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.

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

…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

…continue reading Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia

The dream that died: Erik Möller and the WMF’s decade-long struggle for the perfect discussion system

 

By Scott Martin. Scott began editing the English Wikipedia in November 2002, and became an administrator in September 2007. He was so disgusted with its management at the time of writing this piece that he resigned his administrator status to take an indefinite break from editing.

 

 

.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has, in the last few years, embarked upon a number of major engineering projects intended to modernize aspects of its increasingly dated user interface, with the aim of attracting new participants to the ailing encyclopedia project. Referred to internally by the WMF as “Editor Engagement”, these have so far included VisualEditor, a “what you see is what you get” text editor, and Media Viewer. Both were foisted upon a largely unwilling audience of volunteer editors in an extremely unfinished and bug-laden state, leading to large amounts of discord and the generation of any amount of

…continue reading The dream that died: Erik Möller and the WMF’s decade-long struggle for the perfect discussion system