<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Yeoberry</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Yeoberry"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Yeoberry"/>
	<updated>2026-10-26T12:46:37Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&amp;diff=1050733</id>
		<title>Examples of Bias in Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&amp;diff=1050733"/>
		<updated>2013-05-04T21:27:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: re-adding material about the SPLC which is important both as an example of bias and a way wp undergirds it's other biased claims&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia website.  Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact the website represents the viewpoint of its most strident and persistent editors.  This list together with the sublists linked below provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how [[Wikipedia]] has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The project was initiated by [[atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Although Wales &amp;quot;made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker,&amp;quot; He has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]].  The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was a lead founder of Wikipedia.  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because the list of examples is so long, it is divided into sublists based on subject matter.  Some of the most egregious examples are in these sublists, which are well worth reading. At risk of duplication, some of the most interesting examples from the sublists are also repeated on this main list to give an overview.  (We limit this main list to up to three examples from each sublist.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples of Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abortion ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Benazir Bhutto]]&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for &amp;quot;Pro-choice violence&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence&amp;quot; bizarrely redirects to the &amp;quot;Abortion debate&amp;quot; article.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before being redirected, the &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence&amp;quot; article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&amp;amp;oldid=298226073&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, while the &amp;quot;Anti-abortion violence&amp;quot; article matter-of-factly begins: &amp;quot;Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion.&amp;quot; ...the &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence&amp;quot; article dismissingly began: &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just &amp;quot;a term used in the pro-life movement.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it &amp;quot;concluded that [[abortion]] does not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer.  Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anti-Christianity ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&amp;amp;oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as &amp;quot;a pornography trafficker&amp;quot;. Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''&amp;quot;It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States&amp;quot;'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&amp;amp;oldid=497191070]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on &amp;quot;Jesus H. Christ,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term &amp;quot;often humorous,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;joking&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;comedic&amp;quot;, and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as &amp;quot;humorous&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elopement_%28marriage%29&amp;amp;oldid=527790928 elopement] appears to make light of the tradition of marriage and weddings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bestiality/zoophilia  ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As of July 18, 2012, [[Wikipedia]]'s article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;.  No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conservapedia smears ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Wikipedia]] states that &amp;quot;Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility.&amp;quot; But the two citations for this claim of &amp;quot;poor extrapolation and lack of credibility&amp;quot; are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].&lt;br /&gt;
#  For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as &amp;quot;Fanatics and Special Interests.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&amp;amp;oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC.  This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&amp;amp;oldid=516746349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conservative personalities and politicians ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[dead link]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos.  But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ethnic and racial bias ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]&lt;br /&gt;
# For over a year, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&amp;amp;ns0=1&amp;amp;redirs=0&amp;amp;search=nigger&amp;amp;limit=500&amp;amp;offset=0]&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Asians and blacks against discrimination and the Kl Klux Klan. These articles are now called &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]&amp;quot; despite being formerly called &amp;quot;American Civil Rights Movement.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Gender bias ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade which seeks to increase the percentage of female editors. (In practice that crusade has the effect of driving away male editors.)  There are also many serious examples of gender bias in Wikipedia's content.&lt;br /&gt;
# When a '''New York Times''' op-ed crticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?_r=0&amp;amp;ref=sunday|title=Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists|date=April 24, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the article about the author was attacked and watered down, restored&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&amp;amp;diff=552260688&amp;amp;oldid=552235515&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and attacked again.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html?_r=1|title=Wikipedia's Sexism|date=April 27, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Global warming ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he &amp;quot;rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides not to allow any mention of his involvement with Climategate. Any mention of Climategate is immediately removed from Mann's page. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=332744981|title=Michael E. Mann}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Homosexuality ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms &amp;quot;he&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;she&amp;quot; in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as &amp;quot;she&amp;quot; while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as &amp;quot;he&amp;quot;, despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.&lt;br /&gt;
=== Internet policies ===&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against internet censorship.  Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled &amp;quot;List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&amp;amp;oldid=505551894&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Journalists===&lt;br /&gt;
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]&lt;br /&gt;
#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.  Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seignthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wikidrama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Israeli journalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy Gideon Levy's Wikipedia Biography] has been frequently vandalized with false facts, including allegations that his father was a Nazi collaborator.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273|title=&lt;br /&gt;
