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

Anonymous revenge editing on Wikipedia – the case of Robert Clark Young aka Qworty

The case of Robert Clark Young aka Qworty demonstrates the cost of allowing anybody to edit Wikipedia biographies anonymously. How many Robert Clark Youngs are there on Wikipedia, chipping away at the biographies of those who have offended them, or merely been more successful?

…continue reading Anonymous revenge editing on Wikipedia – the case of Robert Clark Young aka Qworty

Wikipedia intervenes to hide identity of Russavia

By Gregory Kohs

 

A masquerade mask uploaded by Russavia

Wikipedia was in a bit of chaos last week, as some of its administrators and its Arbitration Committee sought to wipe away any mention of the real name of a user who goes by the nickname “Russavia”. One popular and prolific editor of military history articles has been indefinitely blocked for “outing” Russavia. And an administrator with nearly five years under his belt who sought to unblock the history buff was defrocked of his admin toolkit in the early hours of March 5th. Alas, the people who built Wikipedia have developed an accompanying set of rules that are so extreme, heavy-handed, and (not surprisingly) unevenly enforced, it’s not hard to believe that fewer and fewer people have the courage to edit the wiki encyclopedia any more.

What is especially perplexing is the fact that “Russavia” has identified himself as Australian web merchant Scott Bibby in numerous places across the internet, but because he has never sought to identify himself on Wikipedia, no other Wikipedia editor is ever allowed to identify him by his real name. Furthermore, Russavia’s account on Wikipedia has been blocked since April 2012, so this entire kerfuffle has been fought over the identity of someone who was already kicked off of the site.

The puzzling affair began with a blog post on Wikipediocracy. The post explained in clear detail how Russavia is one of the most prolific and intractable contributors of photos to Wikimedia Commons (the photo album cousin of Wikipedia), how he so offends opponents that he got blocked for a year from Wikipedia, and how his name is without a doubt Scott Bibby. The post also described a moment on Wikipedia when a female editor complained to

…continue reading Wikipedia intervenes to hide identity of Russavia

Cover-up begins in Wikipedia’s Gibraltar scandal

By Gregory Kohs

Over the past few weeks, the worldwide media has finally cottoned to the fact that certain leaders and members of the non-profit Wikimedia UK charity have been exploiting Wikipedia on the side for personal financial gain. Wikimedia UK director and trustee, Roger Bamkin, has been marketing his Victuallers Ltd consulting service to paying clients like the town of Monmouth, Wales and the territory of Gibraltar.

,

These clients signed up with Bamkin in the hopes that he would inspire more editors to create glowing Wikipedia articles that would help boost tourism in those locales. And he did successfully manipulate Wikipedia to the pleasure of his clients, judging by the ample evidence presented on Wikipedia, on the Wikimedia UK’s mailing list, and on the leading Wikipedia criticism site,Wikipediocracy.* Now that some of the most widely-read news organizations in Spain, inFrance, in America, and finally in the United Kingdom itself have documented the corruption taking place — indeed, in the month of August alone, Bamkin and his business affiliates were able to boost Gibraltar factoids to be featured on the front page of Wikipedia an astonishing 17 times — the pressure mounted on the Victuallers racket. It was a public relations dream for Monmouth’s and Gibraltar’s tourism interests, until it turned into a media nightmare for Bamkin and his fellow Wikipedians, Maximilian Klein, John Cummings,Steve Virgin, and the pseudonymous editor “Prioryman”, who even announced publicly his October travel plans to Gibraltar, too.

Roger Bamkin has resigned his “volunteer” post with the Wikimedia UK.

Where other media would essentially conclude now their coverage of this scandal, the Wiki Edits Examiner endeavors to reveal to the reader the various layers of denial and cover-up that have already begun within the Wikipedia community. As we

…continue reading Cover-up begins in Wikipedia’s Gibraltar scandal