Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Thekohser

2017-04-25T16:12:02Z

Thekohser: reply

{{welcome}}
Just so you know - when you remove lots of content from an article, it can be mistaken for vandalism, because a lot of vandalism is blanking pages.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 11:42, 25 April 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks, I am a very experienced editor of Mediawiki sites, so that information is not a surprise to me. Anyone looking at my actual edits should be able to quickly deduce that I am not vandalizing anything. Again, thanks for the welcome! - [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 11:44, 25 April 2017 (EDT)
::I see that now. You've been here before, too. Welcome back, then.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 11:45, 25 April 2017 (EDT)
:::Yes, apparently I was blocked for making [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=651744 this suggestion]. Some months later, the admin who blocked me was himself blocked. Strange way to treat new guests. - [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 11:47, 25 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Welcome back. I don't know if remember me from Wikipedia Review (aka nobs) If I can be of any help, let me know. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 12:09, 25 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::I do indeed remember nobs! - [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 12:12, 25 April 2017 (EDT)

Wikipedia

2017-04-25T16:10:32Z

Thekohser: /* Scandals and decline */ replacing with content-working link

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|The multilingual Wikipedia home page]]
'''Wikipedia''' is an [[internet|online]] [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]] hosted and owned by the non-profit organization [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and financially supported by grants from left-leaning foundations plus an aggressive annual online fundraising drive.<ref>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_announces_tenth_annual_fundraising_campaign</ref> Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publicly by both registered and anonymous editors,<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=wMhBQ0WdjF4C&pg=PA199#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref> mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.<ref name="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref> As such, it tends to project a [[liberal]]—and, in some cases, even [[socialist]], [[Communist]], and [[Nazi]]-sympathising—worldview, which is totally at odds with conservative [[reality]] and rationality.

Wikipedia was co-founded by [[Jimbo Wales]] (an [[Atheism|atheist]], [[libertarian]], and [[objectivist]]), and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]] in 2001. The website was originally created to complement the now defunct peer-reviewed online encyclopedia [[Nupedia]] as a way for collaboration on articles. However, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts various related websites, known as "sister projects", such as ''Wikinews'' and ''Wikibooks''.

Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain [[Examples of bias in Wikipedia|systemic bias]],<ref name=howtheleft>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref> and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods.<ref name=hnn>http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437</ref> The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and [[bias]], examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libelous content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose.<ref name=hnn/> Wikipedia was also criticized for having a [[liberal bias]] in its articles about politics, despite Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy.<ref name=howtheleft/>

__TOC__

== Continuing loss of influence ==

Wikipedia's traffic level stems from its high placement in Google searches, and that many people rely upon it for quick research regarding trivial facts. However, users are turning to alternatives such as the voice-based iPhone application [[Siri]] or the Knowledge Graph display on Google search result pages of key facts about search targets.<ref name=timesindia>{{cite news|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Google-eating-into-Wikipedia-page-views/articleshow/29072825.cms?referral=PM|title=Google eating into Wikipedia page views?|work=Times of India|first=Subodh |last=Varma|date=January 20, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> Wikipedia page-views dropped by 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Wikipedia's most popular versions are leading the decline: page-views of the English Wikipedia dropped by 12 per cent, those of German version slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per cent.<ref name=timesindia/>

In addition to the number of visitors declining, there continues to be a drop in active editors as well. In August 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus [[Quora]] is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref> At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was "Wikipedia's worst nightmare".<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus Quora is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref>

== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==

Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by its own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But editors can delete, without collaboration, any text or entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of its editors.

As the contribution of volunteer editors has declined, some of the void has been replaced by paid public relations professionals. These paid editors seek to present their client companies or individuals in the best possible light. This has resulted in many articles being transformed into paid advertising pieces that take advantage of the English Wikipedia's high placement on Google search results. This chronic problem has become so severe that the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed amending its terms of service to require disclosures of paid editing conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment|title=Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment|date=February 21, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> In the competition to control content, the paid PR editors win out because they are monitoring pages as a full-time job, while editors seeking to keep content more balanced are only part-time volunteers.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</ref>}}
Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled "Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue," [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref name="wnd.com"/> In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>

Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: "''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.'' Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices have produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain "inaccuracies", leading the "Daily Mail" to dub it "Iffy-pedia".<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html</ref> The lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever-present shadow over any given piece of information. Many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

According to the style manual for the [[Associated Press]], the largest news agency in the United States, Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, but the hyperlinks in articles may be helpful as sources.

Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and mundane topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there were more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> As of February 2014, there are more than 4.4 million "content" pages, many of which lack educational value. On important topics, the information is often misleading due to the unchecked, [[Wikipedia#Leftist bias|systematic liberal bias]] that dominates Wikipedia.

==Origins==
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> The majority owner of Boomis had lost his fortune in a lawsuit, and the Wikipedia volunteers feared that if all of Boomis' assets were seized, ownership of Wikipedia would be transferred. In 2003, Jimbo Wales addressed this risk by founding the Wikimedia Foundation to take control of Wikipedia's assets. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> It also gives out millions of dollars in grants each year to liberal causes that recruit liberals to edit Wikipedia so as to reflect their biases.

== Leftist bias ==

{{See also|Leftist roots of Wikipedia}}

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in the proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262</ref>

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:
{{cquote|There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s ''The Wikipedia Revolution'', is a libertarian and [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Randian]] [[Objectivism|Objectivist]]. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and [[anarchism|anarchist]] thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a [[utopia]]n ideal that human beings are more prone to [[altruism]] rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipedia, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>}}

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The atheist philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]

Wikipedia also has an automatic Wikimedia Commons editing software called "Commonist," which allows the user to upload multiple files at once. The symbol of [[communism]] - the "hammer and sickle" of the leftist ideology which murdered millions in the former [[Soviet Union]] - is featured prominently on the instruction page as well as the tags that mark each uploaded image.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commonist</ref>

=== Research ===

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]] and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]] which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/liberal bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref name="frontpagemag.com">[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref name="frontpagemag.com"/></blockquote>

==Purported "Tertiary" Source and Arbitrary Standards==
Wikipedia purports to be a "tertiary" source, relying on edited work from reputable sources. The policy is meant to build on the work of qualified editors of secondary sources. Some accuse Wikipedia, therefore, of relying on [[hearsay]], and discouraging the application of [[logic]] and new development of new insights. The result is an agglomeration of reheated "consensus" with little or no intellectual merit of its own; in particular, it is impossible to challenge orthodoxy, received wisdom or commonly held misconceptions through the Wikipedia system, no matter how factually incorrect those orthodoxies might be.

Supporters of Wikipedia would claim that relying on secondary sources encourages reliability and objectivity. However, there are cases of Wikipedia applying it's standards arbitrarily. For example, the case of Wikipedia editor "Yeoberry" (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about "Icons" on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source and so he needed to find reliable secondary sources. On April 4, 2013, Yeoberry again added largely the same material, this time citing a newly published academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal. The information was again removed, with editors, at least some of whom religiously affiliated with the organization supporting icons, claiming the editor had a "COI" (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted to his edition, he was charged with "edit warring." When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely and then his access to his own talk page was also blocked.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=548948980#Proposal:_Indefinite_Block</ref>

Wikipedia articles, especially on controversial or political and religious topics, are often guarded by editors who have an interest in slanting the content of the article, may have no formal education on the topic, and can find a so-called reason for suppressing the information they want to suppress. Editors can claim the source is unreliable (as they interpret that); that information gives "UNDUE" weight to the topic the information is about; peer-reviewed, academic articles written by scholars can be removed by editors if, in the opinion of an editor, the view expressed is "Fringe" or if the contributor has a "COI" (conflict of interest) if he's the author of the secondary source or has an advanced education or other interest in the topic; etc. Editors with advanced education in a topic, citing sources from peer-reviewed journals, can have their contributions deleted and their participation prohibited if a few other editors, without such qualification but with enough knowledge of the Wikipedia jargon, decide to suppress him or her.

Originally, encyclopedias were written by scholars, either by one or a few whose knowledge is considered "encyclopedic" (i.e. very broad) or each article is written by an expert in the field. But in Wikipedia, expertise in a given field can disqualify one from contributing in that field resulting in Wikipedia being accused of being a "[[idiocracy]]".

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in [[venture capital]]. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/|title=Wikipedia: Special Treatment for Wikia and some other Wikis|author=Nik Cubrilovic|date=April 28, 2007|accessdate=July 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref name="theregister.co.uk"/>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

For the past few years, Wikipedia has added banners begging for money from its viewers. The site claims to be in need of more funding, but in fact it is "awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating."<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?], 20 December 2012</ref>

Wikipedia, a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, is used also by services like WikiExperts.us, which is declared as not being affiliated with it.
WikiExperts.us accepts money to write Wikipedia entries for businesses and is included in American business ventures of Alex Konanykhin, the Former Russian oligarch, who has been wanted in Russia since Yeltsin’s days to face charges relating to embezzlement and financial fraud.<ref>{{cite web |title='Not terrorists': Hysteria over MH17 fails to take account of both law and facts |author=Roslyn Fuller |date=July 25, 2014 |accessdate=July 26, 2014 |url=http://rt.com/op-edge/175496-hysteria-mh17-ukraine-facts-terrorists/}}</ref>

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

Further evidence of the decline in Wikipedia is that the number of editors who voted in the 2012 Arbitration Committee elections has dropped to 858.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#Turnout|title=Arbitration Commitee Elections December 2012|accessdate=December 18, 2012}}</ref> For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low. Active editors are discouraged from voting because all voters are subject to automatic investigation and invasion of their privacy to determine if they are "sockpuppets" of other voters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.is/6tiF8|title=Wikipedia's "scrutineers" snoop on living arrangements of contributors|work=Examiner|first=Greg|last=Kohs|date=December 11, 2013|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref>

==Shane Fitzgerald Hoax==

After the death of composer [[Maurice Jarre]], a Wikipedia editor named Shane Fitzgerald attached a quote to Jarre's page: "One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack. Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head, that only I can hear."<ref>http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_maurice_jarre_wikipedia_hoax/</ref> The words are poetic, yet were never spoken by Jarre, and meant to appeal to news journalists seeking information. It was cited in many newspapers as a genuine quote before its removal.<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30699302/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/student-hoaxes-worlds-media-wikipedia/#.WLNTW5ArLrc</ref>

Had Fitzgerald not confessed to the lie and informed major newspapers, it is likely that the quote would have been cited to one of them. In the days following, only one newspaper (''[[The Guardian]]'') publicly apologized for the use of a source that can be a tool for duping the public.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/may/04/journalism-obituaries-shane-fitzgerald</ref> Other newspapers, such as the [[Washington Post]], simply deleted their articles from online archives.