In a Web of lies, the newspaper must live|first=Gideon|last=Levy|date=October 11, 2012|accesdate=October 11, 2012|work=Haaretz Daily Newspaper}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  So many slanderous statements have been posted that the revisions to the article have been hidden from public view at least 22 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;amp;type=delete&amp;amp;page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false -- including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Liberal Politicians ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jimmy Carter]]&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia now promotes the late [[liberal]] icon [[Ted Kennedy]] as the leader of ... &amp;quot;progressivism&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;By the time of his death, he had come to be viewed as a major figure and spokesman for American progressivism.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Obama ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia added a &amp;quot;Controversies&amp;quot; sections to their article for the &amp;quot;Presidency of George W. Bush&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but not to their article on the &amp;quot;Presidency of Barack Obama&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It has since been removed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&amp;amp;diff=282810799&amp;amp;oldid=282227871&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for &amp;quot;Criticism of George W. Bush,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=278422248&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but the article for &amp;quot;Criticism of Barack Obama&amp;quot; had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like &amp;quot;Article that has no meaningful, substantive content&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Attack page or negative unsourced BLP.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia has since redirected &amp;quot;Criticism of George W. Bush&amp;quot; and added &amp;quot;Public image of&amp;quot; articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Paid Editing===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Public Policy in the United States ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Public Policy in the US]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#  Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Unsupported claims featured there include &amp;quot;Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield.&amp;quot; Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.909shot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:&lt;br /&gt;
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Science and Evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Wiki Dembski&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a &amp;quot;prominent mathematician&amp;quot; in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Wiki Dembski&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conspiracy Theories ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;The Path to 9/11&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, the page contains a section titles &amp;quot;Controversy and criticisms,&amp;quot; which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled &amp;quot;Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11&amp;quot; only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton.  It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Blocking the Path to 9/11&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]&lt;br /&gt;
#The Wikipedia article &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&amp;amp;oldid=504359758 List of consipracy theories]&amp;quot; ridicules and dismisses as &amp;quot;conspiracy theories&amp;quot; more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&amp;amp;oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government.  Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a &amp;quot;conspiracy theory&amp;quot; that draws on &amp;quot;distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science&amp;quot;. In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist [[T. Boone Pickens]].  Yet, the page dismisses it, noting &amp;quot;There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&amp;amp;oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The Wikipedia article &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&amp;amp;oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]&amp;quot; is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list.  However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Southern Poverty Law Center ===&lt;br /&gt;
# The lengthy Wikipedia article on the SPLC reads like a public relations brochure for the organization, violating Wikipedia's own rules about primary sources and self-published material. It was tagged as too dependent on primary sources and biased but those tags were removed without a substantial change in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
# The article contains only one brief (three and a half lines) paragraph on the controversy of the SPLC labeling peaceful organizations &amp;quot;hate-groups&amp;quot; and half that paragraph is dedicated to exonerating the SPLC.&lt;br /&gt;
# When an editor (Yeoberry) attempted to add material about a possible terrorist attack provoked by the SPLC's &amp;quot;hate-group list&amp;quot; and properly sourced material about the man who started listing hate-groups now critical of the SPLC's list, the material was deleted without consultation. When the editor tried to revert it, he was accused to &amp;quot;edit warring&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# An editor, with an apparent interest in the SPLC, Dougweller, proceeded to repeatedly post critical comments on Yeoberry's &amp;quot;talk&amp;quot; page, follow his contributions and encourage other editors to oppose him.&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia has several instances of citing the SPLC as a reliable source for describing which groups are &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot;, such as the Family Research Institute, repeating the SPLC's designations as if they were fact.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Naziism, Socialism, Communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Naziism, Socialism, Communism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a &amp;quot;dictator&amp;quot; by [[Wikipedia]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a &amp;quot;leader&amp;quot; or even a &amp;quot;president&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&amp;amp;oldid=235182888&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing &amp;quot;to attend a golf tournament&amp;quot; rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: &amp;quot;Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Cuba]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on far-left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-left promotes equality, while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like Black Panthers. While its far-right politics articles accuse them of maintaining a social hierarchy and being racist and being supremacists that keep the &amp;quot;oppression&amp;quot; in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-left. It promotes the far-left as bringing equality, while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like NBP for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General/Uncategorized ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Jens Stoltenberg.]]&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized]]&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&amp;amp;oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy  Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Occupy_Wall_Street&amp;amp;oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&amp;amp;action=historysubmit&amp;amp;diff=407362660&amp;amp;oldid=407358740].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Structural problems with Wikipedia==&lt;br /&gt;
A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of &amp;quot;verifiability.&amp;quot;  Wikipedia proudly proclaims, &amp;quot;'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&amp;amp;oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  There have been many attempts to change this because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of such misuse involve radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&amp;amp;oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; when in fact it has never been played &amp;quot;at the Olympics.&amp;quot; Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was &amp;quot;technically an Olympic sport&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw.  Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Another bias is from &amp;quot;show and tell.&amp;quot;  Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the internet.  Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on flickr that was labeled, &amp;quot;The Girls Netball Team&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; even though it did not show anyone playing netball.  The editor then captioned the photo, &amp;quot;A Malawian netball team&amp;quot; and placed it along side a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&amp;amp;oldid=420915334&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the &amp;quot;show and tell&amp;quot; syndrome.  The need to &amp;quot;show and tell&amp;quot; can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article.  For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data is included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remains true today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;E.g., {{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&amp;amp;diff=502678275&amp;amp;oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions.  