Wikipedia is a multilingual wiki project. As the world's largest encyclopedia it has enormous and often pernicious influence.
One of Wikipedia's founders, Larry Sanger, claims that "Wikipedia's “NPOV” is dead and it is not to be trusted. The original ideals have long been forgotten and Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. "Not only articles about politicians, but also articles about political issues are, according to Sanger, written from "a liberal-left point of view".
The control by The Left of Wikipedia was highlighted in London's Daily Telegraph on 8 August 2022.
- 1 General criticisms
- 2 Evaluations
- 3 "Featured" and "Good" articles"
- 4 Influence
- 5 The Wikimedia Foundation, money, and politics
- 6 Leftist, politically correct, and anti-White bias
- 7 Radicalization
- 8 Organized team editing
- 9 Specific biased topics and articles
- 10 Metapedia article
- 11 See also
- 12 External links
- 13 References
Wikipedia has been criticized for many reasons. Some examples:
- In brief, despite claiming to be a neutral and reliable encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not have any kind of systematic process for quality assurance, fact checking, or expert review. Politically sensitive contents are censored by agenda-pushing, anonymous, and amateurish leftist activists.
- Content in practice often decided by the majority of the particular editors being involved in a particular dispute at a particular moment. There are some rules (such as the "three-revert rule" granting each individual three reverts within a 24-hour period) that in effect enforce this, by ensuring that the majority side will win any "edit wars" over article contents. The rules also state that views from both sides should be included (the so-called "Neutral point of view" rule). But the majority of involved editors decides also how the minority view of involved editors should be represented in the article, so this rule seems to amount to little more than an instruction to include some token straw men arguments from the other side. As such, Wikipedia can be considered an ongoing opinion survey of the personal opinions of the unrepresentative and generally leftist group editing the website.
- In addition to the above method, Wikipedia has a complex, multi-layered bureaucracy and a vast, complicated, and obscure set of rules regarding contents. The labyrinthine systems of rules, norms, dispute resolutions systems, and enforcement systems have been criticized as difficult to master, giving experienced editors a large advantage in content disputes.
- The so-called "Arbitration Committee", which (according to the Wikipedia article "Arbitration Committee") is the "court of last resort", "has generally adhered to the principles of ignoring the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct". Thus, Wikipedia disputes are in the end resolved by character attacks/assassinations (ad hominem), rather than by the scientific merits of arguments.
- Few disputes actually reach the "Arbitration Committee", since disputes are usually arbitrarily decided before this by Wikipedia administrators, who function as a leftist ruling class/caste and censors/gatekeepers. Punishing administrators for wrongdoings is complicated and rarely done, as administrators tend to protect their own. Furthermore, the "Arbitration Committee" has decreed that so-called "discretionary sanctions" apply to many controversial topics, which in effect means that "uninvolved" administrators have even greater freedom to arbitrarily "solve" any dispute. "Uninvolved" administrators are almost always non-expert administrators, who have very little expert knowledge on the issues in the dispute, and who therefore "solve" the dispute by decreeing that the political correct, leftist view is the correct one.
- Those supposedly judging and punishing rule-breakers are often anonymous, as are those accused, which makes it very difficult or impossible to detect various kinds of improper relationships, if these are not revealed voluntarily. For example, a prominent and often criticized editor who had been involved for many years in Wikipedia rule disputes on race and intelligence topics eventually essentially bragged about having a friendly personal relationship with a leading member of the "Arbitration Committee" judging the case.
- The so-called "Essjay controversy" was a controversy concerning a prominent Wikipedia participant and salaried Wikia employee, known by the username "Essjay". He held powerful positions within Wikipedia known as "administrator", "bureaucrat", and "arbitrator". Later, it was revealed that he had made false claims, such as being a "tenured professor", and used false credentials in order to win content disputes. Various proposals after the controversy to require verification of claimed credentials by Wikipedia editors have been rejected. Applying a double standard, the situation is completely different when Wikipedia writes about disliked individuals (such as claimed "far right" individuals), who are not allowed to state anything regarding themselves, unless published in (leftist) "reliable sources", as discussed in later sections.
- Content and rule system sensitive to manipulation by organized groups. In effect, editing a sensitive Wikipedia article has been argued to demand not just mastery of complicated rules, but spending a lot of effort building a network with other editors with the same opinion on the appropriate content of the article. The goal is to work together in order to ban or drive away the opposing side, so the own side becomes the majority side, which can then control the content of the article.
- Non-experts as content writers and administrators. Less of a problem in areas that non-experts do not care about and where the non-experts can be outvoted by the experts (like advanced mathematics), but problematic in other areas. Such non-experts may include persons who may be highly educated and experts in other areas, but in Wikipedia write on topics they do not know particularly well.
- Absence of expert writers in many areas, in particular politically sensitive ones.
- Varying quality of articles over time. There is a common belief that Wikipedia articles are constantly improving in quality over time, but article quality instead often deteriorates, if the expert writers leave an article and are replaced by non-experts, vandals, and agenda pushers.
- A long-term decline in the number of active editors. Many different reasons have been proposed, but may simply be due to dissidents increasingly losing the Wikipedia content battles and then leaving Wikipedia and the victorious side(s) then feeling little need to add further arguments to the article(s) after victory.
It’s a good thing Wikipedia works in practice, because in theory it’s a total disaster.— Wikimedia Foundation communications director Juliet Barbara.
Wikipedia has sometimes in evaluations received favorable reviews, but these refer to areas that are dominated by experts and that are not politically sensitive.
In particular, a 2005 comparison between Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica on several not politically sensitive hard science topics is very often cited as (false) evidence for that everything stated in Wikipedia is very reliable. The comparison and the descriptions of the comparison have been criticized for a variety of reasons. For example, the comparison is often described as being a "study", but is actually a non-peer-reviewed piece of news journalism.
Another supposed "study" that Wikipedia supporters like to cite is a Wikipedia funded 2012 "small-scale preliminary project" involving only a few not politically sensitive science/humanities articles. This preliminary project "would be essential to determine a sound research methodology" for a possible real future study, which has never been done.
In 2017, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation cited the above two "studies" as supposed evidence for that "Wikipedia is as reliable if not more reliable than more traditional encyclopedias."
An example of an evaluation where Wikipedia performed very poorly is a 2008 study, which compared nine Wikipedia entries on historical topics to their counterparts in Encyclopædia Britannica, The Dictionary of American History and American National Biography Online. The study found that Wikipedia's entries had an overall accuracy rate of 80 percent, whereas the other encyclopedias had an accuracy rate of 95 to 96 percent. The study stated that "The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95‐96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources."
Experiments have found that subtle vandalism and deliberate hoaxes are often undetected for long time periods, or indefinitely, in Wikipedia. Despite this, Wikipedia supporters allege, without presenting any evidence, that Wikipedia is a world-leading paragon regarding detecting, and teaching others how to detect, fake news.
A 2016 study titled "Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: How Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion" stated that “Enforcement of neutrality is in the hands of comparatively few, powerful administrators. In this paper, we document that a surprisingly large number of editors change their behavior and begin focusing more on a particular controversial topic once they are promoted to administrator status. The conscious and unconscious biases of these few, but powerful, administrators may be shaping the information on many of the most sensitive topics on Wikipedia; some may even be explicitly infiltrating the ranks of administrators in order to promote their own points of view.”
Regarding Wikipedia's political content, evaluations have found a leftist bias. However, supporters claim the bias is not large, citing a 2014 study that claimed this. However, this ignores that Wikipedia's bias varies. For example, while there may be only a limited bias in articles on "mainstream" "conservative" individuals, the bias is extreme on anything perceived as "far right", with articles on such topics typically written from an exclusively negative and extremely biased leftist point of view, as described in more detail in other sections.
A 2020 article stated that "Multiple academic studies and critical analyses of Wikipedia have pointed towards the site’s left-wing bias. The findings include its content being more left-leaning than Encyclopedia Britannica and left-leaning editors being more active and partisan than right-leaning editors. Left-wing outlets have been found to be the top-cited sources and represent most citations on articles about American politicians, and right-leaning editors have at the same time been found to be six times more likely to face sanctions."
Much has been written in various sources about the problematic aspects of Wikipedia. See the "External links" section below.
"Featured" and "Good" articles"
The closest thing that Wikipedia has to some kind of quality control is "Featured article" status and "Good article" status. Only 0.1% of Wikipedia's articles are "Featured" and only 0.5% are "Good". Almost all of these articles are on not politically sensitive topics. There is a review process that supposedly has checked that a particular version of an article, at a particular time, has passed the required criteria. However, Wikipedia misleadingly implies that the most recent article version has undergone this review, which is false, with article editing after the review possibly adding minor or major problems to the article. Furthermore, as there is no requirement that an expert on the topic should review the article, this review in practice focus on style (such as compliance with Wikipedia's enormous "Manual of Style") rather than on contents (such as factual accuracy and neutrality).
Despite its unreliability and biases, Wikipedia has wide-ranging influence, examples include being uncritically used by mass media, researchers, and "Big Tech" Internet companies such as Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. These then mass propagate falsehoods from Wikipedia.
In London's Daily Telegraph on 8 August 2022 the headline appeared "The Left is using Wikipedia in its fight to control truth". The article gives a breakdown of the organisation and financing of Wikipedia and says the constant calls for donations are a fraud. It also gives examples of how Wikipedia influences decision-makers who are stupid enough to refer to it, citing a report by five academics on judicial decisions.
The Wikimedia Foundation, money, and politics
In addition to content issues, there are also economic and management issues.
The supposedly non-profit and wealthy Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is governed by a Board of Trustees, with the Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales as unelected Trustee for life. Wales is also a founder of Wikia, a for-profit company that hosts various encyclopedias, that uses Wikipedia's free MediaWiki software for profit purposes, and that is in effect a competitor to Wikipedia regarding encyclopedic contents. This may possibly create various conflicts of interest.
The wealthy foundation continues to ask for and receives large donations. It now has a large number of paid employees, but has been criticized for low productivity. Meanwhile, the number of active Wikipedia administrators who do chores without being paid are steadily decreasing.
In 2017, an analysis stated that “The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005, but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting, has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall. WMF's spending has gone up by 85% over the past three years.” In 2016, the WMF had net assets of $92 million, revenue of $82 million, spent only $2 million on internet hosting, but despite this continued to ask for donations, even continuing to ask for money after stated targets had been achieved, and despite promising to no do so.
In 2015, the WMF spent $5.6 million on fundraising. The WMF utilizes sophisticated advertising research methods, such as "A/B testing" of different fundraising ads, in order to determine which ads will get the most money. WMF fundraising ads have been criticized for being misleading regarding the financial situation or otherwise deceiving donors.
One criticism is "that thousands of Wikipedia “volunteers” essentially work on the site full-time, driving its success — but that while they get nothing tangible for their efforts, WMF bankrolls its employees’ cooking classes, massages and gym memberships."
Various forms of conflicts of interest and problematic editing by large donors to the Wikimedia Foundation have been argued.
Also in 2017, the WMF executive director called US President Donald Trump's immigration ban "an affront" to Wikipedia's "vision". The chair of the WMF Board, weighed in with a strongly worded statement, ending with that “as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change always is political". The WMF's interim general counsel stated that “Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other organizations in filing an amicus brief in State of Washington v. Trump currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States.”
Wikipedia's "vision" supposedly includes opposition to government censorship and “The freedom to share and access knowledge". However, Wikipedia is an enthusiastic supporter of government censorship regarding "Holocaust denial" and more generally censors anything perceived as "far right" views, arguments, and facts, as discussed in later sections.
In 2020, in association with the George Floyd riots, the Wikimedia Foundation dropped any pretense of a "Neutral Point of View" and declared itself to be an activist propaganda organization. It stated that "Today, and every day, the Wikimedia Foundation stands in support of racial justice and with the movement for Black Lives. [...] On these issues, there is no neutral stance. [...] far more than a website. [...] calls on all of us to shape what we understand of our world."
Leftist, politically correct, and anti-White bias
Why Wikipedia has this bias has been discussed. One explanation is that since the content is decided by majority vote by non-experts, it will be heavily influenced by the views promoted by the leftist mass media, rather than the views that can be found among experts and in the scientific literature.
Cultural Marxism and political correctness are other explanations. They have been enormously influential in academia, the media, and elsewhere, and likely to some degree influence many Wikipedia writers.
Regarding sources, Wikipedia makes a distinction between "primary sources" (considered bad) and "secondary sources" (considered good). While such a distinction may make sense in some scholarly fields (and where the terms were originally invented and used), such a distinction is often dubious and problematic regarding, for example, recent news, since there are rarely any scholarly "secondary" reviews available. Wikipedia solves this by citing what is in effect often opinion pieces or personal commentaries in mainstream media (and that often do not cite sources for claims and opinions), in effect claiming that these sources are reliable, "secondary sources". Not politically correct sources are excluded as being "primary sources" or otherwise "unreliable". "Primary sources" are not actually prohibited according to Wikipedia rules, just discouraged, but this is ignored if the source is politically incorrect. Wikipedia in effect often prohibits politically incorrect individuals and organizations to state their view on themselves, even as just one of several possible views, even in the articles exclusively dedicated to describing such individuals and organizations, and this despite rules such as on "Biographies of living persons" stating that in such articles "primary sources" by the described living persons can be cited.
Another supposed reason for excluding not politically correct sources is that they supposedly do not do "fact checking". Evidence for that allowed politically correct sources do fact checking and that the not allowed, not politically correct sources do not do fact checking is not presented. Politically correct media often do not present any supporting evidence for the claims and opinions stated there.
Wikipedia has a much harsher de facto policy on anything that is perceived as "far right" than even on Communist dictatorships and their state controlled and censored media, which can be cited in Wikipedia on issues such as official Communist government positions and self-descriptions.
Also regarding more mainstream right-wing views there is bias and censorship, although somewhat less extreme. For example, Breitbart has been at least partially banned in Wikipedia as a claimed “unreliable source”. Breitbart has published many very critical articles on Wikipedia.
For example, Breitbart has described repeated editing on the Antifa article by leftists, self-proclaimed antifa supporters, and/or prominent members of the Wikipedia bureaucracy in order to downplay or censor mentioning antifa use of violence, antifa terrorism categorization, and other negative aspects. Criticisms have continued, including on various forms of censorship and cover-ups, double standards, and various other problems.
In 2017, Wikipedia banned right-wing Daily Mail, the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper, from being used as a source in Wikipedia, after a vote with 77 participants. The newspaper was claimed to be unreliable, but no statistics were given in support of this claim. Daily Mail wrote that this occurred just before the newspaper “was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.) […] Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, the website remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. […] In 2015, with our sister website MailOnline, the Mail published more than half a million stories; IPSO upheld complaints against two of them. By way of comparison, five articles in The Times had complaints of one kind or another upheld against them, along with four in the Daily Express, and ten published by the Telegraph group.”
In 2020, shortly before the United States presidential election, Fox New was discouraged as a source on "contentious content" political and science topics. In the previous years, various other large right-wing sites had been banned as sources, despite not being "far right".
When it comes to the more sensitive issues, such as race and intelligence, Wikipedia simply censors even academic, peer-reviewed, secondary review articles, if they do not support the politically correct views.
In contrast, pushing a politically correct viewpoint by using dubious, or even falsified, sources is not difficult. WikiIslam in a critical article stated that "At Wikipedia, Islam-related articles are often compromised by pro-Islamic editors. An example of this is a 2010 incident where an editor with over 67,000 edits was caught intentionally inserting false information into articles. Jagged 85 had been editing there for five years, and his/her inaccurate edits and articles have been reproduced all over the net by other websites which use Wikipedia as a source. [...] A lot of his efforts were also concentrated on downplaying the achievements of non-Muslims (mainly Europeans) in various topics, and once again, focused primarily on science [...] With contributions to over 8,100 separate articles, it is unlikely that all of Jagged 85's edits will ever be fixed."
The political situation in, for example, the United States has become increasingly polarized, with the left becoming increasingly radicalized and moving further to the left, with the mass immigration and the increased ethnic heterogeneity as an argued main cause, as discussed in the article on the Great Awokening. This is reflected in the leftist Wikipedia, with increasing radicalization of political contents, with article histories often showing that older article versions were more neutral. This radicalization is typically of low quality, such as by purging the articles of dissenting arguments and by adding name-calling, ad hominem, and guilt by association.
In 2020, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger stated that the project had abandoned its claimed neutrality and was now “badly biased.” As one of several examples, he pointed to and contrasted double standards regarding the entries for the United States Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Criticisms also included science articles. "In any event, when the Establishment (or maybe just the Establishment left) is unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia." He stated that "It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one. Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to concede any such thing; they live in a fantasy world of their own making."
Organized team editing
Another criticism against the supposed "neutral point of view" in the articles is the presence of systematic propaganda by organized groups. The propaganda activities of such organized groups may be open or concealed.
Fox News wrote in 2013 that "Fifteen universities including some Ivy League schools are offering college credit to students who will inject feminist thinking into the popular website Wikipedia..."They’re more concerned with making it politically correct than factually correct"". In 2017, several institutions were hosting Wikipedia “Edit-a-thon” events in order to advance feminist point of views in Wikipedia articles.
In 2017, a Berkeley professor was criticized when as part of his course, students created Wikipedia articles that advanced an anti-Trump agenda, containing in-depth critiques of Trump’s environmental policy among others.
In 2020, in association with the George Floyd riots, a Wikipedia "WikiProject" named "Black Lives Matter" was created, associating with the (far) left Black Lives Matter organization/movement. The "WikiProject" has been criticized as prominently organizing and promoting (far) leftist views in Wikipedia.
More covert argued example are articles related to Pakistan, which in 2015 were argued to be systematically manipulated, possibly by governmental agencies, and articles related to Cherokees, which in 2013 were argued to be systematically manipulated, possibly by pro-Cherokee activists. In 2017, an analysis found 7,200 changes to Wikipedia since 2014 made by people using Canadian government IP addresses. This only included not logged in users, who thereby revealed their IP addresses.
In 2013, there was an exposure of a multi-million-dollar company that "created, edited, or maintained several thousand Wikipedia articles for paying clients using a sophisticated array of concealed user accounts." Accusations of large scale paid editing have continued after this.
A simple form of organized team editing consists of using, for example, a covert mailing list in order to secretly enlist voters in order to "win" various Wikipedia votes on issues such as article contents.
See the article on hasbara and the "External links" section regarding large scale Israeli and Jewish efforts to control Wikipedia contents.
Most covert organized team editing will likely never be detected, in part due to most Wikipedia editors being anonymous. Even if it is and even if it can be proven, then the rules are unclear regarding if it is allowed. Openly stated organized team editing promoting politically correct views such as feminism have not been disallowed.
Specific biased topics and articles
Criticisms of Wikipedia's claims of being neutral and accurate have in particular been applied to politically sensitive topics, including science topics strongly related to this.
In addition to a generally leftist bias, there are some politically related topics that are more biased than others. This applies in particular to all "far right" topics, which are often written from an exclusively critical point of view and often include many straw men descriptions and errors. This can be contrasted with "far left" topics, which may include some criticisms, but that, at the very least, include many views by the "far leftists" themselves, including replies to criticisms.
Pro-White organizations are routinely being described with epithets such as White supremacist and/or "hate group", while similar labels are not applied to special interest organizations promoting the interests of non-White groups. There are anti-White articles, such as on "Whiteness studies" and on "White privilege", with no corresponding articles for other groups, despite some being very influential and on average being more wealthy than Whites, such as Jews (see the article on Jewish influence).
Almost all articles related to the Holocaust describe only the now "standardized" politically correct view, ignoring the extremely varying claims made also by politically correct "witnesses" and "confessors". A few articles are dedicated to stating exclusively negative views on "Holocaust denial".
More generally, all articles related to National Socialist Germany have a very negative point of view, often influenced by the politically correct views on the Holocaust, Lebensraum, master race, and subhumans as well as non-revisionist views on the causes of the World Wars. In contrast, various Allied atrocities are often not mentioned, minimized, and/or described misleadingly.
See the section "Organized team editing" regarding organized teams creating biased articles.
Special interest organizations can usually dominate their own article and influence many others, if they are considered to be at least somewhat leftist and politically correct. For example, heavily criticized special interest organizations such as the SPLC and the ADL have articles excluding many criticisms and are in Wikipedia themselves considered to be very reliable sources that can be cited everywhere in Wikipedia regarding their unsupported opinions on others.
More generally, special interest groups/movements that are seen as leftist and politically correct can often dominate the articles they feel strongly about and for which there are no opposing special interest group (or no allowed opposing special interest groups). Thus, topics such as homosexuality are often dominated by supporters, with no, few, or only straw men criticisms allowed. Other articles, such as the article on psychoanalysis, can include some criticisms, but often surprisingly little compared to the lack of empirical support and the criticisms in the scientific literature.
On the talk pages of politically sensitive articles there are often various valid criticisms and views that are excluded from the article, if they are not politically correct
All race related articles more or less openly state that race is a social construct and that all group differences are due to non-genetic factors, despite there being large scale disagreement with this among scientists. Much of the new research on genetic group differences is not mentioned at all or described falsely.
See Wikipedia's and RationalWiki's race articles regarding many more specific criticisms.
On the section "Links to violence and terrorism", see Hate crime: Wikipedia allegations.
- The articles on leftist mass murderers such as Lenin and Mao describe it as a view only by critics that these individuals were dictators. This is part of a more general situation, with, for example, the article on the far leftist favorite Trotsky saying almost nothing on his responsibility while in power for the mass killings under Communist regimes.
- Nazi: The derogatory "Nazi" is constantly used instead of "National Socialist", despite not using "Commie" instead of "Communist", and so on.
- Block users when they add the German names to former German areas.
- Bias and double standard regarding article titles, such as regarding there being an article titled "German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war" and a corresponding article titled "German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union", despite German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union being mistreated on a large scale.
- Tinley Park attack and related antifa-SPLC associations.
- Ditlieb Felderer: Wikipedia neglects to write an article about Ditlieb Felderer, a prominent Swedish revisionist.
- Josef Ginsburg: Wikipedia does not mention at all the existence of the prominent anti-Zionist Jew Josef Ginsburg, who was one of the witnesses at Ernst Zundel's Holocaust trials.
- Danzig-Matzkau: a prison camp for SS personnel who committed crimes, including against prisoners in the Holocaust camps.
- Cultural Marxism - Despite 1,770 scholarly articles mentioning Cultural Marxism in Google Scholar.
- Criticism of the Talmud - See Criticism of the Talmud (copy of deleted Wikipedia article).
- Jews and money - See Jews and money (copy of deleted Wikipedia article).
- Jews and Communism - See Jews and Communism (copy of deleted Wikipedia article).
- Jewish ethnocentrism
- Jewish supremacy
English Wikipedia has an article on Metapedia with various errors and derogatory labels. This also applies to the descriptions of organizations and individuals, such as the Nordic Alliance ("Nordiska förbundet"). Various sources are listed for these allegations, but they likely often ultimately derive from the unreliable opinions of Expo, which is a Swedish organization somewhat similar to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
- Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever
- Wikipedia on Race
- Barack Obama ‘Receives Preferential Treatment on Wikipedia’, Report Claims
- Wikipedia's "Antisemitic Canard"
- Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups
- Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy WMF secures restricted funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/News_and_notes
- Wikipedia Is Badly Biased
- The Left is using Wikipedia in its fight to control truth by Andrew Orlowski, London Daily Telegraph, 8 Aug 2022.
- Deconstructing Wikipedia User Mathsci http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/06/30/deconstructing-wikipedia-user-mathsci/
- Roger Davies: Wikipedia’s Imperial Arbitrator http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/30/roger-davies-wikipedias-imperial-arbitrator/
- Mathsci and MastCell http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com/2015/11/mathsci-and-mastcell.html
- Essjay controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy
- How Wikipedia Is Cultivating an Army of Fact Checkers to Battle Fake News https://psmag.com/news/how-wikipedia-is-cultivating-an-army-of-fact-checkers-to-battle-fake-news
- Wikipedia: as accurate as Britannica? http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/25/wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
- Nature’s Flawed Study of Wikipedia’s Quality http://www.roughtype.com/?p=260
- Assessing the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia entries compared to popular online encyclopaedias https:/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/EPIC_Oxford_report.pdf
