Alexa, Siri, and the others has presented a legal issue of sorts since these devices parrot Wikipedia content without even mentioning Wikipedia or any of the authors. The Wikimedia Foundation which hosts Wikipedia was initially very keen to complain about this, but mysteriously stopped mentioning it in mid-2018 after Amazon gave them a $1 million donation.<ref>http://fortune.com/2018/09/25/amazon-alexa-wikipedia-million-donation/</ref>

==My God, it's full of PORN!==
[[File:Be civil dont be a dick.svg|thumb|right|200px|Don't be a dick.]]
{{cquote|A place where a cartoon episode about an anal probe provokes a firestorm, but a true story of [[:wikipedia:Melancholie_der_Engel#Debris_documentar|murder and dismemberment]] is fine and dandy (as you know).|20px|20px| Comment on the oft repeated criticism of main page content<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=481197150 diff</ref>}}

As it is a global [[education]]al resource, and also caters for mature grown-ups, Wikipedia has a firm '''NO [[Censorship|CENSORSHIP]]''' policy. This means that the detailed etymology of the word "[[wikipedia:fuck|fuck]]," pictures of men sucking their own [[penis]]es and the close-up of a [[vulva]] (which made the front page on the German language Wikipedia in April 2010)<ref>[http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/bg6cb/todays_german_wikipedia_front_page_with_the/ Reddit discussion], [http://i.imgur.com/Sdg0v.png NOT SAFE FOR WORK screenshot]</ref> are there for ''entirely educational reasons''.<ref>Because if you're using Wikipedia just for [[porn]], you're plain Doing It Wrong.</ref> As a result, be careful when hitting [[wikipedia:Special:Random|Special:Random]] at work.
In any case, it is clear that people go to Wikipedia primarily for its educational content, particularly Wikimedia Commons and its painstakingly categorised images.<ref>[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity "Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera. If you want to, try to fill a real gap in our collection."]</ref>

The squeamish of the world are most often horrified and appalled by this and complain to the authorities. It is unfortunate that those most keen to complain about mature images held by the Wikimedia Foundation are those who prefer "personal responsibility," yet don't seem to take the "personal responsibility" to install something like Net-Nanny, or set their preferences to restrict mature images. Right-wing wannabe media giant [[WorldNetDaily]] complained to the [[FBI]] concerning an image of the cover of ''Virgin Killer'' by the Scorpions. The Internet Watch Foundation in the [[United Kingdom|UK]] filtered all of Wikipedia because of the same image, but backed down when they were pilloried in the media. The image is classed as illegal child pornography in the [[UK]] and many European countries including [[Sweden]], where visiting the Wikipedia page featuring the image is itself technically illegal. [[Larry Sanger]], co-founder of Wikipedia and founder of Citizendium, also lodged a complaint concerning "child pornography," over line art drawings of [[lolicon]].<ref>[http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=EDTECH&month=1004&week=a&msg=oh60TKAnthvEwBjcWNxxSg&user=&pw=Dr. Larry Sanger's complaint to Wikimedia Foundation]</ref><ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/sanger_reports_wikimedia_to_the_fbi/ Wikifounder reports Wikiparent to FBI over 'child porn'], ''The Register''</ref> Not even the Register commenters bought it, [[Godwin's Law|Mike Godwin]] left it at pointing out how completely [[wronger than wrong]] Dr. Sanger was,<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jan-Bart&action=historysubmit&diff=1929895&oldid=1929558 Exchange between Sanger and Wikipedia attorney Mike Godwin] (The Cliff's Notes version is Godwin's statement "Since you have expressed a disinclination either to understand the law or to discuss it, I won't trouble you further about your profound misunderstandings.")</ref> and the general response was people noting how the "complaint" was basically a plug for Sanger's Citizendium and WatchKnow projects.

Wikimedia Commons has, however, quite enough pictures of old, white penises attached to fat German men, to the point of having a penis photo rejection template.<ref>[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Nopenis Dig that icon.]</ref> After Jimbo went mad with an axe on Commons in May 2010,<ref>[http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/357799/jimmy-wales-wades-into-wikipedia-porn-debate Jimmy Wales wades into Wikipedia porn debate]</ref> there's been a bit of a drive to raise the technical quality of the 
porn
 educational images of the [[human]] body as well. So if you're hot, upload images of your genitalia to Wikimedia Commons today! Must be uniquely educational.{{nofact}}

==Accusation of being a shill==
{{main|Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia}}
Conspiracy theorists love to pull the [[shill gambit]] with Wikipedia, because it's neutral, and doesn't promote their theories. Claims include deleting articles about known cranks because of "disagreeing with them", and spreading disinformation about the [[NWO]], [[9/11]], and [[Big Pharma]].<ref>[https://archive.is/LrjWt Are there pro big pharma & Monsanto shills on Wikipedia? You be the judge!] by Joe (August 10, 2014 at 7:52) ''Tir na Saor'' (archived from 1 Oct 2014 05:50:48 UTC).</ref> While this does happen, this is usually because of the lack of reliable sources these articles have. Sources like [[The Grayzone]], [[Infowars]] and [[Natural News]] won't fly on Wikipedia. Conspiracy theorists hate this, because sites like those are the only sites that support their theories. Hence, Wikipedia is a Shill!<ref>https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/</ref>

While Wikipedia does have the occasional issue with [[Conflict of interest|conflict-of-interest]] editing and paid editors, it is common for conspiracy theorists to take this to a new level by accusing any editor who supports an edit that appears to them to favor Big Pharma or [[GMO]]s of being "paid", usually in the form of [[just asking questions]], all the way up to believing Wikipedia itself is being duped by them.

