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

The Nicholas Alahverdian Story Update

The overall effect of incidents like the Nicholas Alahverdian case is to make Wikipedia seem as vulnerable and easy to manipulate as ever, at a time when Wikipedia is already under pressure to make good on its PR-campaign promises to be a “bulwark” against online disinformation.

…continue reading The Nicholas Alahverdian Story Update

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?