- What can fact-checkers learn from Wikipedia? We asked the boss of its nonprofit owner https://www.poynter.org/news/what-can-fact-checkers-learn-wikipedia-we-asked-boss-its-nonprofit-owner
- Rector, Lucy Holman. "Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles". Reference Services Review. 36 (1): 7–22. doi:10.1108/00907320810851998
- Experiment concludes: Most misinformation inserted into Wikipedia may persist http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/04/13/experiment-concludes-most-misinformation-inserted-into-wikipedia-may-persist/
- How pranks, hoaxes and manipulation undermine the reliability of Wikipedia http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/20/how-pranks-hoaxes-and-manipulation-undermine-the-reliability-of-wikipedia/
- Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: How Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~magdon/ps/journal/Wiki-TWeb2016.pdf
- Wikipedia Is More Biased Than Britannica, but Don’t Blame the Crowd https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd
- Analysis: Wikipedia Articles on American Politicians Mostly Cite Leftist Media https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/08/17/analysis-wikipedia-articles-on-american-politicians-mostly-cite-leftist-media/
- Analysis: New York Times, BBC, Guardian the Most-Cited News Sources on Wikipedia https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/06/13/analysis-new-york-times-bbc-guardian-the-most-cited-news-sources-on-wikipedia/
- 5 Times Studies Proved Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Bias https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/11/28/5-times-studies-proved-wikipedias-left-wing-bias/
- Who Is Big Tech’s ‘Arbiter of Truth’? More than Ever, It’s a Corrupt, Orwellian Wikipedia https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/28/who-is-big-techs-arbiter-of-truth-more-than-ever-its-a-corrupt-orwellian-wikipedia/
- Studies Show Wikipedia Shapes Scientific Literature, Business Environment https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/27/studies-show-wikipedia-shapes-scientific-literature-business-environment/
- Media, Academia Widely Copy from Biased Wikipedia #GamerGate Article https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/21/media-academia-widely-copy-from-biased-wikipedia-gamergate-article/
- Wikipedia has cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed
- Wikipedia exceeds fundraising target, but continues asking for more money https://slashdot.org/submission/6575473/wikipedia-exceeds-fundraising-target-but-continues-asking-for-more-money
- Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/
- The Thin Bright Line http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/10/the-thin-bright-line/
- Censorship https://policy.wikimedia.org/policy-landing/censorship/
- We stand for racial justice. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/06/03/we-stand-for-racial-justice/
- Lunatics Take Over Asylum: Oliver D. Smith, RationalWiki, And The Wikipedeans https://vdare.com/articles/lunatics-take-over-asylum-oliver-d-smith-rationalwiki-and-the-wikipedeans
- Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources
- Breitbart Tag Wikipedia http://www.breitbart.com/tag/wikipedia/
- Wikipedia Editors Seek to Downplay Antifa Violence And Far-Left Ideology http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/31/editors-on-wikipedia-seek-to-downplay-violence-and-ideology-of-antifa-movement/
- Antifa Supporters Edit Group’s Wikipedia Page to Downplay Terrorism Categorization http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/27/antifa-supporters-edit-groups-wikipedia-page-to-downplay-terrorism-categorization/
- Wikipedia Editors Protect Antifa by Censoring Andy Ngo Assault, ICE Attack https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/18/wikipedia-editors-protect-antifa-by-censoring-andy-ngo-assault-ice-attack/
- The making of a Wiki-Lie: Chilling story of one twisted oddball and a handful of anonymous activists who appointed themselves as censors to promote their own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html
- Wikipedia Discourages Editors from Using Fox News as a Source on ‘Contentious Content’ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/22/wikipedia-discourages-editors-from-using-fox-news-as-a-source-on-contentious-content/
- Islam, Science and the Problems at Wikipedia https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_Science_and_the_Problems_at_Wikipedia
- Wikipedia Founder Says the Project Has Abandoned Neutrality Policy, Is ‘Badly Biased’ https://www.amren.com/news/2020/05/wikipedia-founder-says-the-project-has-abandoned-neutrality-policy-is-badly-biased/
- Wikipedia Is Badly Biased https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
- Wikistorming: Colleges offer credit to inject feminism into Wikipedia. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/06/wikistorming-colleges-offer-credit-to-corrupt-wikipedia/
- Feminists at Oberlin, Bucknell, Temple Host Wikipedia “Edit-A-Thon” http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/16/feminists-at-oberlin-bucknell-temple-host-wikipedia-edit-a-thon/
- Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia https://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.md/
- UC Berkeley Professor Banned From Wikipedia Over Anti-Trump Edit Project http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/09/uc-berkeley-students-label-trump-sexist-racist-during-wikipedia-edit-project/
- Wikipedia Pushes ‘Black Lives Matter’ Agenda Following Activist Campaign https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/06/30/wikipedia-pushes-black-lives-matter-agenda-following-activist-campaign/
- Scandal at Wikipedia http://www.examiner.com/article/scandal-at-wikipedia
- Government’s ‘Ninja Edits’ to Wikipedia Alarming, Critic Says https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/10/Canadian-Government-Wikipedia-Edits/
- Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-09/News_and_notes
- The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/
Wikipedia ni mradi wa wiki wa lugha nyingi. Kwa kuwa ni ensaiklopedia kubwa zaidi ulimwenguni, ina uvutano mkubwa na mara nyingi wenye kudhuru. "Mmoja wa waanzilishi wa Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, anasema: ""Wikipedia's NPOW ni wafu na ni si kuaminiwa." Maadili ya awali yamesahaulika kwa muda mrefu na Wikipedia haina tena sera ya usawa yenye ufanisi. "Si makala tu kuhusu wanasiasa, lakini pia makala kuhusu masuala ya kisiasa ni, kwa mujibu wa Sanger, imeandikwa kutoka "liberal-kushoto mtazamo". "Kutumia Wikipedia kwa njia ya ""The Left"" ni jambo ambalo lilijulikana sana na gazeti la London la Daily Telegraph mnamo Agosti 8, 2022." "Makala ya ""Mapendekezo ya jumla"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo"" - Makala ya ""Mapendekezo""" Mifano kadhaa: - Kwa ufupi, licha ya kudai kuwa encyclopedia ya upande mmoja na ya kuaminika, Wikipedia haina aina yoyote ya mchakato wa utaratibu wa kuhakikisha ubora, kuangalia ukweli, au ukaguzi wa wataalamu. Maudhui yenye kuvutia kisiasa hupigwa marufuku na wanaharakati wa kushoto wasiojulikana na wasio na uzoefu. - maudhui katika mazoezi mara nyingi kuamua na wengi wa wahariri maalum kuwa kushiriki katika mzozo maalum katika wakati maalum. Kuna sheria fulani (kama vile "sheria ya kurudisha tatu" inayompa kila mtu kurudisha tatu ndani ya kipindi cha masaa 24) ambayo kwa kweli inasimamisha hii, kwa kuhakikisha kwamba upande wa wengi utashinda "vita vya kuhariri" juu ya yaliyomo kwenye makala. Kanuni hizo pia zinasema kwamba maoni kutoka pande zote mbili yanapaswa kuingizwa (kila kinachoitwa "Mtazamo wa Kutokuwamo" sheria). Lakini wengi wa wahariri wanaohusika huamua pia jinsi maoni ya wachache wa wahariri wanaohusika yanapaswa kuwakilishwa katika makala, kwa hivyo sheria hii inaonekana kuwa kidogo zaidi ya maagizo ya kujumuisha hoja za watu wa nyasi kutoka upande mwingine. Kama vile, Wikipedia