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.

Press Releases

  • Please click here for recent Wikipediocracy press releases.

Google Search

Reedsy: A Study in Persistence

By Mitt Navn, Hollywood Correspondent

Reedsy is a British publishing services company. Emmanuel Nataf is the CEO of Reedsy. While it is difficult to piece together a complete history of the Reedsy Wikipedia article from the traces that are left, I have analyzed the various logs and discussions so that you can get a full picture.

In 2014, an account named Neguev created the first version of Wikipedia’s Reedsy article, but it was deleted within an hour due to lack of evidence that the company was notable. Neguev waited until 2017 to try again. Within days, the article was moved out of public view and into “draftspace.” On their user page, Neguev wrote:

“I’m Emmanuel, a startup entrepreneur and street photographer: http://www.emmanuelnataf.com/

Neguev was warned about Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policies. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.

Persistence! Persistence is the answer!
Persistence! Persistence is the answer!

During the course of that discussion, editor Tomwsulcer decided to create a new version of the article. Although Tomwsulcer stated that he had no connection to Reedsy, he can be found making an endorsement on the Reedsy page of editor Geoff Smith, whom he apparently hired to work on his manuscript. (A real editor, not a Wikipedia “editor.”) That version of Wikipedia’s Reedsy article got its first deletion discussion, and the result was deletion. (Tomwsulcer is discussed in this forum thread. He was banned from Wikipedia in 2022.)

In 2019, Tomwsulcer again created an article for Reedsy. No one seems to have noticed until shortly after Tomwsulcer was banned. Reedsy got its second deletion discussion; again, the result was deletion.

In 2025, over a decade since the first attempt at a Reedsy article on Wikipedia, an account named PapyrusPoet created a draft of a new article and submitted it for approval. Although the draft was initially deleted for “unambiguous advertising or promotion in userspace,” they were given another chance to submit the draft and they were warned about Wikipedia’s conflict of interest rules because, as PapyrusPoet notes on their user page:

“I’m Emmanuel. In my spare time, I’m often going on long bikepacking adventures and taking photos. I will respect all conflict of interest rules while learning more about this unique community. I disclose my conflict of interest with publishing services company Reedsy, as its founder. My old username was User:Neguev.”

The draft was approved by an account named Shocksingularity, an account that had not quite 4 months of experience on Wikipedia at that point. Reedsy had a Wikipedia article again! Less than a day later, Reedsy’s third deletion discussion began.

This time, only two editors participated. One is the aforementioned Shocksingularity and the other is an account named ChrysGalley, a user with even less experience but some apparent knowledge of Reedsy. Since both of them voted to keep the article, the article lives on, without even the usual discreet notice on the talk page that it was written by the company’s CEO.

The lesson here is that if you want to have an article about your company on Wikipedia, you need to be persistent. Don’t give up the first time it is deleted. Or the second. Or the the third. Just keep trying. It may take you ten years, but you can do it so long as you believe in the Wikipedia way.

Comment on this blog post here: Wikipediocracy Forum

Register for the Forum: New member Registration

Wikipedia is Not News: “Habemus Papam”

By Ming The Merciless

At 1:15 PM EDT, CNN made the call: Robert Prevost had been elected pope. But the edits had already started: the first was at 12:16 from an IP in Chile, changing his titles; this was immediately reverted and then reapplied differently. But the real action came at the time of the CNN post: in that minute, there were ten edits, none of which made substantial changes; but one of them was to move the article to “Pope Leo XIIV”, which of course was incorrect, but have no fear. Another edit protected the page (shutting out IP editors and new accounts), and it acquired the first of two “current event” banners. Only one edit changed the text of the article in any way to state he had been made pope: the first sentence had the phrase “who has been head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State since 8 May 2024″. tacked on it.

Habemus Papum

That was the first minute, The next minute saw eight edits, again none of them involving any substantive changes to the text: most were to the infobox and to tweak dates or tenses (including the erroneous date in the first sentence, did you notice?), but someone did manage to change the short description to “head of the Catholic Church since 2025”. The page was also moved again, this time to the correct “Leo XIV”. The next minute brought seven changes which got the papal name into the text and eliminated one of the “current event” banners; the next minute brought a barrage of some thirteen edits which finally changed the

…continue reading Wikipedia is Not News: “Habemus Papam”

Not the News: The Race to update Pope Francis’s Wikipedia Article Upon His Death

One of the many things that “Wikipedia Is Not” is The News. The policy in question states that Wikipedia is not for original reporting, ephemeral news items, bios of everyone who appears in a media report, or (and especially) celebrity gossip. In practice, this is a principle that is routinely violated. Whole classes of “noteworthy” events get articles as soon as news reports come out, absent any evidence of “enduring notability”, and these often wash up at Articles for Deletion when it becomes apparent that the incident was too trivial for an article.

…continue reading Not the News: The Race to update Pope Francis’s Wikipedia Article Upon His Death