Wannabe {{wpl|Tony Stark}} [[Elon Musk]] has joined the [[Conservapedia:Examples of bias in Wikipedia|esteemed club]] of people accusing Wikipedia of having a "[[bullshit|left-wing bias]]."<ref>[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-told-elon-musk-it-is-not-for-sale-after-the-twitter-owner-accused-the-encyclopaedia-of-having-a-left-wing-bias/ar-AA1532Mi Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales] told Elon Musk "it is not for sale" after the Twitter owner accused the encyclopedia of having a "left-wing bias" - MSN</ref>

==Knowledge Engine==
In 2007, rumors and press reports of a WMF-sponsored search engine circulated to the point that the WMF issued a press release stating, "Wikimedia is not developing a search engine and does not plan to."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikia%2C_Inc._is_not_the_commercial_counterpart_to_Wikipedia_or_the_Wikimedia_Foundation|title=Press releases|work=Wikimedia Foundation|date=April 29, 2007|accessdate=March 14, 2016}}</ref> In January 2008, Wales announced Wikia Search, a human-powered search engine.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnet.com/news/wikia-launching-human-powered-search/|title=Wikia launching human-powered search|work=C-net|date=January 6, 2008}}</ref> Wales made the cover of various tech magazines based on the announcement.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fastcompany.com/59260/why-man-smiling|title=Why Is This Man Smiling?|work=Fast Company|date=April 1, 2007|accessdate=March 14, 2016}}</ref> When Sue Gardner took over as Executive Director of WMF, she discovered that Google-related donors has reservations about donating due to the project. Wales kept making comments to the press that Wikia Search was progressing and a week later, Wales announced that the project was terminated. Wales promised to return to the project when the economy picks up.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnet.com/news/wales-giving-up-on-wikia-search/|title=Wales giving up on Wikia Search|work=C-net|date=March 31, 2009|accessdate=March 14, 2016}}</ref> A $2 million Google-related donation followed.

In 2015, the WMF embarked on a secret project that was so secret that even some of the engineers assigned to work on parts of it did not know that it was a Google-killing general search engine called the "Knowledge Engine."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_Engine_%28Wikimedia_Foundation%29&oldid=709914636|title=Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)|work=Wikipedia|accessdate=March 14, 2016}}</ref> The estimated budget for doing the complete project would be around $30 million and would take up about half of the WMF's available funds. The project was so secret that even the WMF Board was not fully briefed about it. The WMF applied for a $2 million per year multi-year grant from the Knight Brothers foundation for the Knowledge Engine project, but received only $250,000 for a feasibility study.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_to_explore_new_ways_to_search_and_discover_reliable,_relevant,_free_information_with_$250,000_from_Knight_Foundation|title=Wikimedia Foundation to explore new ways to search and discover reliable, relevant, free information with $250,000 from Knight Foundation|date=January 6, 2016|accessdate=March 14, 2016|work=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref> Under WMF policy, such grants must be approved by the WMF Board. In July 2015, James Heilman was elected by the community as a WMF Board member. Heilman brought to the Board concerns about the poor communications between the Executive Director and the staff as well as about the secrecy surrounding the "Knowledge Engine." The Board voted to hire a management mentor to work with the Executive Director, voted to accept the Knight grant,<ref name=Nov>{{cite web|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes/2015-11&oldid=105293|title=Nov 2015 Board Minutes|accessdate=March 14, 2015}}</ref> and voted to remove Heilman from the Board.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_Removal|title=Resolution:James Heilman Removal|date=Dec. 28, 2015|accessdate=March 14, 2016}}</ref> When faced with persistent questions about why Heilman was removed, the "Knowledge Engine" project was disclosed<ref>{{cite web|url=http://slashdot.org/submission/5441793/meltdown-at-wikipedia|title=Meltdown at Wikipedia|date=Jan. 6, 2016|accessdate=March 14, 2016}}</ref> and the Executive Director resigned on February 25, 2016. Despite explicit statements in the WMF application for the Knight grant, Wales still denies that the project was to be a general-purpose search engine.

==External links==
*Wikipedia [https://www.wikipedia.org/ official site]
*Wikipedia's [https://imgur.com/yIoiz35 most controversial articles by top languages] (You can just guess the English versions.)
*Wikipedia's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RationalWiki page on RationalWiki]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note|2}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}

{{keyword|wikikey=Wikipedia}}
{{wikinav}}

[[ru:Википедия]]