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.

Wiki doctor voted off the island

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted on December 28 to remove one of its own members, Dr. James Heilman, from their ranks. Heilman, an emergency room physician from western Canada, had been appointed to the non-profit board only as recently as June 2015, with the backing of more than a thousand “votes” from the Wikipedia community of editors.

…continue reading Wiki doctor voted off the island

Why do people contribute to Wikipedia?

By Andreas Kolbe

.

The other day, a contributor to question-and-answer site Quora asked: “Why did people create huge, comprehensive websites like Wikipedia for free?”

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, a frequent and well-loved commenter on Quora (as well as an investor in the site), left a short reply that had no difficulty establishing itself as the most popular answer: “Because it’s awesome.” It was an astute piece of cheerleading from Wales – and it worked. His one-liner received over 1,800 upvotes.

Wikipedia is funded by donations from the public (nearly $50 million in the last accounting year, an almost ten-fold increase over takings five years ago), and much of its PR work relies on feel-good messages. Wales has made a living from supplying them. It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement: Wales makes a good income from his speaking fees – typically over $70,000 per event, according to the New York Times – and Wikipedia benefits from the publicity he generates.

However, Wales’ throwaway answer masks a far more complex reality.

Wikipedia’s Google footprint

In January 2004, the English Wikipedia had just 277 contributors making more than 100 edits a month. One year later, it was 801; by January 2006, it was 3,051, eventually peaking at almost 4,800 in March 2007. What happened?

By 2005, people noticed that Wikipedia had begun to dominate Google search results, with many searches featuring a Wikipedia article among the top Google hits (see e.g. Wikipedia Ruling in Google Search Results? from 2006, and Google offers to help Wikipedia from 2005).

The fact that anyone researching a subject online would be directed to Wikipedia made Wikipedia articles an obvious vehicle to influence public opinion. The site became an attractive outlet to anyone who had a stake in how a particular

…continue reading Why do people contribute to Wikipedia?

Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia

By Gregory Kohs

 

.

On Thursday, February 19, the organization that operates Wikipedia posted a blog article that proudly declared, “Research finds the Wikimedia Foundation to be the largest known Participatory Grantmaking Fund”. Shortly after this was published, the Wikipedia criticism site, Wikipediocracy.com, revealed how the Wikimedia Foundation had hired a French firm that has basically adopted the phrase “Participatory Grantmaking” as a proprietary discussion point, and the firm not surprisingly declared its paying client as the winner of sorts in the category it was hired to investigate. Even worse, several Wikimedia Foundation employees had created and enhanced Wikipedia’s own article about participatory grantmaking, using a white paper by the same consulting firm as its predominant “reliable source”. None of the employees had disclosed on Wikipedia that the Wikimedia Foundation was a paying client of the source’s author, which may have been a violation of the foundation’s own “Terms of Use” regarding disclosure on Wikipedia. After a long day of evasion by both the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and the consulting firm, the foundation finally relented and published an attempted clarification on its blog, on February 20. But other evidence suggests the WMF may still be a long way from explaining itself.

The blog post, written by WMF employee Katy Love, described how the WMF had hired a consulting firm called The LaFayette Practice to write a report that in turn determines that its own client, the WMF, is the largest “Participatory Grantmaking” fund in the world. You may never have heard of this phrase, participatory grantmaking, because (according to Google Books and Google Scholar) prior to about 2009, the phrase had never been written in any book or any academic paper. It is a neologism. Indeed, if you search Google for

…continue reading Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia