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.

From Wikipedia poster woman to black sheep. The Sarah Stierch story.

By Nathalie Collida and friends

The recent firing of Wikimedia Foundation employee Sarah Stierch, over her creation of Wikipedia articles for pay, highlights the Wikimedia movement’s inconsistent and often hypocritical attitude towards so-called “conflict-of-interest” editing and the way Wikipedia insiders and outsiders are held to different standards. L’affaire Stierch led our editorial team to uncover how some of the Wikipedia community’s more prominent members engaged in promotional activities that are nominally considered unethical among the encyclopaedia’s volunteer contributors. It also raises the question just how much the Wikimedia Foundation’s actions are governed by PR considerations, rather than a genuine desire to promote responsible curation of its sites.

A very Wikipedia career

Sarah Stierch has been a popular Wikipedia participant and administrator. As one of the site’s few high-visibility women, she managed to forge a career out of her Wikipedia-related activities. A contributor since 2004, Stierch became the foremost and most successful advocate for improving Wikipedia’s coverage of prominent women in the sciences, arts, and politics. Her efforts to reverse the “gender gap” on the male-dominated site have been widely recognized. Stierch has also held various remunerated positions as the “Wikipedian in Residence” with respected institutions such as the Smithsonian and the World Digital Library.

Stierch’s unpaid work for Wikipedia was not without perks either. Her CV states that she received $6,400 in travel grants and scholarships from Wikipedia-related organizations in 2011 alone. For 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation awarded Stierch a one-year community fellowship “to support her commitment to encouraging women’s participation in Wikimedia projects”. She gained a spot as a one-off blogger for the Huffington Post. Her January 2012 piece, entitled “SOPA Blackout: Why Wikipedia Needs Women”, elaborated on the premise that women would never be fully represented on the Internet unless they became contributors to that most influential of

…continue reading From Wikipedia poster woman to black sheep. The Sarah Stierch story.

Wikipedia’s culture of sexism – it’s not just for novelists.

by Nathalie Collida and Andreas Kolbe With research contributions from Delicious carbuncle and Eric Barbour

Amanda Filipacchi’s New York Times article about Wikipedia’s ghettoization of female novelists finally shone the spotlight on some of the rampant sexism that pervades almost every corner of the online “encyclopaedia”. Filipacchi said she had “noticed something strange on Wikipedia”:

It appears that gradually, over time, editors have begun the process of moving women, one by one, alphabetically, from the “American Novelists” category to the “American Women Novelists” subcategory. So far, female authors whose last names begin with A or B have been most affected, although many others have, too. The intention appears to be to create a list of “American Novelists” on Wikipedia that is made up almost entirely of men.

So in Wikipedia, US-born female writers were no longer listed in the “American novelists” category, but instead confined to a pigeonhole labelled “American women novelists”. Until Filipacchi’s article appeared, there was no corresponding category for “American men novelists” – although one was then hastily created. At the time of writing, it contained links to a proud 104 biographies of male writers, but was also nominated for deletion.

The controversy received a new impetus a few days later, when Filipacchi published a follow-up in the New York Times, noting that her Wikipedia biography had suddenly come in for “special attention”:

As soon as the Op-Ed article appeared, unhappy Wikipedia editors pounced on my Wikipedia page and started making alterations to it, erasing as much as they possibly could without (I assume) technically breaking the rules. They removed the links to outside sources, like interviews of me and reviews of my novels. Not surprisingly, they also removed the link to the Op-Ed article. At the same time, they put up a banner at the

…continue reading Wikipedia’s culture of sexism – it’s not just for novelists.