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref> Wales' booking agent for speaking engagements claims that Wales is "the founder" of Wikipedia, which results in surprised clients when that claim is challenged. The false "founder" claim is on Wales' webpage.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://jimmywales.com/about-jimmy/|title=About Jimmy|accessdate=February 6, 2015}}</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref name="User:Essjay/Letter">[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref name="Seigenthaler's Op-Eds">[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist [[Daniel Brandt]], a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self-regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self-regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref name="User:Essjay/Letter"/> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref name="Seigenthaler's Op-Eds"/>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal—the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed, many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref name="en.wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&st=0&p=36485&mode=linear#entry36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that Jimbo Wales, alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder Jimbo Wales allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16, 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media.<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>
==Robert Clark Young revenge edits==
From 2006 to 2013, Robert Clark Young, an author who had only published one novel to mixed reviews, edited Wikipedia extensively with 13,000 edits under username "Qworty." He engaged in aggressive behavior making revenge edits to biographical articles of his rival authors and other people against whom he held grudges. He also puffed up his own Wikipedia autobiography, and repeatedly denied that he was connected to Young. He also created other single purpose accounts to further his campaign.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Geri_Litton|title=Geri Litton sockpuppet investigation|date=2007|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qworty/Archive|title=Quorty sockpuppet inviestigant|date=2013|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref> Only after his true identity was revealed in a salon.com article,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> was Young banned<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> and efforts made to reverse his vindictive edits. In essence, he would remove favorable items from the biographies of his enemies or nominate them for deletion. The salon.com article concluded,
<blockquote>But Qworty’s example tells us that even when people call attention to a rogue editor, even when that editor’s temper tantrums come to the attention of the founder of Wikipedia, it’s quite possible that no action will be taken.</blockquote>

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref name="wikipedia-watch.org">http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref name="wikipedia-watch.org"/><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by the user to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

However, beginning June 15, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation began transitioning content on Wikipedia to be dual licensed under both the GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes</ref>

==Cyberbullying==
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref><ref name="ABCLocal">[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com]</ref><ref name="LATimes2">{{cite news |title=Student arrested for violent threats on Wikipedia |first= |last= |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/04/wiki.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571abd811970b |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=29 April 2008}}</ref> An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,<ref name="LATimes" /><ref name="ABCLocal" /><ref name="LATimes2" /> and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_baef01f3-e56f-52e1-b9af-e90eb83e811b.html|title=Teen charged after threat to school on Wikipedia|date=31 October 2006|agency=Associated Press |publisher=Pantagraph.com|accessdate=26 January 2011|location=Bloomington, IL}}</ref>
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by [[atheism|atheists]] and [[entrepreneur]] Jimmy Wales and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref>

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]
== Trademarks and domain names ==
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) uses the licensing of its trademarks as a tool to control local chapters. Although each local chapter is in theory an autonomous organization, each chapter signs an contract with the WMF as a condition for using its trademarks. The WMF also tried to stake out control over many domain names that contain the word "wiki" including "[[wikileaks]]". WikiLeaks and Wikipedia have no affiliation with each other. ("Wiki" describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia |title=Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia |work=Wikipedia |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wiki-giants-on-a-collision-course-over-shared-name-2065561.html |title=Wiki giants on a collision course over shared name |last1=Rawlinson |first1=Kevin |first2=Tom |last2=Peck |date=30 August 2010 |work=The Independent |location=London |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.<ref name=wikia>{{cite web |url=http://www.wikia.com/Press:Wikia_Does_Not_Own_Wikileaks_Domain_Names |title=Press:Wikia Does Not Own Wikileaks Domain Names |work=[[Wikia]] |publisher=[[Wikia]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia started to transfer those domain names to wikileaks on June 14, 2007, but the transfer was never completed, and Wikia held those domain names when the "Wikileaks scandal" broke.<ref name=wikia/>

== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==

"...dealing with the Wikipedians is like walking into a mental hospital: the floors are carpeted, the walls are nicely padded, but you know there’s a pretty good chance at any given moment one of the inmates will pick up a knife.” - quote from a ''[[New York Times]]'' article on Wikipedia written by the journalist and author Judith Newman<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/fashion/Wikipedia-Judith-Newman.html?smid=pl-share Wikipedia-Mania: Wikipedia, What Does Judith Newman Have to Do to Get a Page?]</ref>

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

Jimmy Wales said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.<ref>[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]</ref>

Seth Meyers noted on his ''Late Night'' program, "Wikipedia is now accepting donations using the online currency Bitcoin. So now you can support information you're not sure is true with currency you're not sure is money."<ref>http://www.thespec.com/living-story/4733681-tuesdayfile/ Retrieved August 8, 2014</ref>

When obscure author [[Patrick Modiano]] was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in October 2014, few journalists knew much about him. The person updating his Wikipedia biography to reflect the prize added this warning to the article, "To the Reporter Now Copying From Wikipedia: Be careful boy. Primary sources are still best for journos."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/09/nobel_prize_winner_patrick_modiano_s_wikipedia_page_changed_to_add_note.html|title=A Reminder to Journalists Writing About the New Nobel Prize Winner, From Wikipedia|first=Forrest |last=Wickman|date=October 9, 2014|work=Slate|accessdate=October 10, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Modiano&diff=prev&oldid=628920987</ref>
==Unbiased editor recruitment==
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. That is true to an extent,but its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the "24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change" conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to recruit more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.

Wikipedia editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch Sarah Stierch] was the volunteer moderator of the Gender Gap email list where she departed from discussing Wikipedia to freely share her negative experiences with men in her life. In fall 2011, she was hired by the WMF as a Community Fellow to work on creating a "Teahouse" for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}</ref> explained, "If you click through to the Teahouse, it’s clearly aiming to broaden female participation - just look at the pastel background and references to tea." Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, "Because so much time and energy needed to be spend during the pilot on setting up and maintaining the space, we weren't able to focus as much as we'd have liked on gender-targeted strategies for recruiting female guests and hosts. There are clearly more experiments that need to be run in order to better integrate the space with other gender gap efforts and WikiWomen's calls to actions." The WMF terminated Stierch on January 9, 2014 following complaints of her moonlighting as a paid editor.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/129466.html</ref>

On August 18, 2014, during the Congressional summer recess, the [[Cato Institute]] and Wikimedia DC jointly conducted a seminar to encourage Congressional staff members to edit Wikipedia about pending legislation and policy issues.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/18/a-call-to-edit-congress-and-wikipedia-told-to-peacefully-co-exist/|title=A call to edit: Congress and Wikipedia told to peacefully co-exist|first=Nancy|last=Scola|date=August 18, 2014|accessdate=August 22, 2014|work=Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.c-span.org/video/?321030-1/discussion-wikipedia-government-transparency|date=August 18, 2014|accessdate=August 22, 2014|title=Wikipedia and Congress|work=C-SPAN}}</ref> The panel discussion included Michelle Newby, a full-time Cato employee who edits Wikipedia as a part of her job. She promised to work with any Congressional Staff that would be interested in editing.

==Flaws in governance structure==
Perhaps Wikipedia's greatest structural problem is Jimmy Wales' inability to remove himself from the process. He calls himself a "God-King" and rules the site with the style of [[monarchy]], robbing it of its potential to achieve some form of [[Jeffersonian]] [[democracy]] and accountability. Wales once speculated that all significant productivity emerged from his circle of a few hundred personal friends while the rest of the world groped along doing only spelling and punctuation mark corrections and other trivial modifications. The computer programmer and activist Aaron Swartz did a proper analysis and showed that the productivity was the results of many, many thousands of anonymous users. Swartz later committed [[suicide]].

Wales delegated the run-of-the-mill decision-marking to a hand-picked group he called the Arbitration Committee. They take months to make any decisions and dole out multi-month to multi-year or permanent intervention solutions. A reputable encyclopedia usually simply chooses an Editor-in-Chief, i.e. one reputable, mature and experienced person with one mind to make high-quality decisions rapidly and perhaps dispense moderate penalties when needed. Sanger served as such, but Wales, an [[Objectivist]] economics major and former stock options trader, opted to drastically reduce his salary when it became clear that the project would be a success, thus forcing him out. Wales has since been making a living, in part, by promoting his notions of governance of Internet-based projects, often emphasizing that users should remain anonymous and thus without any serious form of credential or reputation.

The problems are in the structure and in the personality flaws of Wales himself. Wales takes advantage of this vast pool of free labor to hunt his perceived enemies, somewhat in the style of [[L. Ron Hubbard]] or other such supposed founders of movements.{{fact}}

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])
*[[Deletionpedia]]
*[[Essay:Wikipedia and Citizendium]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6 December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006
*[http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/ Wikipedia’s Seven Worst Moments] by Charlie Nash, ''Breitbart News'', July 5, 2016.

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/01/2013-is-starting-off-to-be-bad-year-for.html Study shows that the world's biggest pro-evolution website is driving away newcomer editors! Also, video shows evolutionists at Wikipedia are clowns!]
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipediocracy]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies Wikipedia's List of Wikipedia controversies]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]

Jimmy Wales

2017-04-25T16:00:20Z

Thekohser: Flop

[[Image:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheism|atheist]] Jimmy Wales]]
'''Jimmy Donal Wales''' (7 August 1966 in [[Huntsville, Alabama|Huntsville]]) is the co-founder of the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|politically left]] online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]] and self-described [[libertarian]]. Jimmy Wales claims to be an [[Objectivism|objectivist]] who follows the philosophy of [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Ayn Rand]]. His favorite book is Rand's ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''.<ref>[http://qanda.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1042 Interview with Jimmy Wales conducted by Brian Lamb], C-SPAN Transcript, September 25, 2005.</ref> Wales told an interviewer in ''Reason'' magazine, "One can't understand my ideas about Wikipedia without understanding [[Hayek]]...Wales is fleshing out and bringing to life Hayek's insights about the power of decentralized knowledge gathering, the surprising strength of communities bound only by reputation, and the fluidity of self-governance." <ref>[http://reason.com/news/show/119689.html Wikipedia and Beyond],
Jimmy Wales' sprawling vision, Katherine Mangu-Ward, ''Reasononline.com'', June 2007.</ref> These ideas that Wales claims to follow were put forward in Hayek's essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society". However, there is thin evidence for his being a true follower of Hayek politically given the radical [[leftist]] agenda of Wales close confidants in control of Wikipedia.<ref name="Left_in_Control_of_Wikipedia">{{cite news
|first=Jim
|last=Davis
|title=Left in Control of Wikipedia
|url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/13/212015.shtml?s=lh
|work=
|publisher=[[NewsMax]]
|date=May 14, 2007
|accessdate=2007-10-04}}</ref> Wales describes himself as a [[communitarianism|communitarian]] (someone who could be said to be "radical center", meaning they agree with the left on issues relating to the economy, such as the need for environmental protection and public education, but not on cultural issues, but instead generally agree with the right or conservatives on cultural issues, such as support for character education and faith-based programs).<ref name="Left_in_Control_of_Wikipedia"/> The revisions have since been deleted by liberal Wikipedia administrators wishing to protect Jimmy's public image.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=238013334&oldid=366216764</ref> Editors trying to make this point in Wikipedia are routinely [[politically profiled|profiled]], stalked, harassed, slandered, and banned. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref>

Jimmy Wales became a millionaire{{fact}} by trading commodity options; before funding Wikipedia, he funded Bomis Inc. in 1996, which contained pornographic material.<ref>http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880</ref> Bomis produced two unsuccessful search engines: "Search Bastard" and "3Apes", which went out of their way to insult users with obscenities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com/2014/12/before-wikipedia-search-bastard-and.html|title=Before Wikipedia: Search Bastard and 3Apes |date=December 23, 2014|accessdate=December 24, 2014}} Search Bastard existed from 2000 to 2006.</ref> Besides funding the non-profit Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales also funded the for-profit [[Wikia]], a company that provides wiki services for businesses and organizations.

Wales was caught editing his own profile on Wikipedia in a bit of a scandal in an effort to downplay [[Larry Sanger]]'s role in the company and distance himself from his Bomis past.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,69880,00.html ''Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio''] Wired. Accessed 17 March 2008</ref>

Wales has accepted a new job as executive director of strategy and digital community for [[The People’s Operator]] (TPO), a cell phone startup company with ties to the British [[Labour Party]]. Wales owns 10% of the new company. TPO has struggled to gain subscribers in the UK and the United States,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/11156163/Wikipedia-founder-to-float-mobile-phone-company.html|title=
Wikipedia founder to float mobile phone company|first=Graham|last=Ruddick|work=The Telegraph|date=October 11, 2014|accessdate=October 14, 2014}}</ref> and it has lost over 90% of its market capitalization.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/the-peoples-floperator|title=
The People's Floperator|first=Steven|last=Frazer|work=Shares Magazine|date=September 30, 2016|accessdate=April 25, 2017}}</ref>

==Controversies==

In early October 2005, former [[Robert F. Kennedy]] aide and retired journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]] contacted Wales about false and libelous information in his Wikipedia biographical entry. [[Wikipedia#Second casualty: Wikipedia .22experts.22 called into question.2C the Essjay Scandal|Essjay]] got the call to deal with the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> On December 1, 2005 Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine, the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry regarding [[Daniel Brandt]],
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all... I find it hard to take him very seriously ...<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}Brandt was the victim of malicious<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=60&p=22336&mode=linear#entry22336</ref> and vile slanders placed within his Wikipedia biographical entry<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=55132392</ref> by prominent Wikipedia contributors, in violation of numerous published Wikipedia policies.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#Impugning_critics Wikipedia#Impugning critics], Conservapedia.com</ref> Four days later in a joint appearance with Seigenthaler on [[CNN]] Wales said,
{{Cquote|we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>}}
Essjay was entrusted with oversight responsibilities in the wake of the Seigenthaler scandal and wrote to a professor to persuade her to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a "reliable source,"
{{Cquote|It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before.}}

The derogatory smears against Brandt, self-cited to a certifiably "extremist source" which "should never be used" remained in Brandt's biography for one and half years, with Jimmy Wales and the WikiMedia Foundations full knowledge.