inaweza kuchukuliwa kuwa uchunguzi wa maoni unaoendelea wa maoni ya kibinafsi ya kikundi kisicho na uwakilishi na kwa ujumla cha kushoto kinachohariri wavuti. - Mbali na njia ya juu, Wikipedia ina tata, multi-safu ya utawala na kubwa, ngumu, na obscure seti ya sheria kuhusu maudhui. Mifumo ya machafuko ya sheria, kanuni, mifumo ya utatuzi wa migogoro, na mifumo ya utekelezaji imekosolewa kuwa ngumu kutawala, ikitoa wahariri wenye uzoefu faida kubwa katika migogoro ya maudhui. "Kulingana na makala ya Wikipedia ""Kikundi cha Arbitration,"" ambayo ni ""mahakama ya mwisho,"" kwa ujumla imefuata kanuni za kupuuza maudhui ya migogoro ya watumiaji na kuzingatia tabia ya watumiaji." Kwa hivyo, mabishano ya Wikipedia mwishowe hutatuzwa na mashambulizi ya tabia (ad hominem), badala ya sifa za kisayansi za hoja. - Mipaka michache kwa kweli kufikia "Komision ya Arbitration", tangu migogoro ni kawaida arbitrarily kuamua kabla ya hii na wasimamizi Wikipedia, ambao kazi kama kushoto kutawala darasa au tabaka na censors gatekeepers. Kuwaadhibu wasimamizi kwa makosa ni jambo gumu na mara chache hufanywa, kwa kuwa wasimamizi huwa na mwelekeo wa kulinda wao wenyewe. "Kwa kuongezea, ""kamati ya upendeleo"" imeamua kwamba ""hukumu za hiari"" zinatumika kwa mada nyingi zenye utata, ambayo kwa kweli inamaanisha kwamba wasimamizi wasiohusika wana uhuru mkubwa zaidi wa ""kuamua"" mgogoro wowote kwa hiari." "Watawala wasiohusika ni mara nyingi wasimamizi wasio wataalamu, ambao wana ujuzi mdogo sana wa masuala katika mzozo, na kwa hivyo ""kufumbuza"" mzozo kwa kuamuru kwamba maoni ya kisiasa sahihi, ya kushoto ni sahihi." - Wale wanaodhaniwa kuhukumu na kuadhibu wavunjaji wa sheria mara nyingi ni wasiojulikana, kama wale walioshtakiwa, ambayo inafanya kuwa vigumu sana au haiwezekani kugundua aina mbalimbali za mahusiano yasiyofaa, ikiwa haya hayafunuliwi kwa hiari. Kwa mfano, mhariri mashuhuri na mara nyingi kukosolewa ambaye alikuwa amehusika kwa miaka mingi katika vita vya sheria za Wikipedia juu ya mada ya jamii na ujasusi hatimaye kimsingi alijigamba juu ya kuwa na uhusiano wa kirafiki wa kibinafsi na mwanachama anayeongoza wa "Komisho ya Uamuzi" kuhukumu kesi hiyo. "Mjadala wa ""Essay"" ni mzozo unaohusu mshiriki mashuhuri wa Wikipedia na mfanyakazi wa Wikia, anayejulikana kwa jina la mtumiaji ""Essay.""" Alikuwa na nafasi zenye nguvu ndani ya Wikipedia inayojulikana kama "msimamizi", "bureaucrat", na "mamuzi". Baadaye, ilifunuliwa kwamba alikuwa ametoa madai ya uwongo, kama vile kuwa "profesa wa kudumu", na alitumia vyeti bandia ili kushinda mabishano ya maudhui. Mapendekezo mbalimbali baada ya utata kuhitaji uthibitisho wa sifa zilizodaiwa na wahariri wa Wikipedia yamekataliwa. "Kutumia kiwango cha mbili, hali ni tofauti kabisa wakati Wikipedia inaandika juu ya watu wasio na upendeleo (kama vile watu wanaodaiwa kuwa ""kushoto kabisa"), ambao hawaruhusiwi kusema chochote kuhusu wao wenyewe, isipokuwa kuchapishwa katika ""vyanzo vya kuaminika"" vya (kushoto), kama ilivyojadiliwa katika sehemu za baadaye." - maudhui na mfumo wa sheria nyeti kwa udanganyifu na makundi kupangwa. Kwa kweli, kuhariri makala nyeti ya Wikipedia imedaiwa kudai sio tu ustadi wa sheria ngumu, lakini kutumia juhudi nyingi kujenga mtandao na wahariri wengine wenye maoni sawa juu ya yaliyomo sahihi ya makala. Lengo ni kufanya kazi pamoja ili kuzuia au kuondoa upande mwingine, hivyo upande wako unakuwa upande wa wengi, ambao unaweza kudhibiti maudhui ya makala. - wasio wataalamu kama waandishi wa maudhui na wasimamizi. Ni rahisi kwa watu wasio wataalamu kuamua na kwa wale ambao hawajui, lakini kwa watu wasio wataalamu, ni rahisi sana. Watu wasio wataalamu wanaweza kuwa na elimu ya juu na wataalamu katika maeneo mengine, lakini katika Wikipedia kuandika juu ya mada hawajui hasa vizuri. - Kutokuwepo kwa waandishi wataalamu katika maeneo mengi, hasa wale kisiasa nyeti. - Tofauti ya ubora wa makala kwa muda. Kuna imani ya kawaida kwamba makala za Wikipedia zinaendelea kuboresha ubora kwa muda, lakini ubora wa makala badala yake mara nyingi huathiriwa, ikiwa waandishi wa wataalam huacha makala na kubadilishwa na wasio wataalam, wahalifu, na waendeshaji wa ajenda. - Kupungua kwa muda mrefu katika idadi ya wahariri hai. Sababu nyingi tofauti zimependekezwa, lakini inaweza kuwa tu kwa sababu wapinzani wanapoteza mapigano ya maudhui ya Wikipedia na kisha kuondoka Wikipedia na upande wa ushindi kisha kuhisi haja ndogo ya kuongeza hoja zaidi kwa makala baada ya ushindi. Ni jambo zuri kwamba Wikipedia inafanya kazi katika mazoezi, kwa sababu kwa nadharia ni msiba kamili. <unk> Mkurugenzi wa Mawasiliano wa Wikimedia Foundation Juliet Barbara. Wikipedia wakati mwingine katika tathmini imepokea ukaguzi mzuri, lakini hizi zinahusu maeneo ambayo yanatawaliwa na wataalam na ambayo sio nyeti kisiasa. Kwa mfano, ulinganisho wa Wikipedia na Encyclopaedia Britannica mnamo 2005 juu ya mada kadhaa zisizo nyeti kisiasa za sayansi ngumu mara nyingi hutumiwa kama ushahidi wa uwongo kwamba kila kitu kilichoelezwa katika Wikipedia ni cha kuaminika sana. Ulinganisho na maelezo ya kulinganisha yamekosolewa kwa sababu mbalimbali. Kwa mfano, kulinganisha mara nyingi huelezwa kama kuwa "mafunzo", lakini kwa kweli ni kipande cha uandishi wa habari usiochunguzwa na wenzao. "Utafiti mwingine unaodhaniwa kuwa waunga mkono Wikipedia wanapenda kutaja ni ""mradi mdogo wa awali"" uliofadhiliwa na Wikipedia mnamo 2012 unaohusisha makala chache tu za sayansi au kibinadamu ambazo hazina hisia za kisiasa." Mradi huu wa awali "ungekuwa muhimu kuamua mbinu nzuri ya utafiti" kwa ajili ya utafiti halisi wa baadaye, ambao haujawahi kufanywa. "Mwaka 2017, mkurugenzi mtendaji wa Wikimedia Foundation alitaja ""mafunzo"" mawili ya juu kama ushahidi wa kwamba Wikipedia ni ya kuaminika kama sio kuaminika zaidi kuliko encyclopedias za jadi." "Mfano wa tathmini ambapo Wikipedia ilifanya vibaya sana ni utafiti wa 2008, ambao ulilinganisha viingilio tisa vya Wikipedia juu ya mada za kihistoria na wenzao katika Encyclopaedia Britannica, Kamusi ya Historia ya Amerika na American National Biography Online. """ Uchunguzi huo uligundua kuwa vichwa vya Wikipedia vilikuwa na kiwango cha usahihi wa asilimia 80, wakati encyclopedias nyingine zilikuwa na kiwango cha usahihi wa asilimia 95 hadi 96 kwa jumla. "Utafiti huo ulifunua ""ukosefu wa usahihi katika vichwa nane kati ya tisa na kufunua kasoro kubwa katika angalau viwili kati ya makala tisa za Wikipedia.""" Kwa ujumla, kiwango cha usahihi wa Wikipedia kilikuwa asilimia 80 ikilinganishwa na asilimia 95-996 katika vyanzo vingine. Utafiti huu unathibitisha madai kwamba Wikipedia ni ya kuaminika kidogo kuliko rasilimali nyingine za kumbukumbu. " Majaribio yamegundua kwamba uharibifu wa hila na udanganyifu wa makusudi mara nyingi haugunduliwi kwa vipindi virefu vya muda, au kwa muda usiojulikana, katika Wikipedia. Hata hivyo, wafuasi wa Wikipedia wanadai, bila kutoa ushahidi wowote, kwamba Wikipedia ni mfano wa ulimwengu wa kugundua, na kuwafundisha wengine jinsi ya kugundua, habari bandia. "Utafiti wa 2016 ulioitwa ""Manipulation Among the Arbiters of Collective Intelligence: How Wikipedia Administrators Shape Public Opinion"" ulisema kwamba ""kutekeleza kutokuwamo ni mikononi mwa wasimamizi wachache wenye nguvu.""" Katika karatasi hii, tunarekodi kwamba idadi kubwa ya wahariri hubadilisha tabia yao na kuanza kuzingatia zaidi juu ya mada fulani yenye utata mara tu wanapopandishwa cheo kuwa msimamizi. "Hata hivyo, ""upendeleo wa ufahamu na usio wa ufahamu wa wasimamizi hawa wachache, lakini wenye nguvu, unaweza kuwa unaunda habari juu ya mada nyingi nyeti zaidi kwenye Wikipedia; wengine wanaweza hata kuingilia wazi katika safu za wasimamizi ili kukuza maoni yao wenyewe. """ Hata hivyo, wafuasi wanadai upendeleo huo si mkubwa, wakitaja utafiti wa 2014 ambao ulidai hili. Hata hivyo, hii inapuuza kwamba upendeleo wa Wikipedia hutofautiana. Kwa mfano, wakati kunaweza kuwa na upendeleo mdogo tu katika makala juu ya watu "mainstream" "wenye msimamo mkali", upendeleo ni mkali juu ya chochote kinachoonekana kama "kulia sana", na makala juu ya mada kama hizo kwa kawaida zimeandikwa kutoka kwa maoni ya kushoto ya hasi na ya upendeleo, kama ilivyoelezwa kwa undani zaidi katika sehemu nyingine. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika makala ya mwaka 2020, ""Utafiti wa kitaaluma na uchambuzi wa Wikipedia umeonyesha upendeleo wa mrengo wa kushoto wa tovuti hiyo.""" Matokeo ni pamoja na maudhui yake kuwa zaidi kushoto-leaning kuliko Encyclopedia Britannica na kushoto-leaning wahariri kuwa zaidi hai na upendeleo kuliko kulia-leaning wahariri. "Vituo vya habari vya mrengo wa kushoto vimegunduliwa kuwa vyanzo vya habari vilivyotumiwa zaidi na vinawakilisha vichwa vingi vya habari kuhusu wanasiasa wa Marekani, na wahariri wa mrengo wa kulia wamegunduliwa kuwa na uwezekano mkubwa mara sita wa kukabiliwa na vikwazo. """ Mengi yameandikwa katika vyanzo mbalimbali kuhusu masuala ya Wikipedia. Angalia sehemu ya "Viungo vya nje" hapa chini. "Featured" na "Good" makala" Jambo karibu kwamba Wikipedia ina kwa aina fulani ya udhibiti wa ubora ni "Featured makala" hali na "Good makala" hali. "Hata hivyo, ni asilimia 0.1% tu ya makala za Wikipedia ambazo zina ""Featured"" na asilimia 0.5% tu ambazo zina ""Good.""" Karibu makala hizi zote hazizungumzii masuala yenye kuumiza kisiasa. Kuna mchakato wa ukaguzi ambao unadhani umehakiki kwamba toleo fulani la makala, kwa wakati fulani, limepita vigezo vinavyohitajika. Hata hivyo, Wikipedia inaonyesha kwa njia ya kupotosha kwamba toleo la hivi karibuni la makala limepitia ukaguzi huu, ambayo ni bandia, na uhariri wa makala baada ya ukaguzi uwezekano wa kuongeza matatizo madogo au makubwa kwa makala. Kwa kuongezea, kwa kuwa hakuna mahitaji ya mtaalam wa mada hiyo kuchunguza makala, ukaguzi huu kwa vitendo unazingatia mtindo (kama kufuata "Manual of Style" kubwa ya Wikipedia) badala ya yaliyomo (kama usahihi wa ukweli na kutokuwamo). Licha ya kutoaminika kwake na upendeleo, Wikipedia ina ushawishi mkubwa, mifano ni pamoja na kutumiwa bila ukosoaji na vyombo vya habari, watafiti, na kampuni za mtandao za "Big Tech" kama vile Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, na YouTube. Kisha hizo husambaza uwongo kwa wingi kutoka Wikipedia. "Katika gazeti la London la Daily Telegraph la tarehe 8 Agosti mwaka huu, kichwa cha habari kilikuwa ""The Left is using Wikipedia in its fight to control the truth.""" Makala hiyo inatoa ufafanuzi wa shirika na ufadhili wa Wikipedia na inasema wito wa mara kwa mara wa michango ni udanganyifu. Pia inatoa mifano ya jinsi Wikipedia inavyoathiri watunga maamuzi ambao ni wapumbavu wa kutosha kuirejelea, ikitoa ripoti ya wasomi watano juu ya maamuzi ya mahakama. Wikimedia Foundation, fedha, na siasa Mbali na masuala ya maudhui, pia kuna masuala ya kiuchumi na usimamizi. Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) inaongozwa na Bodi ya Wadhamini, na mwanzilishi wa Wikipedia Jimbo Wales kama Msimamizi asiyechaguliwa kwa maisha. Wales pia ni mwanzilishi wa Wikia, kampuni ya faida ambayo inakaribisha encyclopedias mbalimbali, ambayo hutumia programu ya bure ya Wikipedia ya MediaWiki kwa madhumuni ya faida, na ambayo kwa kweli ni mshindani wa Wikipedia kuhusu maudhui ya encyclopedic. Hii inaweza uwezekano wa kuunda migogoro mbalimbali ya maslahi. Shirika hilo lenye utajiri linaendelea kuomba na kupokea michango mikubwa. Sasa ina idadi kubwa ya wafanyakazi waliolipwa, lakini imekosolewa kwa uzalishaji wa chini. Wakati huo huo, idadi ya wasimamizi wa Wikipedia wanaofanya kazi bila kulipwa inazidi kupungua. "Wiki ya kisasa ya Wikipedia ina ""kurasa 11-12 mara nyingi kuliko ilivyokuwa mwaka wa 2005,"" lakini WMF inatumia mara 33 zaidi kwa mwenyeji, ina wafanyikazi mara 300 zaidi, na inatumia mara 1,250 zaidi kwa ujumla." WMF imeshuhudia ongezeko la asilimia 85 ya matumizi yake katika miaka mitatu iliyopita, na mwaka 2016 ilikuwa na mali ya $92m, mapato ya $82m, na ilitumia dola milioni mbili tu kwa ajili ya huduma za mtandao, lakini ilibaki kuomba michango, hata baada ya kufikia malengo yaliyowekwa, na licha ya ahadi ya kutofanya hivyo. Mwaka 2015, WMF ilitumia dola milioni 5.6 katika kukusanya fedha. WMF hutumia mbinu za utafiti wa matangazo ya hali ya juu, kama vile "kupima A & B" ya matangazo tofauti ya kukusanya fedha, ili kuamua ni matangazo gani yatakayopata pesa zaidi. Matangazo ya WMF ya kukusanya fedha yamekosolewa kwa kuwa ya kupotosha kuhusu hali ya kifedha au kwa njia nyingine kudanganya wafadhili. "Wakili mmoja wa Wikipedia alisema: ""Kuna maelfu ya kujitolea wanaofanya kazi kwenye tovuti kwa wakati wote, na kuendesha mafanikio yake, lakini wakati hawapati chochote cha kweli kwa juhudi zao, WMF inawalisha wafanyakazi wake kwa madarasa ya kupika, masaji na ushirika wa mazoezi.""" Aina mbalimbali za migogoro ya maslahi na uhariri wenye shida na wafadhili wakubwa kwa Wikimedia Foundation wamekuwa wakibishana. "Mwaka 2017, Mkurugenzi Mtendaji wa WMF aliita marufuku ya uhamiaji ya Rais wa Marekani Donald Trump ""kushambulia"" ""maono"" ya Wikipedia." "Mkurugenzi wa Bodi ya WMF, alielezea kwa kauli mbiu, akimaliza kwa kusema, ""Kama harakati, tuna uwezo wa kuwa na athari kubwa duniani.""" Hiyo si ya upande wowote, hiyo ni nguvu ya mabadiliko na mabadiliko daima ni ya kisiasa". "Mshauri mkuu wa muda wa WMF alisema: ""Leo, Wikimedia Foundation imejiunga na mashirika zaidi ya 90 mengine katika kuwasilisha amicus brief katika Jimbo la Washington dhidi ya Trump, kwa sasa mbele ya Mahakama ya Rufaa ya Mzunguko wa Tisa ya Marekani." Hata hivyo, Wikipedia ni msaidizi wa shauku ya udhibiti wa serikali kuhusu "kukanusha Holocaust" na kwa ujumla udhibiti chochote kinachoonekana kama maoni ya "kulia kabisa", hoja, na ukweli, kama ilivyojadiliwa katika sehemu za baadaye. Mnamo 2020, kwa kushirikiana na ghasia za George Floyd, Wikimedia Foundation iliacha udanganyifu wowote wa "Mtazamo wa Neutral" na kujitangaza kuwa shirika la propaganda ya wanaharakati. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""Leo, na kila siku, Wikimedia Foundation inasimama kwa msaada wa haki ya kikabila na harakati ya Black Lives.""" [...] Kuhusu masuala haya, hakuna msimamo wa kutokuwamo. [...] zaidi ya tovuti. [...] hutuhimiza sisi sote kuunda kile tunachoelewa juu ya ulimwengu wetu". Upendeleo wa kushoto, wa kisiasa sahihi, na wa kupambana na Wazungu Kwa nini Wikipedia ina upendeleo huu umejadiliwa. "Ufafanuzi mmoja ni kwamba kwa kuwa yaliyomo huamuliwa kwa kura ya wengi na wasio wataalamu, itaathiriwa sana na maoni yaliyopendekezwa na vyombo vya habari vya kushoto, badala ya maoni ambayo yanaweza kupatikana kati ya wataalamu na katika fasihi ya kisayansi. """ Utamaduni wa Marxism na usahihi wa kisiasa ni maelezo mengine. Walikuwa na ushawishi mkubwa katika vyuo vikuu, vyombo vya habari, na mahali pengine, na uwezekano wa kiwango fulani kuathiri waandishi wengi wa Wikipedia. Kuhusu vyanzo, Wikipedia hufanya tofauti kati ya "vyanzo vya msingi" (kuonwa kuwa vibaya) na "vyanzo vya sekondari" (kuonwa kuwa vizuri). Ingawa tofauti kama hiyo inaweza kuwa na maana katika baadhi ya nyanja za kitaaluma (na ambapo maneno hayo yalitengenezwa na kutumiwa), tofauti kama hiyo mara nyingi ni ya kutiliwa shaka na yenye shida kuhusu, kwa mfano, habari za hivi karibuni, kwani ni nadra sana kuwa na hakiki za kitaaluma za "kiwili". Wikipedia hutatua hili kwa kutaja kile ambacho kwa kweli ni vipande vya maoni au maoni ya kibinafsi katika vyombo vya habari vya kawaida (na mara nyingi hazitaja vyanzo vya madai na maoni), kwa kweli kudai kwamba vyanzo hivi ni vya kuaminika, "vyanzo vya sekondari." Vyanzo visivyo sahihi kisiasa havijumuishiwa kama "vyanzo vya msingi" au vinginevyo "visivyoaminika". "Vyanzo vya msingi" havipunguzwi kulingana na sheria za Wikipedia, tu vinakatazwa, lakini hii hupuuzwa ikiwa chanzo ni kisicho sahihi kisiasa. Wikipedia mara nyingi inakataza watu binafsi na mashirika yasiyo sahihi kisiasa kueleza maoni yao juu yao wenyewe, hata kama moja tu ya maoni kadhaa yanayowezekana, hata katika makala zilizowekwa wakfu kwa kuelezea watu na