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.

Google Search

An Open Letter About Tenebrae

By a Frustrated Wikipedia Editor

Dear Arbcom:

It’s been a couple of weeks since Wikipediocracy published what seemed to be a very convincing indictment of Wikipedia editor Tenebrae. Obviously, you are in a tricky position: Tenebrae is an editor who has been around for a very long time, and does a lot of work on BLPs. He has also spent 15 years promoting himself, his wife, his books, his employers, and, worst of all, businesses in which he has a financial interest. So, in hopes that it helps you to come to a decision, this is an open letter urging you to take action against Tenebrae — or clear the way for the community to do so.

The case may appear to hinge on Tenebrae being Newsday writer Frank Lovece. Thanks to the Daily Dot (with whom the primary author of the Wikipediocracy piece collaborated), we know that Lovece denies the identification. The connection between Lovece and Tenebrae is not quite an open secret, but it has been known and discussed on Wikipedia for at least a decade. Admins who are members of the oversight team are well aware of it, since just about every mention of Tenebrae and Lovece in the same discussion has been oversighted.

It’s really a moot point, though. For the sake of argument, let’s take Frank Lovece at his word when he states “I do not know anything about that.” This leaves us with an editor who isn’t Frank Lovece but, for unknown reasons, has been promoting Frank Lovece’s interests for years and is still doing it, as recently as a few days ago. In normal circumstances, this could be addressed on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, but again, it appears impossible to discuss the situation without being accused of “outing” and

…continue reading An Open Letter About Tenebrae

What’s in a Name?

Peppermint, uploaded by Tenebrae to Wikimedia Commons

Peppermint abandoned her original name, became famous under a new name, and politely asked everyone to refer to her by her new, legal name. No problem, right? Well, some Wikipedians do have a problem. For some, it is a totally unacceptable imposition.

…continue reading What’s in a Name?

The Nicholas Alahverdian Story, Part Three

A case study in Wikipedia failure

by Dahlia Raven (see also: Part One, Part Two, Epilogue)

If you look at the current version (at the time this blog entry was written) of Wikipedia’s Nicholas Alahverdian article, you will see it includes a picture of a white guy with a beard. That is where the story goes from a case of sockpuppetry and promotional editing to something weirder, because that is not a picture of Nicholas Alahverdian.

That picture is of Jonathan Finer, former Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State. It appears to have been taken from the “Leadership” page at the Foreign Policy for America website, flipped horizontally, edited slightly, and then uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in October 2017. The uploader gave it a description which reads, “Nicholas Alahverdian sits for a portrait in March 2017.”

[Editor’s note, 1/31/2021: This image has since been deleted from Commons.]

Well… that’s strange

It was Wikipedia editor and administrator Nihonjoe who noticed that the picture was not Alahverdian. They removed the picture (“rm photo with dubious claim of being the subject”) and nominated it for deletion on Commons. And then it went from weird to weirder. Norsk81, the uploader in 2017, returned to claim that it was indeed Alahverdian, even though it didn’t look like him.

As the photographer working on assignment I took this photo of Nic (the subject) at the statehouse in Providence RI. Nihonjoe gave ten year old photos for proof, and the photo I shot was seven years more recent. I am unsure how to respond other than I know who I photographed in 3/2017 and it was definitely him. Norsk81 (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out a few things would not be wrong

…continue reading The Nicholas Alahverdian Story, Part Three