On December 14, 2012, WND columnist Judith Reisman defended heavy-metal drummer Bradlee Dean, who had been unfairly attacked on Wikipedia. She wrote,
<blockquote>"Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s creator, made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker. Wales’ cult of far-leftist volunteer editor zealots labor minute-by-minute to mislead readers who think Wikipedia’s half-truths – and worse – are a legitimate 'encyclopedia.'"</blockquote>
Wales sent an email in response claiming, "I have never been a 'pornography trafficker' at all." Instead of posting a correction WND posted detailed documentation which includes a posed photo of Wales flanked by two mostly undressed female models.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

Some people start discussions on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales his user talk page] much as supplicants approach a monarch. In response, he might engage in a discussion, promise "to look into it", or simply delete it.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=30754316|title= Speaking of "Unreadable Crap"|date=Dec. 5, 2005|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> However, the number of deletions and users banished from his talk page have increased in 2013.

In 2014, Wales received the "Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Knowledge Award", which is named after the Vice President of the United Arab Emerates (UAE) and carries a $500,000 value. Many Wikipedia editors were troubled because of the poor record that the UAE has on human rights. In response, Wales said that he would use the money to establish his own private foundation to address human rights.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/22/the_withinthelaw_jimmy_wales_on_the_run_with_500000/|title=What's Jimmy Wales going to do with $500k from the UAE? He's gonna set up one of them darn foundations, of course... |work=The Register|date=December 22, 2014
|first=Andrew |last=Orlowski|accessdate=December 22, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/broken-promises-of-jimmy-wales|title=Broken promises of Jimmy Wales|date=December 26, 2014|accessdate=December 27, 2014|work=Examiner}}</ref>

[[File:Katherine Maher.jpg|thumb|right|Katherine Maher, WMF Executive Director]]
Wales has had a turbulent private life. Prior to starting Wikipedia, Wales was a minority partner in Bomis, which provided adult photographs for a male audience. As Wikipedia's fame grew, Wales traveled without his family around the world to promote it. He created controversy when he sought travel reimbursement from the Wikimedia Foundation for a trip to a Russian massage parlor. Wales then established Wikia, a new for-profit venture with Angela Beesley. When the Foundation grew to the point that it could afford a paid staff, Wales ensured that a number of women were hired for management roles, including all three Executive Directors, Sue Gardner, Lila Tretikov and Katherine Maher. Wales also became romatically involved with a number of women, both before and after his divorces. Wales has been married three times. At the age of twenty, he married Pamela Green,<ref name=Chozick-2013-06-30>{{cite news|last=Chozick|first=Amy|title=Jimmy Wales Is Not an Internet Billionaire|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 30, 2013}}</ref> a co-worker at a grocery store in Alabama. They divorced in 1993. He met his second wife, Christine Rohan, while she was working as a steel trader for [[Mitsubishi]]. They were married in March 1997,<ref>{{cite book | title=Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia | publisher=[[Rosen Publishing]] | author=Meyer, Susan | year=2013 | page=27}}</ref> and had a daughter before separating. Wales had a brief relationship with Canadian conservative columnist [[Rachel Marsden]] in 2008 that began after Marsden contacted Wales about her Wikipedia biography.

Wales married [[Kate Garvey]] in [[London]] on October 6, 2012.<ref>{{cite news|last=Donnelly|first=Laura|title=Wiki wedding: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales marries Tony Blair's former aide|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9591824/Wiki-wedding-Wikipedia-founder-Jimmy-Wales-marries-Tony-Blairs-former-aide.html#|newspaper=The Daily Telegraph|location=London|date=October 6, 2012}}</ref> Garvey is [[Tony Blair]]'s former diary secretary, whom Wales met in [[Davos]], Switzerland. Wales and Garvey have two daughters.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://blog.jimmywales.com/ Jimmy Wales' Blog] (this blog was last updated Jan. 19, 2012)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Wales, Jimmy}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]

Jimmy Wales

2017-04-25T15:56:52Z

Thekohser: millionaire has not been proven anywhere, to my knowledge

[[Image:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheism|atheist]] Jimmy Wales]]
'''Jimmy Donal Wales''' (7 August 1966 in [[Huntsville, Alabama|Huntsville]]) is the co-founder of the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|politically left]] online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]] and self-described [[libertarian]]. Jimmy Wales claims to be an [[Objectivism|objectivist]] who follows the philosophy of [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Ayn Rand]]. His favorite book is Rand's ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''.<ref>[http://qanda.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1042 Interview with Jimmy Wales conducted by Brian Lamb], C-SPAN Transcript, September 25, 2005.</ref> Wales told an interviewer in ''Reason'' magazine, "One can't understand my ideas about Wikipedia without understanding [[Hayek]]...Wales is fleshing out and bringing to life Hayek's insights about the power of decentralized knowledge gathering, the surprising strength of communities bound only by reputation, and the fluidity of self-governance." <ref>[http://reason.com/news/show/119689.html Wikipedia and Beyond],
Jimmy Wales' sprawling vision, Katherine Mangu-Ward, ''Reasononline.com'', June 2007.</ref> These ideas that Wales claims to follow were put forward in Hayek's essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society". However, there is thin evidence for his being a true follower of Hayek politically given the radical [[leftist]] agenda of Wales close confidants in control of Wikipedia.<ref name="Left_in_Control_of_Wikipedia">{{cite news
|first=Jim
|last=Davis
|title=Left in Control of Wikipedia
|url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/13/212015.shtml?s=lh
|work=
|publisher=[[NewsMax]]
|date=May 14, 2007
|accessdate=2007-10-04}}</ref> Wales describes himself as a [[communitarianism|communitarian]] (someone who could be said to be "radical center", meaning they agree with the left on issues relating to the economy, such as the need for environmental protection and public education, but not on cultural issues, but instead generally agree with the right or conservatives on cultural issues, such as support for character education and faith-based programs).<ref name="Left_in_Control_of_Wikipedia"/> The revisions have since been deleted by liberal Wikipedia administrators wishing to protect Jimmy's public image.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=238013334&oldid=366216764</ref> Editors trying to make this point in Wikipedia are routinely [[politically profiled|profiled]], stalked, harassed, slandered, and banned. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref>

Jimmy Wales became a millionaire{{fact}} by trading commodity options; before funding Wikipedia, he funded Bomis Inc. in 1996, which contained pornographic material.<ref>http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880</ref> Bomis produced two unsuccessful search engines: "Search Bastard" and "3Apes", which went out of their way to insult users with obscenities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com/2014/12/before-wikipedia-search-bastard-and.html|title=Before Wikipedia: Search Bastard and 3Apes |date=December 23, 2014|accessdate=December 24, 2014}} Search Bastard existed from 2000 to 2006.</ref> Besides funding the non-profit Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales also funded the for-profit [[Wikia]], a company that provides wiki services for businesses and organizations.

Wales was caught editing his own profile on Wikipedia in a bit of a scandal in an effort to downplay [[Larry Sanger]]'s role in the company and distance himself from his Bomis past.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,69880,00.html ''Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio''] Wired. Accessed 17 March 2008</ref>

Wales has accepted a new job as executive director of strategy and digital community for [[The People’s Operator]] (TPO), a cell phone startup company with ties to the British [[Labour Party]]. Wales owns 10% of the new company. TPO has 10,000 subscribers in England and has plans to expand to the United States.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/11156163/Wikipedia-founder-to-float-mobile-phone-company.html|title=
Wikipedia founder to float mobile phone company|first=Graham|last=Ruddick|work=The Telegraph|date=October 11, 2014|accessdate=October 14, 2014}}</ref>

==Controversies==

In early October 2005, former [[Robert F. Kennedy]] aide and retired journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]] contacted Wales about false and libelous information in his Wikipedia biographical entry. [[Wikipedia#Second casualty: Wikipedia .22experts.22 called into question.2C the Essjay Scandal|Essjay]] got the call to deal with the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> On December 1, 2005 Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine, the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry regarding [[Daniel Brandt]],
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all... I find it hard to take him very seriously ...<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}Brandt was the victim of malicious<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=60&p=22336&mode=linear#entry22336</ref> and vile slanders placed within his Wikipedia biographical entry<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=55132392</ref> by prominent Wikipedia contributors, in violation of numerous published Wikipedia policies.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#Impugning_critics Wikipedia#Impugning critics], Conservapedia.com</ref> Four days later in a joint appearance with Seigenthaler on [[CNN]] Wales said,
{{Cquote|we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>}}
Essjay was entrusted with oversight responsibilities in the wake of the Seigenthaler scandal and wrote to a professor to persuade her to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a "reliable source,"
{{Cquote|It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before.}}

The derogatory smears against Brandt, self-cited to a certifiably "extremist source" which "should never be used" remained in Brandt's biography for one and half years, with Jimmy Wales and the WikiMedia Foundations full knowledge.

On December 14, 2012, WND columnist Judith Reisman defended heavy-metal drummer Bradlee Dean, who had been unfairly attacked on Wikipedia. She wrote,
<blockquote>"Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s creator, made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker. Wales’ cult of far-leftist volunteer editor zealots labor minute-by-minute to mislead readers who think Wikipedia’s half-truths – and worse – are a legitimate 'encyclopedia.'"</blockquote>
Wales sent an email in response claiming, "I have never been a 'pornography trafficker' at all." Instead of posting a correction WND posted detailed documentation which includes a posed photo of Wales flanked by two mostly undressed female models.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

Some people start discussions on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales his user talk page] much as supplicants approach a monarch. In response, he might engage in a discussion, promise "to look into it", or simply delete it.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=30754316|title= Speaking of "Unreadable Crap"|date=Dec. 5, 2005|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> However, the number of deletions and users banished from his talk page have increased in 2013.

In 2014, Wales received the "Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Knowledge Award", which is named after the Vice President of the United Arab Emerates (UAE) and carries a $500,000 value. Many Wikipedia editors were troubled because of the poor record that the UAE has on human rights. In response, Wales said that he would use the money to establish his own private foundation to address human rights.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/22/the_withinthelaw_jimmy_wales_on_the_run_with_500000/|title=What's Jimmy Wales going to do with $500k from the UAE? He's gonna set up one of them darn foundations, of course... |work=The Register|date=December 22, 2014
|first=Andrew |last=Orlowski|accessdate=December 22, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/broken-promises-of-jimmy-wales|title=Broken promises of Jimmy Wales|date=December 26, 2014|accessdate=December 27, 2014|work=Examiner}}</ref>

[[File:Katherine Maher.jpg|thumb|right|Katherine Maher, WMF Executive Director]]
Wales has had a turbulent private life. Prior to starting Wikipedia, Wales was a minority partner in Bomis, which provided adult photographs for a male audience. As Wikipedia's fame grew, Wales traveled without his family around the world to promote it. He created controversy when he sought travel reimbursement from the Wikimedia Foundation for a trip to a Russian massage parlor. Wales then established Wikia, a new for-profit venture with Angela Beesley. When the Foundation grew to the point that it could afford a paid staff, Wales ensured that a number of women were hired for management roles, including all three Executive Directors, Sue Gardner, Lila Tretikov and Katherine Maher. Wales also became romatically involved with a number of women, both before and after his divorces. Wales has been married three times. At the age of twenty, he married Pamela Green,<ref name=Chozick-2013-06-30>{{cite news|last=Chozick|first=Amy|title=Jimmy Wales Is Not an Internet Billionaire|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 30, 2013}}</ref> a co-worker at a grocery store in Alabama. They divorced in 1993. He met his second wife, Christine Rohan, while she was working as a steel trader for [[Mitsubishi]]. They were married in March 1997,<ref>{{cite book | title=Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia | publisher=[[Rosen Publishing]] | author=Meyer, Susan | year=2013 | page=27}}</ref> and had a daughter before separating. Wales had a brief relationship with Canadian conservative columnist [[Rachel Marsden]] in 2008 that began after Marsden contacted Wales about her Wikipedia biography.