mashirika kama hayo, na hii licha ya sheria kama vile "Biografia za Watu walio hai" ambazo zinasema kwamba katika makala kama hizo "vyanzo vya msingi" vinavyoelezwa vinaweza kutajwa. Sababu nyingine inayodhaniwa ya kuondoa vyanzo visivyo sahihi kisiasa ni kwamba vinadhaniwa kuwa havichunguzi "usahihi wa mambo". """Hakuna ushahidi wa kwamba vyanzo vilivyoruhusiwa vya kisiasa vinafanya ukaguzi wa ukweli na kwamba vyanzo visivyooruhusiwa, visivyo sahihi kisiasa havifanyi ukaguzi wa ukweli." Vyombo vya habari vyenye msimamo sahihi wa kisiasa mara nyingi havitoi uthibitisho wowote wa kuunga mkono madai na maoni yaliyoelezwa hapo. Wikipedia ina sera kali zaidi ya kweli juu ya chochote kinachoonekana kuwa "kulia sana" kuliko hata juu ya dikteta za Kikomunisti na vyombo vya habari vyao vilivyoongozwa na serikali na vilivyofichwa, ambavyo vinaweza kunukuliwa katika Wikipedia juu ya masuala kama vile nafasi rasmi za serikali ya Kikomunisti na maelezo ya kibinafsi. Pia kuhusu maoni ya kawaida ya mrengo wa kulia kuna upendeleo na udhibiti, ingawa kwa kiasi fulani chini ya ukali. Kwa mfano, Breitbart imekuwa angalau sehemu marufuku katika Wikipedia kama madai <unk> chanzo cha kutoaminika<unk>. Breitbart imechapisha makala nyingi muhimu sana kwenye Wikipedia. Kwa mfano, Breitbart imeelezea uhariri wa mara kwa mara kwenye makala ya Antifa na wa kushoto, wafuasi wa Antifa, na au wanachama mashuhuri wa uburudani wa Wikipedia ili kupunguza au kudhibiti kutaja matumizi ya vurugu ya Antifa, ubaguzi wa kigaidi wa Antifa, na mambo mengine hasi. Ukosoaji umeendelea, ikiwa ni pamoja na aina mbalimbali za udhibiti na kuficha, viwango viwili, na matatizo mengine mbalimbali. Wikipedia ilikataza gazeti la Uingereza la Daily Mail, ambalo ni gazeti la pili kwa ukubwa nchini Uingereza, kutumiwa kama chanzo cha habari baada ya kura ya watu 77. Gazeti hilo lilidaiwa kuwa lisiloaminika, lakini hakuna takwimu zilizotolewa kuunga mkono madai hayo. "Daily Mail iliripoti kuwa ""mashambulizi hayo yalifanyika kabla ya gazeti hilo kuorodheshwa kwa tuzo 15 katika tuzo za British Press Awards, ambazo ni tuzo za Oscar za sekta ya habari.""" (Kwa kweli, kama tutakavyoona, gazeti la Mail lina rekodi yenye kustaajabisha ya usahihi.) "Kwa kushangaza, ingawa sasa imepiga marufuku gazeti hili, tovuti hiyo bado inafurahi kutumia vyombo vya propaganda vya serikali vya wengi wa udikteta wa kushoto wa kikatili na wa kipekee ulimwenguni kama chanzo cha habari. """ Katika 2015, MailOnline, tovuti ya dada yetu, ilichapisha zaidi ya hadithi milioni nusu; IPSO ilikubali malalamiko dhidi ya mbili kati yao. Kwa kulinganisha, makala tano katika The Times zilikuwa na malalamiko ya aina moja au nyingine, pamoja na nne katika Daily Express, na kumi zilizochapishwa na kundi la Telegraph. <unk> Katika 2020, muda mfupi kabla ya uchaguzi wa urais wa Marekani, Fox News ilikataliwa kama chanzo cha mada za kisiasa na sayansi za "mashindano." Katika miaka ya awali, tovuti nyingine mbalimbali kubwa za mrengo wa kulia zilikuwa zimepigwa marufuku kama vyanzo, licha ya kutokuwa "kushoto sana". "Kama inakuja kwa masuala nyeti zaidi, kama vile jamii na akili, Wikipedia tu censors hata kitaaluma, wenzao-kukaguliwa, makala ya pili ya ukaguzi, kama wao si kusaidia maoni ya kisiasa sahihi. """ Kinyume chake, ni rahisi sana kuendeleza maoni sahihi kisiasa kwa kutumia vyanzo visivyo sahihi, au hata vilivyopotoshwa. WikiIslam katika makala muhimu ilisema kwamba "Katika Wikipedia, makala zinazohusiana na Uislamu mara nyingi zinaharibiwa na wahariri wa pro-Uislamu. Mfano wa tukio hili ni tukio la 2010 ambapo mhariri mwenye zaidi ya marekebisho 67,000 alikamatwa akiongeza habari bandia kwa makusudi katika makala. Jagged 85 alikuwa akihariri huko kwa miaka mitano, na marekebisho yake yasiyo sahihi na makala zimerudishwa kote kwenye mtandao na tovuti zingine ambazo hutumia Wikipedia kama chanzo. """Mengi ya juhudi zake pia zilikuwa zimezingatia kupuuza mafanikio ya wasio Waislamu (hasa Wazungu) katika mada mbalimbali, na tena, ililenga hasa sayansi... Kwa michango kwa zaidi ya makala 8,100 tofauti, ni uwezekano mdogo kwamba matoleo yote ya Jagged 85 yatatengenezwa." Hali ya kisiasa nchini Marekani, kwa mfano, imekuwa polarized zaidi, na kushoto kuwa zaidi radical na kusonga zaidi kushoto, na uhamiaji wa wingi na kuongezeka kwa utofauti wa kikabila kama sababu kuu argued, kama ilivyojadiliwa katika makala juu ya Great Awakening. Hii inaonyeshwa katika Wikipedia ya kushoto, na kuongezeka kwa radicalization ya maudhui ya kisiasa, na historia ya makala mara nyingi inaonyesha kwamba matoleo ya zamani ya makala yalikuwa na usawa zaidi. Radicalization hii ni kawaida ya ubora wa chini, kama vile kwa kuondoa makala ya hoja za kutofautiana na kwa kuongeza jina-kuita, ad hominem, na hatia kwa ushirika. "Mwanzoni mwa mwaka 2020, mwanzilishi mwenza wa Wikipedia Larry Sanger alisema kuwa mradi huo umeacha utatuzi wake na sasa ulikuwa ""umepotoka sana.""Kama moja ya mifano kadhaa, alionyesha na kulinganisha viwango viwili kuhusu viingilio vya marais wa Marekani Barack Obama na Donald Trump." Maoni mabaya yalitia ndani pia makala za kisayansi. "Kwa hali yoyote, wakati Establishment (au labda tu Establishment kushoto) ni umoja juu ya mtazamo fulani wa utata wa kisayansi, basi kwamba ni mtazamo kwamba ni kuchukuliwa kwa uhakika, na mara nyingi aggressively alidai, na Wikipedia. """ "Wiki hii ni wakati wa Wikipedia kuamua kuwa ni ""neutral"" na kuamua kuwa ni ""neutral"" na ""neutral"" ni ""neutral.""" "Kama ni lazima, wanapaswa kukubali kwamba wamebadilisha neno hilo kwa njia ambayo inafanya kuwa halipatani kabisa na dhana yake ya awali ya ""utatu,"" ambayo ni ya kawaida na ya kawaida." Bila shaka, ni vigumu kwa waandishi wa Wikipedia kukubali jambo lolote kama hilo; wao huishi katika ulimwengu wa kuwaziwa ambao wao wenyewe wameufanyiza". Mkakati wa timu ya kuhariri Ukosoaji mwingine dhidi ya "mtazamo wa kutokuwamo" katika makala ni uwepo wa propaganda ya utaratibu na makundi yaliyopangwa. Shughuli za propaganda za vikundi hivyo vilivyoandaliwa zaweza kuwa wazi au siri. "Fox News iliripoti mwaka 2013 kwamba ""Vyuo vikuu kumi na tano, ikiwa ni pamoja na shule za Ivy League, vinatoa mikopo ya chuo kikuu kwa wanafunzi ambao wataingiza mawazo ya wanawake katika tovuti maarufu ya Wikipedia... wanajali zaidi kuifanya iwe sahihi kisiasa kuliko ukweli sahihi.""" Mwaka 2017, taasisi kadhaa zilikuwa zikikaribisha matukio ya Wikipedia <unk>Edit-a-thon<unk> ili kuendeleza maoni ya wanawake katika makala za Wikipedia. Mwaka 2017, profesa mmoja wa chuo kikuu cha Berkeley alishutumiwa wakati wanafunzi wake walipounda makala za Wikipedia zilizopinga Trump, zikiwa na vikwazo vya kina juu ya sera za mazingira za Trump. "Mwaka 2020, wakati wa ghasia za George Floyd, Wikipedia ilibuni ""Black Lives Matter"" na kuunganisha na shirika la kushoto la Black Lives Matter." "WikiProject" imekosolewa kama kuandaa na kukuza maoni ya (kando) ya kushoto katika Wikipedia. "Mfano wa ""kufichwa"" zaidi ni makala zinazohusiana na Pakistan, ambazo katika 2015 zilidaiwa kuwa zimedanganywa kwa utaratibu, labda na mashirika ya serikali, na makala zinazohusiana na Cherokee, ambazo katika 2013 zilidaiwa kuwa zimedanganywa kwa utaratibu, labda na wanaharakati wa Cherokee." Uchunguzi wa mwaka 2017 uligundua mabadiliko 7,200 kwenye Wikipedia tangu mwaka 2014 yaliyofanywa na watu wanaotumia anwani za IP za serikali ya Canada. Hii ni pamoja na tu si logged katika watumiaji, ambao hivyo kufunuliwa anwani zao za IP. "Mwaka 2013, kampuni ya mamilioni ya dola iligunduliwa kuwa ""iliunda, kuhariri, au kudumisha maelfu kadhaa ya makala za Wikipedia kwa wateja waliolipa kwa kutumia safu ya hali ya juu ya akaunti za watumiaji zilizofichwa.""" Mashtaka ya uhariri wa kulipwa kwa kiwango kikubwa yameendelea baada ya hili. Njia rahisi ya kuhariri kwa timu ni kutumia orodha ya barua ya siri ili kuajiri wapiga kura kwa siri ili "kufanikiwa" kura mbalimbali za Wikipedia juu ya masuala kama vile maudhui ya makala. Angalia makala juu ya hasbara na sehemu ya "Viungo vya nje" kuhusu