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.

Arbs gone wild

by Yerucham Turing & Eric Barbour

There are two elements which form the structural bedrock of Wikipedia, and which combine to cause an insoluble problem:

1. Wikipedia insists upon the principle of anonymous editing. This is considered sacrosanct, and it means that ultimately, no real-life person is responsible for the accuracy or veracity of article content.

2. On any controversial topic, a Wikipedia article is a battleground in which the contestants vie for control of content. The stakes are high; the winner may use that Wikipedia article as a soapbox for propaganda, which will shoot right to the top of a typical Google search. Officially, Wikipedia wishes that this were not the case, but wishes are not yet horses. The battle for control is settled by two criteria: “consensus” (which in practice means majority rule), and debates over policy (which in practice means gaming the system). Disputes are resolved, on a temporary basis, by

…continue reading Arbs gone wild

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 may

…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