Wales married [[Kate Garvey]] in [[London]] on October 6, 2012.<ref>{{cite news|last=Donnelly|first=Laura|title=Wiki wedding: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales marries Tony Blair's former aide|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9591824/Wiki-wedding-Wikipedia-founder-Jimmy-Wales-marries-Tony-Blairs-former-aide.html#|newspaper=The Daily Telegraph|location=London|date=October 6, 2012}}</ref> Garvey is [[Tony Blair]]'s former diary secretary, whom Wales met in [[Davos]], Switzerland. Wales and Garvey have two daughters.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://blog.jimmywales.com/ Jimmy Wales' Blog] (this blog was last updated Jan. 19, 2012)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Wales, Jimmy}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]

Gregory J. Kohs

2017-04-25T15:55:13Z

Thekohser: Small fixes

'''Gregory J. Kohs''' is a market researcher and Internet personality in [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]]. Kohs has owned or operated a number of different websites, including (the defunct) AmericanCynic.com, FactsOnCall.com, Akahele.org, and (the current) MyWikiBiz.com, Wikipediocracy.com, and a now-dormant Blogspot blog called ''Inside Market Research''. He also wrote [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Examiner_articles_by_Gregory_Kohs over 90 articles] for (the defunct) Examiner.com.

In June 2006, Kohs launched MyWikiBiz.com, a service which was successful in writing [[Wikipedia®]] entries for businesses, initially for $49 to $99.<ref>Bergstein, Brian. "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012401235_pf.html Idea of Paid Entries Roils Wikipedia]", The Washington Post / Associated Press, 2007-01-24.</ref> A few days after he put out an August 2006 press release, though, MyWikiBiz's account on Wikipedia was blocked by Wikipedia co-founder, [[Jimmy Wales]].

==Background==

In 1986, Kohs accepted a Dean's Scholarship (half tuition) to attend [[Emory University]] in [[Atlanta]], [[Georgia]]. Graduating magna cum laude in 1990 with a [[Bachelor's degree]] in History (his [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:American_Journals_and_the_Strategic_Bombing_of_Germany thesis] was about the media's portrayal of American strategic bombing in World War II), Kohs then accepted a Russell Conwell Fellowship (full tuition, plus annual stipend) to attend [[Temple University]] in Philadelphia. There, he pursued a PhD degree which combined elements of Military History and Quantitative Methods in Geography. After passing the comprehensive exams and completing work on about one-quarter of his dissertation (which was to have covered the Eastern European aviation industry in the 1930s), Kohs opted to leave academia with his [[Master of Arts|Master's degree]] to pursue a career in marketing research.

Having worked for three previous research firms ([[Data and Management Counsel]], [[Research Works]], and ICR ([[International Communications Research)]]), Kohs is now directing market research at [[Comcast Business]]. His work includes mostly quantitative survey data collection among B2B audiences; however, some qualitative initiatives are a part of his responsibilities, too.

==Engagement with the Wikimedia Foundation==
Kohs was a pioneer in thinking about Wikipedia as a factual platform that could also address reputation management. In conversations with Jimmy Wales about the MyWikiBiz enterprise, the two agreed that if Kohs posted proposed Wikipedia text on his own MyWikiBiz website (under a free license compatible with Wikipedia), other editors could be encouraged -- upon review -- to copy said content into Wikipedia articles. Both men [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-August/051897.html publicly agreed] that this activity would be within Wikipedia's standards of conduct. Within months, Wales changed his mind and "banned" Kohs permanently across the English Wikipedia project, which was an action outside the normal disciplinary regimen, without notice or due process. This action set Kohs into motion executing an ongoing campaign to investigate malfeasance and poor governance on Wikipedia and within the Wikimedia Foundation. He co-founded a Wikipedia criticism forum called Wikipediocracy.com.

As one example, Kohs proposed a panel discussion about paid Wikipedia editing for the 2014 WikiConference USA, purchasing his conference registration and a train ticket to travel to New York City. On the eve of the conference, though, he was [http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/06/02/wikiconference-usa-bans-critic-from-open-meeting/ suddenly uninvited] by conference organizers, without giving any detailed explanation. Similarly in 2015, the WikiConference USA was held at the National Archives in [[Washington, DC]] as an event that was open to the public, and the marketing materials specifically said that skeptics were invited to participate. Again, Kohs attempted to attend, but his registration was refused without explanation. Kohs had submitted a membership dues check to Wikimedia DC, the local chapter that co-sponsored the WikiConference, but it was then returned. [[Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) materials obtained by Kohs demonstrated that conference organizers had [http://wikipediocracy.com/2016/06/16/diversity-conference-at-national-archives-not-so-open/ specifically violated guidelines] laid down for them by National Archives staff, by not sharing a list of event-banned individuals for review by Archives staff.

Through publishing platforms at Examiner.com and Wikipediocracy.com, Kohs has been a consistent critic of Jimmy Wales' poor behavior and clumsy leadership of Wikipedia and other organizations. Kohs spoke about Wikipedia and the phenomenon of paid editing on a [http://www.g4tv.com/videos/14996/the-loop-can-wikipedia-be-trusted/ cable TV broadcast] on G4TV in 2007, along with guest [[Molly Wood]]. [[Sharyl Attkisson]] featured Kohs on her April 17, 2016 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsu-QGi-ZWY national broadcast] of the show ''Full Measure''.

==Personal life==
Kohs is the youngest child of four, born in Jackson, [[Michigan]]. In 1981, he moved with his parents to Central Florida, settling in Winter Park, [[Florida]]. Kohs now lives in West Chester, [[Pennsylvania]] with his wife, daughter, and family pets. Kohs has served in the past on the board of directors of different non-profit organizations, including the Internet Review Corporation and the [[Church of the Loving Shepherd]].

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.gregorykohs.com GregoryKohs.com] Home page (redirects to MyWikiBiz biography)
*[http://insidemr.blogspot.com/ Inside Market Research] Industry blog
*[http://www.mywikibiz.com/ MyWikiBiz.com] Wiki directory for individuals and businesses

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kohs, Gregory J.}}
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Wikipedia People]]

User talk:Thekohser

2017-04-25T15:47:35Z

Thekohser: Reply

User talk:Thekohser

2017-04-25T15:44:41Z

Thekohser: Duly noted

Gregory J. Kohs

2017-04-25T15:26:13Z

Thekohser: working link

'''Gregory J. Kohs''' is a market researcher in [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]]. Kohs has owned or operated a number of different websites, including (the defunct) AmericanCynic.com, FactsOnCall.com, Akahele.org, and (the current) MyWikiBiz.com, Wikipediocracy.com, and a now-dormant Blogspot blog called ''Inside Market Research''. He also wrote [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Examiner_articles_by_Gregory_Kohs over 90 articles] for (the defunct) Examiner.com.

In June 2006, Kohs launched MyWikiBiz.com, a service which was successful in writing [[Wikipedia®]] entries for businesses, initially for $49 to $99.<ref>Bergstein, Brian. "Idea of Paid Entries Roils Wikipedia", The Washington Post / Associated Press, 2007-01-24.</ref> A few days after he put out a press release, though in August 2006, MyWikiBiz's account on Wikipedia was blocked by Wikipedia co-founder, [[Jimmy Wales]].

==Background==

In 1986, Kohs accepted a Dean's Scholarship (half tuition) to attend [[Emory University]] in [[Atlanta]], [[Georgia]]. Graduating magna cum laude in 1990 with a [[Bachelor's degree]] in History (his [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:American_Journals_and_the_Strategic_Bombing_of_Germany thesis] was about the media's portrayal of American strategic bombing in World War II), Kohs then accepted a Russell Conwell Fellowship (full tuition, plus annual stipend) to attend [[Temple University]] in Philadelphia. There, he pursued a PhD degree which combined elements of Military History and Quantitative Methods in Geography. After passing the comprehensive exams and completing work on about one-quarter of his dissertation (which was to have covered the Eastern European aviation industry in the 1930s), Kohs opted to leave academia with his [[Master of Arts|Master's degree]] to pursue a career in marketing research.

Having worked for three previous research firms ([[Data and Management Counsel]], [[Research Works]], and ICR ([[International Communications Research)]]), Kohs is now directing market research at [[Comcast Business]]. His work includes mostly quantitative survey data collection among B2B audiences; however, some qualitative initiatives are a part of his responsibilities, too.

==Engagement with the Wikimedia Foundation==
Kohs was a pioneer in thinking about Wikipedia as a factual platform that could also address reputation management. In conversations with Jimmy Wales, the two agreed that if Kohs posted proposed Wikipedia text on his own MyWikiBiz website (under a free license compatible with Wikipedia), other editors could be encouraged -- upon review -- to copy said content into Wikipedia articles. Both men [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-August/051897.html publicly agreed] that this activity would be within Wikipedia's standards of conduct. Within months, Wales changed his mind, and "banished" Kohs permanently across the English Wikipedia project, outside the normal disciplinary process without notice or due process. This action set Kohs into motion executing an ongoing campaign to investigate malfeasance and poor governance on Wikipedia and within the Wikimedia Foundation.

For example, Kohs proposed a panel discussion about paid Wikipedia editing for the 2014 WikiConference USA, purchasing his conference registration and a train ticket to travel to New York City. On the eve of the conference, though, he was [http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/06/02/wikiconference-usa-bans-critic-from-open-meeting/ suddenly uninvited] by conference organizers, without giving any detailed explanation. Similarly, in 2015, the WikiConference USA was held at the National Archives as an event that was open to the public and the publicity specifically said that skeptics were invited to participate. Again, Kohs attempted to attend, but his registration was refused without explanation. Kohs submitted a membership dues check to Wikimedia DC, the local chapter that co-sponsored the WikiConference, but it was returned. [[Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) materials obtained by Kohs demonstrated that conference organizers has [http://wikipediocracy.com/2016/06/16/diversity-conference-at-national-archives-not-so-open/ specifically violated guidelines] laid down for them by National Archives staff.

Through publishing platforms at Examiner.com and Wikipediocracy.com, Kohs has been a consistent critic of Mr. Wales' poor behavior and clumsy leadership of Wikipedia and other organizations. Kohs spoke about Wikipedia and the phenomenon of paid editing on a [http://www.g4tv.com/videos/14996/the-loop-can-wikipedia-be-trusted/ cable TV broadcast] on G4TV in 2007. [[Sharyl Attkisson]] featured Kohs on her April 17, 2016 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsu-QGi-ZWY national broadcast] of the show ''Full Measure''.

==Personal life==
Kohs is the youngest child of four, born in Jackson, [[Michigan]]. In 1981, he moved with his parents to Central Florida, settling in Winter Park, [[Florida]]. Kohs now lives in West Chester, [[Pennsylvania]] with his wife, daughter, and family pets. Kohs has served in the past on the board of directors of different non-profit organizations, including the Internet Review Corporation and the [[Church of the Loving Shepherd]].

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.gregorykohs.com GregoryKohs.com] Home page (redirects to MyWikiBiz biography)
*[http://insidemr.blogspot.com/ Inside Market Research] Industry blog
*[http://www.mywikibiz.com/ MyWikiBiz.com] Wiki directory for individuals and businesses

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kohs, Gregory J.}}
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Wikipedia People]]

Comcast

2017-04-25T15:20:33Z

Thekohser: Where is this established?

[[File:Comcast Logo.svg.png|right]]
'''Comcast''' is the largest provider of cable television in the United States (under the Xfinity brand) and majority owner of NBC Universal (including liberal news channel [[MSNBC]]). Comcast provides digital and analog cable television, with optional high definition service, cable internet, and digital telephone service. It is headquartered in [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]]. Comcast changed its logo in December 2012 to include [[NBC]]'s peacock.

Comcast is known in the [[gun enthusiast]] community to be anti-[[Second Amendment]] and pro-[[gun control]].{{fact}}

==External links==
*[http://www.comcast.com Comcast Website]

[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal News Organizations]]

Gregory J. Kohs

2017-04-25T15:16:38Z

Thekohser: Remove stray footnote indicator

'''Gregory J. Kohs''' is a market researcher in [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]]. Kohs has owned or operated a number of different websites, including (the defunct) AmericanCynic.com, FactsOnCall.com, Akahele.org, and (the current) MyWikiBiz.com, Wikipediocracy.com, and a now-dormant Blogspot blog called ''Inside Market Research''. He also wrote [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Examiner_articles_by_Gregory_Kohs over 90 articles] for (the defunct) Examiner.com.

