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.

Twitterbots and the Iron Law

By Hersch

Tbot

Lately, in press coverage of Wikipedia, the talk has been about “Twitterbots”, Twitter robots that track edits made to Wikipedia from IP addresses that correspond to government offices. The first version was @ParliamentEdits, which tracks edits made from parliament offices in the U.K. After the source code was released to the public, other Twitterbots quickly emerged. There are at least a dozen that we know of, including @CongressEdits for the U.S., @Gov. of Canada edits, @AussieParlEdits for Australia, @Riksdagen redigerar for Sweden, and @Госправки (RuGovEdits) for Russia. This is causing people who don’t normally write about Wikipedia to write about Wikipedia. For example, Global Voices reports that there has been an edit war at the German Wikipedia over whether to call the insurgent forces in eastern Ukraine Aufständischen (“rebels”), or Separatisten (“separatists”). What’s the difference, you

…continue reading Twitterbots and the Iron Law

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

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

Attorney, or ambulance chaser? Susan Burke vs. Wikipedia

By E. A. Barbour and Gregory Kohs (with the assistance of several Wikipediocracy researchers)

Manipulation of Wikipedia content has been shown repeatedly to be orchestrated by the very insiders who run Wikipedia. Paid advocacy editors and political operatives who learn these tricks can also control Wikipedia with some effectiveness, and by taking advantage of the community’s obsession with secrecy and false transparency, agenda-driven alterations to article content can be made without becoming a magnet for wider attention and corrective editing. This can get especially ugly when editors use pseudonyms to hide their real-world accountability and begin to attack by name the reputations of living people via their Wikipedia biographies. It’s no surprise that Wikipedia’s most historically active page for edit warfare is the biography of George W. Bush. With Bush, at least numerous editors on each side of the political debate will keep watch on the biography, and they tend to balance each other out.

…continue reading Attorney, or ambulance chaser? Susan Burke vs. Wikipedia