juhudi kubwa za Israeli na Kiyahudi kudhibiti maudhui ya Wikipedia. Wengi siri kupangwa timu uhariri pengine kamwe kugundua, kwa sehemu kutokana na wengi Wikipedia wahariri kuwa bila jina. Hata kama ni hivyo na hata kama inaweza kuthibitishwa, basi sheria hazijulikani kuhusu kama inaruhusiwa. Uhariri wa timu uliopangwa waziwazi unaotangaza maoni sahihi ya kisiasa kama vile uwanamke haujaruhusiwa. "Makala za ""kuchagua"" na ""kuchagua"" ni vikwazo vya Wikipedia kwa madai ya kuwa na usawa na sahihi, hasa zimetumika kwa mada nyeti za kisiasa, ikiwa ni pamoja na mada za sayansi zinazohusiana sana na hii." Mbali na upendeleo wa kushoto kwa ujumla, kuna baadhi ya mada zinazohusiana na siasa ambazo ni upendeleo zaidi kuliko nyingine. Hii inatumika hasa kwa mada zote za "kulia sana", ambazo mara nyingi zimeandikwa kutoka kwa mtazamo wa kukosoa tu na mara nyingi zina maelezo mengi ya watu wa nyasi na makosa. Hii inaweza kulinganishwa na mada za "kushoto kabisa", ambazo zinaweza kujumuisha baadhi ya ukosoaji, lakini ambazo, angalau, zinajumuisha maoni mengi na "kushoto kabisa" wenyewe, pamoja na majibu ya ukosoaji. "Mashirika ya ""pro-White"" mara nyingi hufafanuliwa kwa majina kama vile ""White supremacist"" na ""hate group,"" wakati majina kama hayo hayatumiki kwa mashirika ya maslahi maalum yanayoendeleza maslahi ya vikundi visivyo vya wazungu." "Hakuna makala dhidi ya wazungu, kama vile ""White Studies"" na ""White Privilege,"" bila makala zinazolingana kwa makundi mengine, licha ya baadhi kuwa na ushawishi mkubwa na kwa wastani kuwa tajiri kuliko wazungu, kama vile Wayahudi." Karibu makala zote zinazohusiana na yale Maangamizi Makubwa hufafanua tu maoni ya sasa "ya kawaida" ya kisiasa sahihi, zikipuuza madai tofauti-tofauti sana yaliyofanywa pia na "shahidi" na "waungamaji" wa kisiasa sahihi. Makala chache zimewekwa wakfu kwa kutaja maoni hasi tu juu ya "kukanusha yale Maangamizi Makubwa". Kwa ujumla, makala zote zinazohusiana na Ujerumani ya Kisoshalisti ya Kitaifa zina mtazamo mbaya sana, mara nyingi unaathiriwa na maoni sahihi ya kisiasa juu ya Holocaust, Lebensraum, jamii ya mabwana, na watu wa chini, na vile vile maoni yasiyo ya marekebisho juu ya sababu za Vita vya Ulimwengu. Kinyume chake, mara nyingi ukatili mbalimbali wa Muungano hautajwa, hupunguzwa, na/au huelezwa kwa njia yenye kupotosha. Tazama sehemu "Organized team editing" kuhusu timu zilizopangwa kuunda makala zenye upendeleo. Mashirika ya maslahi maalum kwa kawaida yanaweza kutawala makala yao wenyewe na kuathiri wengine wengi, ikiwa yanachukuliwa kuwa angalau kidogo ya kushoto na sahihi kisiasa. Kwa mfano, mashirika ya maslahi maalum kama vile SPLC na ADL yana makala zinazotumia maoni mengi ya upinzani na katika Wikipedia wenyewe huchukuliwa kuwa vyanzo vya kuaminika sana ambavyo vinaweza kutajwa kila mahali katika Wikipedia kuhusu maoni yao yasiyoungwa mkono juu ya wengine. Kwa ujumla, vikundi maalum vya maslahi, au harakati zinazoonekana kuwa za kushoto na sahihi kisiasa, mara nyingi zinaweza kutawala makala ambazo zinahisi sana na ambazo hazina vikundi maalum vya maslahi (au haziruhusiwi kupinga vikundi maalum vya maslahi). Kwa hiyo, mada kama vile ushoga mara nyingi huongozwa na wafuasi, bila, chache, au tu watu wa nyasi ukosoaji kuruhusiwa. Makala nyingine, kama vile makala juu ya psychoanalysis, inaweza kujumuisha baadhi ya ukosoaji, lakini mara nyingi kushangaza kidogo ikilinganishwa na ukosefu wa msaada wa empirical na ukosoaji katika fasihi ya kisayansi. Katika kurasa za majadiliano ya makala zenye hisia za kisiasa, mara nyingi kuna ukosoaji na maoni mbalimbali sahihi ambayo huondolewa katika makala, ikiwa hayana usahihi wa kisiasa. makala zote zinazohusiana na jamii zaidi au chini ya wazi zinaonyesha kwamba jamii ni ujenzi wa kijamii na kwamba tofauti zote za kikundi ni kwa sababu ya mambo yasiyo ya maumbile, licha ya kutokubaliana kwa kiwango kikubwa kati ya wanasayansi. Utafiti mwingi mpya kuhusu tofauti za kikundi cha urithi haujatajwa hata kidogo au unaelezwa kimakosa. Angalia Wikipedia na RationalWiki ya mbio makala kuhusu ukosoaji wengi zaidi maalum. Kwenye sehemu ya "Viungo vya vurugu na ugaidi", angalia Uhalifu wa Chuki: Madai ya Wikipedia. "Makala kuhusu wauaji wa wingi wa kushoto kama vile Lenin na Mao zinaelezea kama maoni ya wakosoaji tu kwamba watu hawa walikuwa wakuu wa utawala.""" "Hii ni sehemu ya hali ya jumla, kwa mfano, makala juu ya Trotsky, mpendwa wa kushoto kabisa, haisemi chochote juu ya jukumu lake wakati akiwa madarakani kwa mauaji ya wingi chini ya utawala wa Kikomunisti. """ - Nazi: Neno la kudharau "Nazi" hutumiwa daima badala ya "National Socialist", licha ya kutotumia "Commie" badala ya "Komunisti", na kadhalika. - Wazuia watumiaji wakati wao kuongeza majina ya Kijerumani kwa maeneo ya zamani ya Kijerumani. "Hii ni kwa sababu ya ""maoni ya ubaguzi"" ya Ujerumani juu ya madai ya ""mashambulizi ya kijeshi ya Ujerumani dhidi ya wafungwa wa vita wa Sovieti"" na ""mashambulizi ya kijeshi ya Ujerumani dhidi ya wafungwa wa vita wa Sovieti"" na ""mashambulizi ya kijeshi dhidi ya wafungwa wa vita wa Ujerumani.""" - Mashambulizi ya Tinley Park na mashirika yanayohusiana na antifa-SPLC. - Ditlieb Felderer: Wikipedia hupuuza kuandika makala kuhusu Ditlieb Felderer, mkurugenzi mashuhuri wa Sweden. "Wikipedia haijataja kuwapo kwa ""Yahudi maarufu wa kupinga Uyahudi"" Josef Ginsburg, ambaye alikuwa mmoja wa mashahidi katika kesi za Holocaust za Ernst Zundel." - Danzig-Matzkau: kambi ya gereza kwa ajili ya wafanyakazi wa SS ambao walifanya uhalifu, ikiwa ni pamoja na dhidi ya wafungwa katika kambi za Holocaust. "Mashabiki wa ""Marxism ya Utamaduni"" wanaendelea kuendeleza makala za kitaaluma za ""Marxism ya Utamaduni"" kwenye Google Scholar." - Ukosoaji wa Talmud - Angalia Ukosoaji wa Talmud (nakala ya makala ya Wikipedia iliyofutwa). - Wayahudi na fedha - Angalia Wayahudi na fedha (nakala ya makala ya Wikipedia iliyofutwa). - Wayahudi na Ukomunisti - Angalia Wayahudi na Ukomunisti (nakali ya makala ya Wikipedia iliyofutwa). - Kiyahudi ethnocentrism - Kiyahudi supremacy Kiingereza Wikipedia ina makala juu ya Metapedia na makosa mbalimbali na vitambulisho derogatory. Hii pia inatumika kwa maelezo ya mashirika na watu binafsi, kama vile Nordic Alliance ("Nordiska förbundet"). "Mashtaka hayo yametokana na ""maoni yasiyo ya kuaminika"" ya shirika la Expo, ambalo ni shirika la Sweden linalofanana na Southern Poverty Law Center." "Wikipedia inaendelea kuwa na ""mtazamo wa upendeleo"" juu ya jamii, na ""mtazamo wa upendeleo"" juu ya jamii, na ""mtazamo wa upendeleo"" juu ya jamii, na ""mtazamo wa upendeleo"" juu ya jamii, na ""mtazamo wa upendeleo"" juu ya jamii, na ""mtazamo wa upendeleo"" juu ya jamii, na ""mtazamo wa upendeleo"" juu ya jamii." "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika makala ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya ""Mashabiki"" ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki." Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika makala ya ""Mwanzilishi wa Shirika la Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti wa Utafiti.""" "Ulinganisho wa Wikipedia na ensaiklopedia nyingine kwa usahihi, upana, na kina katika makala za kihistoria". Mapitio ya Huduma za Marejeo. 36 (1): 7 <unk> 22. "Mfano: ""Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki "Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano wa ""Mfano""Mfano wa ""Mfano""Mfano wa ""Mfano""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano""Mfano""Mfano""Mfano""Mfano ""Mfano""Mfano"" Kwa nini unamwomba akupe zawadi yako? "Hii ni kwa sababu ya ""mfano wa ""Wikipedia"" na ""Mfano wa ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia"" na ""Wikipedia""" "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika makala ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya wiki ya ""Mapendekezo ya Utamaduni"" ya Wikipedia." "Mwanamke huyo aliandika katika ukurasa wake wa Twitter: ""Mwanamke huyo alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 18 na alikuwa na umri wa miaka 30."