In June 2006, Kohs launched MyWikiBiz.com, a service which was successful in writing [[Wikipedia®]] entries for businesses, initially for $49 to $99.<ref>Bergstein, Brian. "Idea of Paid Entries Roils Wikipedia", The Washington Post / Associated Press, 2007-01-24.</ref> A few days after he put out a press release, though in August 2006, MyWikiBiz's account on Wikipedia was blocked by Wikipedia co-founder, [[Jimmy Wales]].

==Background==

In 1986, Kohs accepted a Dean's Scholarship (half tuition) to attend [[Emory University]] in [[Atlanta]], [[Georgia]]. Graduating magna cum laude in 1990 with a [[Bachelor's degree]] in History (his [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:American_Journals_and_the_Strategic_Bombing_of_Germany thesis] was about the media's portrayal of American strategic bombing in World War II), Kohs then accepted a Russell Conwell Fellowship (full tuition, plus annual stipend) to attend [[Temple University]] in Philadelphia. There, he pursued a PhD degree which combined elements of Military History and Quantitative Methods in Geography. After passing the comprehensive exams and completing work on about one-quarter of his dissertation (which was to have covered the Eastern European aviation industry in the 1930s), Kohs opted to leave academia with his [[Master of Arts|Master's degree]] to pursue a career in marketing research.

Having worked for three previous research firms ([[Data and Management Counsel]], [[Research Works]], and ICR ([[International Communications Research)]]), Kohs is now directing market research at [[Comcast Business]]. His work includes mostly quantitative survey data collection among B2B audiences; however, some qualitative initiatives are a part of his responsibilities, too.

==Engagement with the Wikimedia Foundation==
Kohs was a pioneer in thinking about Wikipedia as a factual platform that could also address reputation management. In conversations with Jimmy Wales, the two agreed that if Kohs posted proposed Wikipedia text on his own MyWikiBiz website (under a free license compatible with Wikipedia), other editors could be encouraged -- upon review -- to copy said content into Wikipedia articles. Both men [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-August/051897.html publicly agreed] that this activity would be within Wikipedia's standards of conduct. Within months, Wales changed his mind, and "banished" Kohs permanently across the English Wikipedia project, outside the normal disciplinary process without notice or due process. This action set Kohs into motion executing an ongoing campaign to investigate malfeasance and poor governance on Wikipedia and within the Wikimedia Foundation.

For example, Kohs proposed a panel discussion about paid Wikipedia editing for the 2014 WikiConference USA, purchasing his conference registration and a train ticket to travel to New York City. On the eve of the conference, though, he was [http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/06/02/wikiconference-usa-bans-critic-from-open-meeting/ suddenly uninvited] by conference organizers, without giving any detailed explanation. Similarly, in 2015, the WikiConference USA was held at the National Archives as an event that was open to the public and the publicity specifically said that skeptics were invited to participate. Again, Kohs attempted to attend, but his registration was refused without explanation. Kohs submitted a membership dues check to Wikimedia DC, the local chapter that co-sponsored the WikiConference, but it was returned. [[Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) materials obtained by Kohs demonstrated that conference organizers has [http://wikipediocracy.com/2016/06/16/diversity-conference-at-national-archives-not-so-open/ specifically violated guidelines] laid down for them by National Archives staff.

Through publishing platforms at Examiner.com and Wikipediocracy.com, Kohs has been a consistent critic of Mr. Wales' poor behavior and clumsy leadership of Wikipedia and other organizations. Kohs spoke about Wikipedia and the phenomenon of paid editing on [http://www.g4tv.com/pile_player.aspx?video_key=14996 a cable TV broadcast] on G4TV in 2007. [[Sharyl Attkisson]] featured Kohs on her April 17, 2016 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsu-QGi-ZWY national broadcast] of the show ''Full Measure''.

==Personal life==
Kohs is the youngest child of four, born in Jackson, [[Michigan]]. In 1981, he moved with his parents to Central Florida, settling in Winter Park, [[Florida]]. Kohs now lives in West Chester, [[Pennsylvania]] with his wife, daughter, and family pets. Kohs has served in the past on the board of directors of different non-profit organizations, including the Internet Review Corporation and the [[Church of the Loving Shepherd]].

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.gregorykohs.com GregoryKohs.com] Home page (redirects to MyWikiBiz biography)
*[http://insidemr.blogspot.com/ Inside Market Research] Industry blog
*[http://www.mywikibiz.com/ MyWikiBiz.com] Wiki directory for individuals and businesses

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kohs, Gregory J.}}
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Wikipedia People]]

Gregory J. Kohs

2017-04-25T15:15:47Z

Thekohser: Stray Z removed

'''Gregory J. Kohs''' is a market researcher in [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]]. Kohs has owned or operated a number of different websites, including (the defunct) AmericanCynic.com, FactsOnCall.com, Akahele.org, and (the current) MyWikiBiz.com, Wikipediocracy.com, and a now-dormant Blogspot blog called ''Inside Market Research''. He also wrote [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Examiner_articles_by_Gregory_Kohs over 90 articles] for (the defunct) Examiner.com.

In June 2006, Kohs launched MyWikiBiz.com, a service which was successful in writing [[Wikipedia®]] entries for businesses, initially for $49 to $99.<ref>Bergstein, Brian. "Idea of Paid Entries Roils Wikipedia", The Washington Post / Associated Press, 2007-01-24.</ref> A few days after he put out a press release, though in August 2006, MyWikiBiz's account on Wikipedia was blocked by Wikipedia co-founder, [[Jimmy Wales]].[1]

==Background==

In 1986, Kohs accepted a Dean's Scholarship (half tuition) to attend [[Emory University]] in [[Atlanta]], [[Georgia]]. Graduating magna cum laude in 1990 with a [[Bachelor's degree]] in History (his [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:American_Journals_and_the_Strategic_Bombing_of_Germany thesis] was about the media's portrayal of American strategic bombing in World War II), Kohs then accepted a Russell Conwell Fellowship (full tuition, plus annual stipend) to attend [[Temple University]] in Philadelphia. There, he pursued a PhD degree which combined elements of Military History and Quantitative Methods in Geography. After passing the comprehensive exams and completing work on about one-quarter of his dissertation (which was to have covered the Eastern European aviation industry in the 1930s), Kohs opted to leave academia with his [[Master of Arts|Master's degree]] to pursue a career in marketing research.

Having worked for three previous research firms ([[Data and Management Counsel]], [[Research Works]], and ICR ([[International Communications Research)]]), Kohs is now directing market research at [[Comcast Business]]. His work includes mostly quantitative survey data collection among B2B audiences; however, some qualitative initiatives are a part of his responsibilities, too.

==Engagement with the Wikimedia Foundation==
Kohs was a pioneer in thinking about Wikipedia as a factual platform that could also address reputation management. In conversations with Jimmy Wales, the two agreed that if Kohs posted proposed Wikipedia text on his own MyWikiBiz website (under a free license compatible with Wikipedia), other editors could be encouraged -- upon review -- to copy said content into Wikipedia articles. Both men [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-August/051897.html publicly agreed] that this activity would be within Wikipedia's standards of conduct. Within months, Wales changed his mind, and "banished" Kohs permanently across the English Wikipedia project, outside the normal disciplinary process without notice or due process. This action set Kohs into motion executing an ongoing campaign to investigate malfeasance and poor governance on Wikipedia and within the Wikimedia Foundation.

For example, Kohs proposed a panel discussion about paid Wikipedia editing for the 2014 WikiConference USA, purchasing his conference registration and a train ticket to travel to New York City. On the eve of the conference, though, he was [http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/06/02/wikiconference-usa-bans-critic-from-open-meeting/ suddenly uninvited] by conference organizers, without giving any detailed explanation. Similarly, in 2015, the WikiConference USA was held at the National Archives as an event that was open to the public and the publicity specifically said that skeptics were invited to participate. Again, Kohs attempted to attend, but his registration was refused without explanation. Kohs submitted a membership dues check to Wikimedia DC, the local chapter that co-sponsored the WikiConference, but it was returned. [[Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) materials obtained by Kohs demonstrated that conference organizers has [http://wikipediocracy.com/2016/06/16/diversity-conference-at-national-archives-not-so-open/ specifically violated guidelines] laid down for them by National Archives staff.

Through publishing platforms at Examiner.com and Wikipediocracy.com, Kohs has been a consistent critic of Mr. Wales' poor behavior and clumsy leadership of Wikipedia and other organizations. Kohs spoke about Wikipedia and the phenomenon of paid editing on [http://www.g4tv.com/pile_player.aspx?video_key=14996 a cable TV broadcast] on G4TV in 2007. [[Sharyl Attkisson]] featured Kohs on her April 17, 2016 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsu-QGi-ZWY national broadcast] of the show ''Full Measure''.

==Personal life==
Kohs is the youngest child of four, born in Jackson, [[Michigan]]. In 1981, he moved with his parents to Central Florida, settling in Winter Park, [[Florida]]. Kohs now lives in West Chester, [[Pennsylvania]] with his wife, daughter, and family pets. Kohs has served in the past on the board of directors of different non-profit organizations, including the Internet Review Corporation and the [[Church of the Loving Shepherd]].

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.gregorykohs.com GregoryKohs.com] Home page (redirects to MyWikiBiz biography)
*[http://insidemr.blogspot.com/ Inside Market Research] Industry blog
*[http://www.mywikibiz.com/ MyWikiBiz.com] Wiki directory for individuals and businesses

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kohs, Gregory J.}}
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Wikipedia People]]

Gregory J. Kohs

2017-04-25T15:14:12Z

Thekohser: Revision of biography - I am the subject, recognizing a potential conflict of interest

'''Gregory J. Kohs''' is a market researcher in [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]]. Kohs has owned or operated a number of different websites, including (the defunct) AmericanCynic.com, FactsOnCall.com, Akahele.org, and (the current) MyWikiBiz.com, Wikipediocracy.com, and a now-dormant Blogspot blog called ''Inside Market Research''. He also wrote [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Examiner_articles_by_Gregory_Kohs over 90 articles] for (the defunct) Examiner.com.

In June 2006, Kohs launched MyWikiBiz.com, a service which was successful in writing [[Wikipedia®]] entries for businesses, initially for $49 to $99.<ref>Bergstein, Brian. "Idea of Paid Entries Roils Wikipedia", The Washington Post / Associated Press, 2007-01-24.Z</ref> A few days after he put out a press release, though in August 2006, MyWikiBiz's account on Wikipedia was blocked by Wikipedia co-founder, [[Jimmy Wales]].[1]

==Background==

In 1986, Kohs accepted a Dean's Scholarship (half tuition) to attend [[Emory University]] in [[Atlanta]], [[Georgia]]. Graduating magna cum laude in 1990 with a [[Bachelor's degree]] in History (his [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:American_Journals_and_the_Strategic_Bombing_of_Germany thesis] was about the media's portrayal of American strategic bombing in World War II), Kohs then accepted a Russell Conwell Fellowship (full tuition, plus annual stipend) to attend [[Temple University]] in Philadelphia. There, he pursued a PhD degree which combined elements of Military History and Quantitative Methods in Geography. After passing the comprehensive exams and completing work on about one-quarter of his dissertation (which was to have covered the Eastern European aviation industry in the 1930s), Kohs opted to leave academia with his [[Master of Arts|Master's degree]] to pursue a career in marketing research.

Having worked for three previous research firms ([[Data and Management Counsel]], [[Research Works]], and ICR ([[International Communications Research)]]), Kohs is now directing market research at [[Comcast Business]]. His work includes mostly quantitative survey data collection among B2B audiences; however, some qualitative initiatives are a part of his responsibilities, too.

==Engagement with the Wikimedia Foundation==
Kohs was a pioneer in thinking about Wikipedia as a factual platform that could also address reputation management. In conversations with Jimmy Wales, the two agreed that if Kohs posted proposed Wikipedia text on his own MyWikiBiz website (under a free license compatible with Wikipedia), other editors could be encouraged -- upon review -- to copy said content into Wikipedia articles. Both men [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-August/051897.html publicly agreed] that this activity would be within Wikipedia's standards of conduct. Within months, Wales changed his mind, and "banished" Kohs permanently across the English Wikipedia project, outside the normal disciplinary process without notice or due process. This action set Kohs into motion executing an ongoing campaign to investigate malfeasance and poor governance on Wikipedia and within the Wikimedia Foundation.

