Why this Site?

  • Our Mission:
  • We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
  • How you can participate:
  •  Visit the Wikipediocracy Forum, a candid exchange of views between Wikipedia editors, administrators, critics, proponents, and the general public.
  • 'Like' our Wikipediocracy page on Facebook.
  •  Follow Wikipediocracy on Twitter!

Press Releases

  • Please click here for recent Wikipediocracy press releases.

Inevitabilities

Prologue: recently on the Wikipediocracy Forum, one of our esteemed founding members, Mr. dogbiscuit, wrote the following:

I think many people here sit back and think why am I doing this, as a grown man, brain the size of a planet and so on.

The answer in the end always comes down to the fundamental of the disgust we feel that Wikipedia is a wasted opportunity and the world is being openly lied to and those lies work.

There is the lie that Wikipedia’s system produces a sum greater than its parts, that it can invent knowledge out of ignorance; the lie that there is a thoughtful, caring community; the lie that Wikipedia is helping foster knowledge rather than insidiously destroying it. Jimbo is the enabler for that, and by now we cannot do anything but believe that he knowingly accepts the situation on Wikipedia and has no interest in solving Wikipedia’s problems, preferring instead to feather his own nest through the ill-perceived reputation of the project.

Jimbo is only one part of the corruption that is the WMF and Wikipedia community, but he chooses to be the figurehead for the status quo rather than the radical reformer.

So anyone with any honesty and decency struggles to walk away and let the lunatics not only take over the asylum, which they most surely have, but let them out into open society and be treated as world leaders (even if only of a tin-pot dictatorship).

Jimbo gets to go on the world stage and spout his nonsense purely off the back of the supposed success of Wikipedia.

How can you walk away when you understand what is going on here?

The following was written in response to dogbiscuit:

 

Inevitabilities.

By Tim Davenport /// “Carrite” (Wikipedia username) /// “Randy from Boise”

…continue reading Inevitabilities

Wikipedia:How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps

Editor’s note: the general public regards Wikipediocracy as a “Wikipedia criticism” web community, but there is more to Wikipediocracy than just that. We also try to draw upon our collective experience to provide the public with useful insider tips on how to get the most satisfying experience as Wikipedia editors. Last month, we provided a guide on how to control a topic, showing you techniques that were previously known only to Wikipedia’s most senior and dominant editors, for how to impose your bias on controversial articles. Today, we highlight another facet of how the pros edit Wikipedia: proven tactics for getting your opponent’s POV [Wikipedia jargon for “Point of View,” or more simply, bias] permanently excluded from Wikipedia, so that your POV may reign supreme. This set of instructions, camouflaged as a humorous essay, has been available on Wikipedia for five years, and provides in a clear and readable style the essentials of how to vanquish and annihilate your opponents in WikiKombat. We provide here the original 2009 version by D. Tobias.

Some of the Wikipedia jargon used in this essay may be unfamiliar to the layman. For a concise explanation of the acronyms used, see “Taking the Alphabet Soup with a Grain of Salt.”

 

How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps

Do your best to bait, prod, and aggravate somebody on the opposing side of an ideological war from yourself into acting uncivil out of frustration with you. If you have friends, get together with them to gang up on your opponents and get them angry and desperate. When the opponent finally does something that can be construed as a violation of policy, get a friendly admin to block him/her. When the blocked editor uses the means still available to him/her, such as his/her

…continue reading Wikipedia:How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps

Last Night I Dreamt Somebody Blocked Me

By Jake S.

Whenever there’s a mass shooting, especially in the gun-crazy United States, there inevitably follows a lengthy blame-assignment period in which everyone wants to lay the tragedy at the feet of whatever group they ultimately deem responsible, which often doesn’t include the actual shooter. The Isla Vista shootings of May 25, which left 7 people dead – including the murderer, Elliot Rodger – are no exception. In addition to the usual suspects (parents, school administrators, therapists, the media, the gun culture, Hollywood, and internet pornography), this case reveals a vast hive of scum and villainy, both online and off, that features “pickup artists,” bodybuilders, people who hate pickup artists (and bodybuilders), racists, misogynists, the Mega Millions Lottery, and perhaps even Justin Bieber. (We’ll get to him momentarily.)

.

Naturally I looked for a way to blame Wikipedia, too, but in the end, I just couldn’t do it. Perhaps my best-known aphorism is “Wikipedia is a revenge platform,” and it was in this case, but it also wasn’t enough. Elliot Rodger half-heartedly tried, and utterly failed, to satisfy his desire for payback against the so-called “manosphere” by Wikipedia editing alone, and the rest, you already know. So I’m writing this more as a “cautionary tale”; do with it what you will.

The Boy With The Thorn In His Side

Rodger had a Wikipedia account, “ElliotR1,” created on Feb. 12, 2013, which he initially used to remove this image of the winner of a wrestling match in Nuba from the article about his grandfather, George Rodger, a famous photographer. At the time, he explained that the photograph was “too silly and inappropriate for wikipedia” and that “people might mistake it for a picture of the photographer.” We now know that Elliot Rodger was

…continue reading Last Night I Dreamt Somebody Blocked Me