For example, Kohs proposed a panel discussion about paid Wikipedia editing for the 2014 WikiConference USA, purchasing his conference registration and a train ticket to travel to New York City. On the eve of the conference, though, he was [http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/06/02/wikiconference-usa-bans-critic-from-open-meeting/ suddenly uninvited] by conference organizers, without giving any detailed explanation. Similarly, in 2015, the WikiConference USA was held at the National Archives as an event that was open to the public and the publicity specifically said that skeptics were invited to participate. Again, Kohs attempted to attend, but his registration was refused without explanation. Kohs submitted a membership dues check to Wikimedia DC, the local chapter that co-sponsored the WikiConference, but it was returned. [[Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) materials obtained by Kohs demonstrated that conference organizers has [http://wikipediocracy.com/2016/06/16/diversity-conference-at-national-archives-not-so-open/ specifically violated guidelines] laid down for them by National Archives staff.

Through publishing platforms at Examiner.com and Wikipediocracy.com, Kohs has been a consistent critic of Mr. Wales' poor behavior and clumsy leadership of Wikipedia and other organizations. Kohs spoke about Wikipedia and the phenomenon of paid editing on [http://www.g4tv.com/pile_player.aspx?video_key=14996 a cable TV broadcast] on G4TV in 2007. [[Sharyl Attkisson]] featured Kohs on her April 17, 2016 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsu-QGi-ZWY national broadcast] of the show ''Full Measure''.

==Personal life==
Kohs is the youngest child of four, born in Jackson, [[Michigan]]. In 1981, he moved with his parents to Central Florida, settling in Winter Park, [[Florida]]. Kohs now lives in West Chester, [[Pennsylvania]] with his wife, daughter, and family pets. Kohs has served in the past on the board of directors of different non-profit organizations, including the Internet Review Corporation and the [[Church of the Loving Shepherd]].

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.gregorykohs.com GregoryKohs.com] Home page (redirects to MyWikiBiz biography)
*[http://insidemr.blogspot.com/ Inside Market Research] Industry blog
*[http://www.mywikibiz.com/ MyWikiBiz.com] Wiki directory for individuals and businesses

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kohs, Gregory J.}}
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Wikipedia People]]

User:Thekohser

2017-04-25T15:09:29Z

Thekohser: User page

Conservapedia User account of [[Gregory J. Kohs]]. My participation here does not necessarily denote my political affiliation with this or any organization's platform.

Full Measure

2017-04-25T15:05:43Z

Thekohser: Fixing format

#REDIRECT[[Sharyl Attkisson]]

Full Measure

2017-04-25T15:04:44Z

Thekohser: Suggesting a redirect, to Sharyl Attkisson

#[[REDIRECT:Sharyl Attkisson]]

User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt

2016-01-31T18:58:09Z

Thekohser: /* Jew tagging */ new section

[[File:Cross flag mine.png|150px|thumb|left| Christian Conservatives]]

Be strong, be of good [[courage]], God Bless America, Long live the [[Republic]]. [[Blessing|God speed]] to everyone who accesses this page!

[[File:Send_a_gun_to_a_British_home.jpg|thumb|right|[[Second Amendment]]-supporting [[American]] [[citizen]]s gifted their [[firearm]]s to [[gun free zone]]-[[gun control]] supporting British citizens during [[World War II]] via [[The American Committee for the Defense of British Homes]]]]

==Back from my American Redoubt Permaculture Project==
I am back from my [[American Redoubt]]-based [[permaculture]] [[offgrid]] [[homesteading]] project I have been working on since March of last year and will be able to contribute again to Conservapedia with a focus on permaculture and my usual prepper interests. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] ([[User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt|talk]]) 11:12, 23 January 2016 (EST)

==Sources for Public Domain Pictures==
I post this since I hope to soon be uploading several hundred [[:Category:Firearms]], [[:Category:Pro Second Amendment]], and [[:Category:Survivalism]] photos to enhance the SEO visibility of numerous new articles I will be creating in these categories. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 11:57, 17 January 2015 (EST)

=== Public Domain pictures and pictures with generous copyright provisions===
Flikr and [[Creative Commons]]:
* http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/
* http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_to_identify_public_domain_creative_commons_photos_flickr.html
* http://www.sxc.hu/

Some other good sites for public domain images:
* http://www.pdphoto.org
* http://digital.nypl.org/mmpco/index.cfm
* http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/
* [[NASA]] and [[USGS]] photos are also in the public domain
* http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/_use.htm

Source: Thanks to [[User:Conservative/sandboxfile]]

----

==Comments==
In general, please keep your comments to a specific Talk Page about a specific article. Thank you. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 22:27, 10 February 2015 (EST)

----

== Important: Wiki policy related to Conservapedia's Manual of Style ==

The Conservapedia Style Guide has a policy (If it does not have this policy, I will create it after I do this edit) of one link to a particular article at Conservapedia within a given article.

For example, a gun related article can only have one link to Conservapedia's [[gun control]] article.

Why is this policy important?

Failure to follow this policy creates difficult to read link rich articles which are unappealing to the eye. And once your article is unappealing to the eye, people will quickly click off it. So a link rich article is self-defeating in terms of getting people to dig more deeply into a subject at a wiki. Furthermore, it will cause people to leave the website sooner rather than later.

In addition, most people judge a book by its cover. An unappealing looking article is assumed to be an inferior article by most people.

I removed about a dozen duplicate internal links from this article: [[Ammunition control]]. It looks better now, but it still needs much improvement as far as being too link rich. Please remove the duplicate links. For example, each state mentioned in the article (New York, California, etc.), should only have one link to its respective article at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:12, 14 February 2015 (EST)
:The policy I am referring to is located at [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Links Internal link policy]. Please take the time to read Conservapedia's [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages Manual of Style].

:I hope this message to you is helpful. I would hate for you to lose the opportunity of gaining a loyal audience due to something that is easily avoidable.

:Please go through your key articles (your most important articles) and remove the link richness. You can remove the link richness in the other articles as you continue to edit them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 14 February 2015 (EST)

:: Thank you. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 02:33, 14 February 2015 (EST)

== Info you requested ==

*[http://www.amazon.com/The-Elements-Style-Fourth-Edition/dp/020530902X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition] by William Strunk Jr. (Author), E. B. White (Author),

*[http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417946335&sr=1-1&keywords=on+writing+well On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction] by William Zinsser

:: Just got them on Audible.com:
* http://www.audible.com/pd/Arts-Entertainment/On-Writing-Well-Audio-Collection-Audiobook/B002V8KQLC
* http://www.audible.com/pd/Self-Development/The-Elements-of-Style-Recorded-Books-Edition-Audiobook/B002V1NRTW

Thanks. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 03:18, 14 February 2015 (EST)

== Layout of articles ==

The [[Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages|Manual of style]] has a section on the layout of pages; in sequence, the final sections should be references, see also, and then external links. Just a heads up, considering your recent articles do not follow this progression. [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 23:22, 14 February 2015 (EST)
:: Thank you for the headups, however, what you state is not correct necessarily. There are reasons for putting the "References" or "Notes" section last. If you do not, then sometimes, when you need to put a footnote on a "See Also" or on an "External Links" (as I sometime do), you will get an error message.
::
:: For the best guidance on a well-written article that follows the Conservapedia format and has a high visibility, please see one of our most popular articles [[atheism]]. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 23:35, 14 February 2015 (EST)
:::Problem solved. I appended the manual of style. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:06, 15 February 2015 (EST)
::::Makes sense. Good explanation: [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Layout]]. Thank you for the clarification. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 01:29, 15 February 2015 (EST)

== Jew tagging ==

Could you explain your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gregory_J._Kohs&diff=1122395&oldid=585261 edit here], please? What gives you the impression that Mr. Kohs is a Jew? - [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 13:58, 31 January 2016 (EST)

Talk:Wikipedia

2009-04-11T19:45:56Z

Thekohser: /* Typo */ new section

= Content Disputes =

==Relevance of introductory information?==

Why:

- a) is it relevant that Jimmy Wales is an atheist, when no mention is made that the majority of users here seem to have a strong creationist, Christian bias?
- b) is there no information about the Brittanica-Wikipedia assessment that showed wikipedia to be of similar general accuracy?
- c) do numerous arguments on the wikipedia article rely on the argument that anyone can edit the various articles, when, in fact, the majority of this encylopaedia's articles can be edited by anyone?
- d) is there no mention of Conservapedia's reliance on Wikipedia's principles?

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The need for factual evidence (not based solely upon polls, which are essentially a measurement of mass opinion) abounds in this article as well as the rest of this site. Without evidence supporting your claims, you create straw-man arguments that are easy to refute. They will maintain no sway in those who are not yet persuaded, for these people will look past your argument into your logical fallacies. Please just keep this in mind during creation of future articles. {{unsigned|TheFlaxenFox}} December 2007.

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. Sodomy is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

So I was reading this article and saw this: "Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of USA Today from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability." His case about Wikipedia threatening free speech is based on the fact that it is free for anyone to voice their opinions and not controlled by the government. Sorry guys, i know it must be hard trying to uphold the conservative practices with what little backing you can find, but really - please try to make some sense with what you put on here. I'm only looking out for you guys, and you're not doing anything with this site but declaring your close-mindedness and denouncing every single detail that you don't completely agree with. Thanks, and have a nice day. Oh, and by the by, your warning stating "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors" is the exact same formatting used on the Wikipedia, the very same site you are trying to protest. -- [[User:genghis19958|genghis19958]] 23:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA)</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a minor spelling error, "...the gravity of thier concerns". -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 18:26, 22 February 2008 (EST)

: Great catch. I just fixed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

=="arcane British royalty"==
- This is just plain wrong. Henry Liddell is in no way an example of "arcane British royalty". Being an aristocrat is not the same as being Royal. Henry Liddell was not even part of the aristocracy, being that his "grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" means he was 4 generations from the title, maybe a member of the upper classes (because of his job as Vice Chancellor of Oxford University), but more likely just upper middle class! He is not a figure of huge historical note for sure, but was a scholar whose work is still in use and the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland". He certainly features, on the margins, in many histories of the period and books of Victorian biography, so is not unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. What exactly is your mention of his wikipedia article supposed to imply about wikipedia? It implies something about yourselves as he is neither arcane, "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, nor a member of the Royal family. So 1). what's your point? 2. Get it right! {{unsigned|Swdr}}

* It's pretty obscure. Why should an American care about the aristocracy of nineteenth century Britain? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::"Burn the Library of Alexandria! All we need to know is in the Koran!" [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:15, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, this is a warning: improve the quality of your edits or your account will be blocked. Sarcasm, idiocy, silliness, or simply juvenile behavior is not appropriate here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I fail to see what's juvenile about using an incident from history (even an apocryphal one) to point out the anti-intellectualism of someone's apparent claim that "it's unnecessary to know that, no one should write about it," which is how I read JonathanDrain's comment. And lest the reference to the Koran concern you, the comment is meant to point out the idiocy of thinking the Koran has all the answers and nothing else is worth reading. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:34, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The Earls of Strathmore were ancestors of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (1900-2001) and hence of our own dear Queen, so tho' HL wasn't royalty himself he did have a link to the royals, and a pretty arcane one, at that! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Agreement in tense ==

I suggest changing "...discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied" to "...had lied". --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 14:01, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Rutgers-Ivy "hoax" ==

I'm curious as to what sources you had for the idea that the Ivy League invitation to Rutgers was a "hoax". That's all. [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 23:41, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have it backwards. A source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim that something happened to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Um... faulty logic? You need to prove the hoax exists. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:41, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

==Arbitary blocking==

Someone named R. Fiend just blocked my Wikipedia account for 48 hours - no reason given. ;-)

Typical hijinks at the asylum run by the inmates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are you running an attack site, Ed? The proposed decision says, "a period of investigation should occur, including attempts to negotiate with the site regarding the objectionable material. If it possible without republication of sensitive material, the matter should be discussed at a forum such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#A_wait] Maybe it's guilt by association. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, someone saw my message on my user talk page there and unblocked me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::The big ArbCom case, "Attack sites." This Principal here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Malicious_sites_2] is one vote away from becoming new WP policy, with much unforseen consequences, and no mechanism to determine what is and what isn't a "Malicious site." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Paul L. Boyer otherwise known as R. fiend can pretty much do and say anything he likes at Wikipedia. His claim to fame is that he once appeared on Jeopardy! where he was said to be working as a bartender. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 13:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

::Dwain, got any diffs? A bartender on Jeopardy! is enough to be WP expert in the field of knowledge. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:25, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Stunning the world==
*The most popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia has stunned the world; and as a leading force in the open source revolution has shaken assumptions regarding knowledge and scholarship to their very roots. Its reliability has been challenged because of its policy to let anyone contribute to it, but it has stood up remarkably to tests and comparisons to conventional sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Main_Page]

::You sound like a wikipedia infomerical. It has hardly "stunned the world". The concept was a good one, but the implementation was where problems kicked in. And wikipedia only has comparable information to encyclopedias in non-controversial areas, and even then it has a tendency to sound a bit disjointed. Look at the article on the moon for instance. Although no new information has been found for a while, there have been 50 edits since the start of the month. There's a constant battle of pushing and pulling inherent in wikipedia and its political correctness. One person dared to show distances in miles as well as kilometers -- of course he was reverted.

::Most of us here would praise the original concept, but what it became helps to serve as an example to us of what not to do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:46, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

WP isn't all bad. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:27, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Languages ==
At risk of sounding disingenuous, couldn't this be perceived as hypocrisy: "There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, although only 130 have more than 1000 articles." - It's phrased as a criticism, but it should be noted that, for example, Conservapedia has only English language articles. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 23:23, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Arcane British royalty ==
In the opening paragraph, Wikipedia's entry on Henry Liddell is cited as an example of arcane British royalty. He wasn't royalty. Either another example should be found or the text changed to something like "obscure British nobility". [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:11, 12 December 2007 (EST)

: Thank you. Change made as requested. Factual truth comes first, though I can't resist observing that this correction seems rather arcane on this side of the pond!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:56, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, yes, I can understand that. Indeed, royalty is simply the "uppermost" tier of nobility. But British royalty is actually very small with only about a dozen or so members, i.e. the family of the monarch, and so none of them, at least in the UK, are particularly obscure even though they might be the US.
::As I'm on a roll, I might also point out that Henry Liddell isn't notable for his nobility - I'm not even sure whether he was nobility or simply Esquire. Rather he is notable for those things in the opening paragraph of his entry on Wikipedia. I'm sure there must be a better example. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::: Well, I went and looked at the entry again, and some of those "notable" things of Henry Liddell do not seem terribly significant in 2007. I do think the copying by [[Wikipedia]] of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, with its very British view of that outdated world, plays a role here. Also, not to be overly contentious, but the point is not whether the entry is notable, but that the entry is filled with junk about arcane nobility. Still, I agree, there might be an even better example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Yes, the criticism was not of the article's subject itself, but of some of the trivia in it. But I do find it annoying when insular Americans judge the merit of something on how important it is to Americans. And although the connection to Alice in Wonderland is merely trivia, it's ''interesting'' trivia! (Perhaps it shouldn't be in the introduction, though.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Philip, I think I can safely speak for all non-Brits, or at least all non-English speaking people, in describing [[Wikipedia]]'s trivia about British nobility as "arcane"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: I'm not sure what relevance "non-English speaking people" have for an ''English'' language encyclopaedia, but apart from that, perhaps you are correct. I actually decided that I better look up "arcane" to be sure I understood the word, and it wasn't quite what I thought it was. ''Arcane: mysterious; secret; obscure.'' Yes, I guess for many people the British nobility is a bit mysterious and obscure. But then I could say much the same about calculus, quantum theory, and definitely the American system for electing presidents which I've ''never'' been able to comprehend! But isn't an encyclopaedia intended to demystify the mysterious and clarify the obscure? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)

= Content Suggestions =
==SOME positive aspects of WP?==

I'm going to tread lightly here. I know there is loads of animosity toward Wikipedia here, but wouldn't it be fair to mention SOME of the good aspects of the site? To me, it seems like most of the WP articles disputed here are only on highly-politicized topics. Personally, I have found that many of the basic science articles (fundamental physics and chemistry, especially most of the mathematics branches) as well as many of the History articles are quite good and seem to line up exactly with my university texts.

I think it is fair to mention the virtue of WP's non-politicized articles, as they greatly outnumber the hot-button subjects. I will not start editing the page until I can collaborate with somebody though. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, there are of course lots of positive aspects of Wikipedia especially, as you say, in articles that are not contentious along socio-political lines. And even those articles that are contentious tend to be good - there is no reason why conservatives shouldn't exert as much editorial pressure as liberals, which of course they do.

:But two reasons why Conservapedia will not publish pro-Wikipedia content. Firstly, it's in direct competition with it. Not commercially but for what it sees as the hearts and minds of the new generation. Secondly, Conservapedia does not pretend to be NPOV. It promotes a dichotomy between left and right. So, while Wikipedia has good things to say about Conservapedia and even bad things to say about itself, Conservapedia doesn't want to dilute its anti-Wikipedia stance at all.

:While I agree with you that Conservapedia would be taken more seriously by mainstream conservatives if it could allow itself to be a little more balanced, I feel this is unlikely in this currently hyped atmosphere of them and us. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:: In the lead sentence of its entry about [[Conservapedia]], [[Wikipedia]] lies about our "stated purpose" in an attempt to smear us. This has been pointed out in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but the [[liberals]] at [[Wikipedia]] won't correct it. I doubt you will either.

:: No, there's little of value in a cite as devoted to lies, gossip and pornography as [[Wikipedia]] is. What's next, you're going to insist that the National Enquirer has much redeeming value? Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::"Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism." (from Wikipedia's intro on Conservapedia).

:::Where's the lie in the above, Aschlafy? Or is it a simple error? Or a difference in opinion. I don't know - genuinely interested. And why don't you change it?

:::Personally I don't find Wikipedia particularly dedicated to lies, gossip and pornography. Sure, it's there if you look for it, but I don't. Wikipedia has many redeeming features - it would churlish to deny it. I still maintain they should be covered in this article to lend a bit of balance. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm.. actually I think I see what you're getting at. I think sentence means that the stated purpose is to create "an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint" and that it is "supportive of ... Young Earth creationism". But yes, that form of words might suggest that the latter was also a stated aim. I could attempt to change it... [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:52, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Done. Let me know what you think. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Better, but the term "supportive" (used twice) is still wrong, non-encyclopedic, and an attempt to smear Conservapedia. Also, note how [[liberals]] have flagged the entry and are likely to change or revert any improvements you make. One [[liberal]] has already modified your edit! Welcome to how [[Wikipedia]] operates in removing improvements and ensuring continuing [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::...the "liberal" edit did nothing more than moving a source to its proper place. The source reads:
{{cquote|Welcome to Conservapedia – Wikipedia from a creationist perspective. [...] Perhaps not surprisingly, it seems creationism gets top marks in every one of its 5,100 entries.}}
:::::So it seems like "supportive" is not a too unfitting word in this context. The "problem" is not in Wikipedia, it's in the source. And it's in the source because Conservapedia does give exactly that impression. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:09, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, one editor has moved a citation - correctly by the looks of it. How is "supportive" wrong? I'm not trying to be difficult - I just don't get it. What would be a better NPOV form of words in your view? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::: What are you quoting from ... a [[liberal]] article trying to smear [[Conservapedia]]? And that makes something factual????

:::::: Suppose I changed [[Wikipedia]]'s entry and described Wikipedia as "supportive" of the homosexual lifestyle and abortion-on-demand. Would you accept that as a proper description at the beginning of its entry? No, I doubt you would. Yet [[Wikipedia]] insists on its baseless smears of Conservapedia, which is not "supportive" of any specific position. Our [[rules]] have been clear from the very beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Aschfly, can I just get this straight, please? Are you denying that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative viewpoint? Or a Youth Earth Creationist viewpoint? Or both? Or what?

:::::::The text as it now stands states that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative view and many of the articles are supportive of a YEC view. Is this not correct? If it isn't, what form of words would be correct? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:50, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not going to waste time by repeating this again. If you would like to remove the lies from Wikipedia's entry about Conservative, then that would be welcome, though I'd expect Wikipedia editors to reinsert the lies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::If you tell me what the lies are and why, I will try to. Or give a link that describes them. Or tell me what your preferred set of words would be. I don't see why this is proving to be so difficult. I've obviously missed previous discussions on this. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I think the original point has been diluted with all of this unnecessary talk regarding the definition Wikipedia currently provides for Conservapedia. The only comment I'll make is that Wikipedia's article seems quite balanced, and I've been contributing heavily to it lately to make sure this site isn't unnecessarily mocked. I am against bias. Now, the real question/issue is whether there are merits to be found in using Wikipedia, a site which hosts nearly 2 million articles. Granted some maybe viewed by others to be "anti-intellectual" in nature - if you don't want to read about music groups, television shows, movies, video games etc..etc..that's fine. But take a gander at Wikipedia's repository for science related articles. This includes cell biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, medicine (pathology) and countless other categories. They are extremely well written, neutral, sourced, and informative. And I'm not talking about Evolution. I echo the original commentors observations - it also applies to historical, geographical, and mathematical articles. I think this article itself would benefit from a fleshing out. You don't have to PRETEND NPOV, but you can still strive for it. Right now it's just a list of negativity that represents a minutia of problems with Wikipedia articles in the past. Just my two cents. I would be more than happy to help. And before anyone calls me on liberal bias, I beg you to look past those classifications and see that I am a Wikipedian and a Conservapedian. Thanks guys. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I've read (or tried to plow through) many of Wikipedia's life sciences articles. They are poorly written. They are no good for beginners, i.e., people who don't know much about biology for example. And they are biased against the idea that human beings may have more to them than just their physical bodies.

:::You can't say much about people without considering the [[spiritual body]] [[St. Paul]] spoke of, and you can't describe human life without [[free will]] and [[life after death]]. Moreover, how can you talk about the children without describing their [[God|Father]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:50, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has many positive features. I wouldn't have devoted 3 years of spare time to it, if I thought it was utterly useless. For one thing, it pioneered the concept of a free online encyclopedia which is collaboratively written.

Oh, and they're moving their headquarters to San Francisco, where they'll be surrounded by more liberals than ever before. ;-) [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/10/BU69SNMQ2.DTL] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:Either that or they're moving to the Ninth Federal Judicial District in hopes of more favorable rulings from all the lawsuits they have. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:46, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:

:Content on Wikipedia is controlled by and released under the "GNU Free Documentation License" (GFDL) requirements. Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's edits on Wikipedia.

Maybe we can divide this article into general information of interest - such as the license and the ease of editing - and the strenuous criticism of its leftist bias and general unreliability. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:41, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:A great idea! We'll call the former [[Wikipedia]] and the latter [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]! ...no, wait... ;)
:Seriously, though, it's nice that a sysop finally (implicitly) admits that practically the entire article is just pointing out how bad WP is and that good/neutral info is so rare that it practically sticks out. This article is to Wikipedia what [[Theory of Evolution]] is to evolution: Little actual info, tons of preaching how it's bad and shouldn't be trusted. I fully support the idea of having an actual article about Wikipedia. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::Finally? I've been saying so all along. Remember, I'm still on the Mediation Committee at Wikipedia. And I used to be a senior admin until the inmates took over the asylum.

::Wikipedia is a good idea, poorly managed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:32, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

==Two pages?==
This is just an idea, but maybe all the sections of the Wikipedia page talking about it's scandals and stuff could be moved to a separate page (like [[Controversy in wikipedia]] or something like that, and this page could just summarize wikipedia, Kinda like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia this], except include some of the bad aspects as well). [[User:1984|1984]] 17:40, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

==Major Faux Pas from using Wikipedia==
Due to a mis-quote on Wikipedia a group of university professors caused Pope Benedict XVI to cancel a lecture at La Sapienza University in Rome in January 2008. This garnered international attention and was a major embarassment to the university.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7188860.stm

http://www.zenit.org/article-21701?l=english

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020707.html

= Other =
==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]
::Yes, this is true. Liberals, pagans and freemasons seem to be in control of all content at Wikipedia. A freemason merely has to express outrage at a quote (usually one by a freemason) regarding freemasonry on a userpage or person.al website and everyone jumps to remove the information. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 15:32, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Did you know ... ==
Did you know that you can buy a listing in Wikipedia on eBay? Ebay user diremine, who has a 99,9% positive feedback, provides the service of getting an article about your business inside Wikipedia, 10
interwiki links to your article and 2 external links to your website. [http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160146092291&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX&refitem=160144755846&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget] [http://myworld.ebay.com/diremine] Wikipedia suggests there are spy's and traitors who assist with this.(Wikizine - number: 79)

:Diremine is already indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for that reason, as you can see at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diremine his user page]. Wikipedia will not tolerate such abuse. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5] {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems like it is 10 - 0 to wikipedia. While conservapedia wrote about one paragraph wikipedia wrote a few pages. Could you repeat what you said about conservapeda being superior, Bob? You don't mind if I call you Bob, right. Smashing.

--[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 16:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:More writing does not necessarily equate to superiority. Conservapedia is new, and concise. Articles will grow, but in view of where is the conservative viewpoint allowed to be presented, which do you find to do a better job? Since we live in an open society, people don't have to choose one or the other. They can make their own decisions, but at least they have Conservapedia as a source if they desire and they have the capability to get information and perspectives that might otherwise be lacking or hard to find.

:By the way, be glad I wasn't looking where you signed on as a user as you would have been blocked up front for the name. Why not just call yourself Kali? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, a longer article is not necessarily better but in this case it is irrelevant. The conservapedia version of the articles generally was and idiot-version of the wikipedia one. To clearify, contained VERY general information whereas wikipedia had more extensive and in-depth information. Bob, you don't mind if I call you Bob, do you? Capital. You see, Bob, when you say that conservapedia is better in giving information from a conservative viewpoint this is not the case. The viewpoint is the same but wikipedia generally have more and better detailed information. You are following me? Smashing.

When Bob over there claims that conservapedia is "supreme" it was from an encyclopedia perspective. An encyclopdia's function is to contain articles within one or seveal topics. Wikipedia's articles are, in these examples, more detailed and professional. Thus conservapedia cannot be "supreme". Bob, you also claim that conservapedia is still young, etc. That I can agree with but if that is the case you people shouldn't come with absurd statements such as "you will find that conservapedia is supreme" and then pretend like it was some kind of paranthetis that you can conviniently ignore when it suits you.

And finally, Bob, considering my user name: Resorting to threats like "I could had banned you if I wanted" is REALLY mature (note, Bob, that I'm being ironical). Resorting to threats only proves that your arguments lack substance. My user name is my business as long as it doesn't contain anything illegal or offensive which it does not. Cthulhu is a fictional pre-christian entity which figured in anumber of horror stories written by H.P. Lovecraft. And my name...as a principle I don't give out my real name on the internet as a securiy measure and that is not negotiable, Bob.

//Cthulhu
:Just a point of clarification, we do reserve the right to reject user names for reasons other than being illegal or offensive. See [[special:userLogin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Verbose and choppy writing is not the hallmark of professionalism. The Wikipedia articles come across as largely disjointed and difficult to get an overall feel, as one would expect from a large number of editors often at odds and trying to push their particular writing. I prefer many of the Conservapedia articles due to their smoother flow and a greater sense of capturing the subject matter. It's similar to your writing, for instance. Filled with a variety of duplicated cut and paste insults, the overall product is to take up space without meaning. I would suggest, in life, that you consider a path where you may grow to understand that viewpoints apart from your own still have a right to be expressed. Peace to you in finding this path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==For the record==
For the record, I was one of the "other Wikipedia Review" editors investigating the Essjay scandal. Here [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20408] I raised the possibility Essjay could be more than one person. Here, Brandt confronts Essjay, and asks, "Are you more than one person?" [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/usermess.png] it should also noted, the forum was frequented by high level WP Administrators who were active participants in these discussions, and new all relevent facts. Therefore, the discoveries made on January 19, that Essjay had lied & put the credibility of WP at stake in a most compromising way was known to high level WP Admins who regulalry report back on activities on the mailing lists before ''Jimbo'' appointed Essjay to ArbCom, with the full knowledge the ''The New Yorker'' was about to print a retraction on the lies and disinformation.

How this got fouled up in WP's internal bureacracy, is only a cause for speculation. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:17, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

== Waste ==

Isn't this article just bashing Wikipedia, not a very nice (or informative) article

: It's factual and balanced about [[Wikipedia]], which is more than can be said about [[Wikipedia]]'s smears in its entry about [[Conservapedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::This article is far from balanced (and I believe that's the general consensus among your users) - there isn't a single informative statement that doesn't have to do directly with some kind of verbose scandal or minutia error that existed in a handful of articles out of millions. No offense Aschlafly, but the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia is an example of what this one should be -resourceful, neutral, and informative in ALL aspects. Just my two cents. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:01, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:I don't think this whole website is very factual or helpful in anyway, it is just to promote a very conserative agenda.
[[User:EtAlt292|EtAlt292]] 14:48, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::hot button issues maybe, but not the majority of the articles. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:56, 9 December 2007 (EST)

: EtAlt292, how about stating your political beliefs (e.g., [[liberal]]) before pretending to be unbiased in your comments???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::I kinda take exception to that statement - Just because someone disagrees with certain issues doesn't make them inherently biased, or in this case "liberal". I self-identify as a liberal (mostly because if I was forced to pick a label, that would be it), although I normally eschew such classifications, but I don't consider myself biased at all. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:39, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::Let's look at the conclusion of this article [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html]covering the recent Overstock.com/Bagley/Attack sites incident:
{{QuoteBox|If you ask Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne what's going on, they'll tell you the ban is part of much larger attempt to discredit their views on naked shorting. They believe that a small group of people is using Wikipedia as means of controlling public opinion. 

"'''When you think of how the public consciousness of an issue can develop, one of the first things that's going to happen in today’s age is people are going to Google the issue and then read the Wikipedia article''' that comes up," Byrne says. "So if you can control that article, you can really deflect the discourse." 

Whatever the motives behind it, there's no doubt that the Wikipedia inner circle rules those four articles with an iron fist. And as Charles Ainsworth points out, this puts a cloud over the entire encyclopedia. 

"Wikipedia, in its way, is of great benefit to the web community," he says. "But I've also been greatly dismayed that Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. '''What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans''' to some degree." 

"When Bagley attempted to level the playing field, he was banished immediately," Ainsworth continues. "Obviously, there's something seriously wrong with the way Wikipedia is being managed and administered. I don't know if it threatens the long-term viability of the project or not, but it is cause for concern among those of us who spend a lot of hours actually trying to write quality articles." }}

:::Northing has been added from Bagley's case to this article, yet the conclusions are virtually identical to what is already presented here.

:::For the record, see Byrne's posting to Daniel Brandt here, "''your'' gangsters turn out to be connected to ''our'' gangsters."[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=3761&view=findpost&p=14936] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== More sources for section on Barbara Bauer ==

Should have better sourcing. We should add [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Barbara%20Bauer] where the quoted comment actually occurred as well as possibly including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_31#Barbara_Bauer] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_7] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_25] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer]. The Bauer dispute seems that it might be more complicated. I'm struggling to understand what happened so we can add more to it. It looks like some liberal science fiction writers tried to hijack a lot of Wikipedia and got away with it until Bauer filed suit. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 23:56, 16 January 2008 (EST)

==Quoting from Wikipedia==

I am aware that the Commandments forbid quoting from Wikipedia, unless it is done to illustrate a liberal point of view, but what would be the problem if the quoted material was something which Conservapedians found unobjectionable? I have just joined, and have not made any edits yet. But I'm a musician by profession, and so one of the first areas of this encyclopedia I looked at was the one on music. Compare the page here on, say, Music Theory with the equivalent page on Wikipedia. The difference in quality is immense; the Conservapedia page is innacurate and confusing, to say the least. I can't think of any possible liberal bias which could lurk within a topic like that, and any that did exist (such as British spellings or BCE dates) could be easily edited. So what is the rule regarding this subject?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 20:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:Hi and welcome. My take on the issue is that we just don't lift text from wikipedia. As I understand the way WP works, there is no original research or creative writing there, so their information must show where it is from, and so there should be no problem with us being able to use the same or similar sources to produce our own articles without having to actually take text from WP. With regard to the article you mention, it may well be that we have no one (unlike yourself that is) who is a professional musician or at least an informed amateur to produce - yet - a quality technical article. Of course, you are welcome to bring your knowledge to the crease and I'm sure everyone here, and our readers, would be very grateful for your efforts there :) My musical knowledge is limited to "I know what I like" lol [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:In furtherance of Fox's comments, Eoinc, if you wrote the entry on Wikipedia, then of course you can copy your own work. But I compared our [[music theory]] to Wikipedia's and personally I prefer our concise, encyclopedic treatment. Wikipedia has not one, not two, but three big disclaimers in its entry, the first of which says it was taken almost entirely from one source! Moreover, the Wikipedia entry is far to long and tedious to be educational. I'm a teacher and know the value of conciseness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:We may be confusing two issues here. As mentioned above, you are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia, unless it is entirely your own work. But you are also not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference, which I think may be what Eoinc is referring to. Wikipedia has a similar rule, i.e. that you cannot use other on-line encyclopedias, blogs, etc. as sources. It has to be what they refer to as a "reliable source". Similarly, we don't find Wikipedia necessarily reliable, so you can't use it as a source. But as Fox said, you may be able to use and cite the same sources that Wikipedia uses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia minimizes Bozell's criticism. ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Brent_Bozell_III&diff=prev&oldid=157974132]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikilink cleanup ==

There are some inappropriately-linked dates in the [[Wikipedia#The_scandal_breaks]] section. Could someone clean this up or unlock it so that I can do it? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:04, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist ==

What relevance does saying Wales is an atheist have? The website is not atheist and covers all ranges of topics, so I don't understand why this has any place in the first sentence of the article. [[User:Luano|Luano]] 19:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Because atheist = bad. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, how unbelievably insulting is that? Way to make an unwarranted generalization, dude. Unfortunately, that is exactly why they make hay of Wales' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) - because the founders of this site seriously believe that an atheist is somehow the worst thing someone could possibly be. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 15:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Jimbo Wales==
Do you think were helping the conservative cause by calling "Jimmy Wales" "Jimbo Wales".

: I thought he preferred that nickname. We don't care but we often use the nicknames preferred by the person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

==Sexual obsession==
Is there a way to source and point out Wikipedia's obsession with sexual trivia and sexual phraseology without sullying this reference? One of the mildest of such articles is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_tail Whale Tail]. My point is that how can any reference take itself seriously when it has entire articles devoted to peeking at female underwear which include links to more articles on topics such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttock_cleavage Butt Cleavage].
I apologize if this shocks or offends. I'd just like to point out how juvenile and base Wikipedia is. It also puts into perspective Wikipedia's wild claim on the number of articles it has. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

== Er.. ==

:well, in all fairness they also cover a large number of other subjects in addition to sexual trivia and phraseology, they have a great deal of information on masonry, biology etc., But I agree that some of those articals just don't need to exist.

==Rachel Marsden==
Ex-girlfriend of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, now Wale's biggest critic. Her summary describes Wikipedia as an "online libel board," that "any loser can use to smear people who are more successful than them." http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9999282-2.html , July 25, 2008--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:39, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
:I would just point out that n ex-girlfriend, particularly one that became such under not very amicable circumstances, might not be the best or most unbiased source imaginable. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:32, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:: True, due to her circumstances. However, replace her name with any known conservative, just keep the quotes. I bet you still get the truth about Wikipedia!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Arabic wikipedia ==

Hi, any one can do/write an article about the Arabic wikipedia, please review the talk page here, nd help if u can, it's so biased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_Wikipedia The arabic wiki]
Regards.

::Are you Stayfi? If so, I really suggest you take some ESL courses before you make any further attempts to enact change at Wikipedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:33, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::hhh, eh, u can always add an a or an A, if u didn't get it, i changed it for u, dude, just so simple. --[[User:Stayfi|Stayfi]] 15:25, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

== Typo ==

There is a typo in the article, currently. "Mr. Farah has repeatedly has been..." I would have made the change myself, but the article is protected. What does one have to do around here to prove one's credentials for editing the article about Wikipedia? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] 15:45, 11 April 2009 (EDT)