For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 census data. A standard paragraph on demographics which included 2000 data was automatically included in each article.  Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census.  Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source -- even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Britannica article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers instead of paid professionals.  For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It was kept because someone with a gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son.  She died without children&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and the photo's copyrighted actually belonged to Time, Inc. but the mistake was not detected until 2012.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Accountability===&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the website and enforce its rules.  The number of administrators continues to shrink.  In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=Feburary 7, 2013}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The number drops because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse.  If the action of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, perhaps it is because the actions are the product of anonymous, very young people or, in some cases, of mentally ill people.  For example, sysop Altenmann was  desysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years.  He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&amp;amp;oldid=491693521&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fundametally, the owner of a website is accountable for its governance and contents.  To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the WMF, its Board and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia.  Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it, and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses.  For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members.  If a person has a complaint about being falsely libled by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a &amp;quot;hands off&amp;quot; approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From July 26, 2011 to March 13, 2012, the Wikipedia article &amp;quot;Cannabis reform at the international level&amp;quot; referred to the &amp;quot;U.S Department of Justice Drug Endorsement Administration&amp;quot; instead of the Drug Enforcement Administration.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_reform_at_the_international_level&amp;amp;diff=481706462&amp;amp;oldid=441608281&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The phrase had been inserted by User &amp;quot;Dala11a&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[ Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]--Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky| cult leader]] behind the radical left's talking points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Guidelines for inclusion''':&lt;br /&gt;
* Each entry must include a &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;diff&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Bias in wikipedia}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Wikipedia]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047153</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047153"/>
		<updated>2013-04-17T13:54:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* Unreliability of Wikipedia */ reworded some of my earlier additions for clarity&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia relies on self-selected &amp;quot;editors&amp;quot; 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 it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by &amp;quot;well-educated, well-informed content experts.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But, as below (&amp;quot;Arbitrary Standards&amp;quot;), editors can delete, without collaboration, any 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 it's editors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: &amp;quot;''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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain &amp;quot;inaccuracies&amp;quot;, leading the &amp;quot;Daily Mail&amp;quot; to dub it &amp;quot;Iffy-pedia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;Fringe&amp;quot; or if the contributor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, encyclopedias were written by scholars, either by one or a few whose knowledge is considered &amp;quot;encyclopedic&amp;quot; (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 &amp;quot;[[idiocracy]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbiased editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Idiocracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047017</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047017"/>
		<updated>2013-04-16T17:33:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia relies on self-selected &amp;quot;editors&amp;quot; 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 it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by &amp;quot;well-educated, well-informed content experts.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But, as below (&amp;quot;Arbitrary Standards&amp;quot;), editors can delete, without collaboration, any entry they can find any of a number of reasons in Wikipedia guidelines, even those entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors for which they can find some secondary source to support it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: &amp;quot;''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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain &amp;quot;inaccuracies&amp;quot;, leading the &amp;quot;Daily Mail&amp;quot; to dub it &amp;quot;Iffy-pedia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;Fringe&amp;quot; or if the contributor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, encyclopedias were written by scholars, either by one or a few whose knowledge is considered &amp;quot;encyclopedic&amp;quot; (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 &amp;quot;[[idiocracy]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbiased editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Idiocracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047016</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047016"/>
		<updated>2013-04-16T17:31:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards */ more about arbitrary standards, idiocracy&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia relies on self-selected &amp;quot;editors&amp;quot; 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 it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by &amp;quot;well-educated, well-informed content experts.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But, as below (&amp;quot;Arbitrary Standards&amp;quot;), editors can delete, without collaboration, any entry they can find any of a number of reasons in Wikipedia guidelines, even those entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors for which they can find some secondary source to support it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: &amp;quot;''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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain &amp;quot;inaccuracies&amp;quot;, leading the &amp;quot;Daily Mail&amp;quot; to dub it &amp;quot;Iffy-pedia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;Fringe&amp;quot; or if the contributor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, encyclopedias were written by scholars, either by one or a few whose knowledge is considered &amp;quot;encyclopedic&amp;quot; (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 &amp;quot;[[Media:idiocracy]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbiased editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Idiocracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047014</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047014"/>
		<updated>2013-04-16T17:20:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* Unreliability of Wikipedia */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia relies on self-selected &amp;quot;editors&amp;quot; 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 it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by &amp;quot;well-educated, well-informed content experts.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But, as below (&amp;quot;Arbitrary Standards&amp;quot;), editors can delete, without collaboration, any entry they can find any of a number of reasons in Wikipedia guidelines, even those entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors for which they can find some secondary source to support it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: &amp;quot;''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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain &amp;quot;inaccuracies&amp;quot;, leading the &amp;quot;Daily Mail&amp;quot; to dub it &amp;quot;Iffy-pedia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; weight to the topic the information is about; that the editor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbiased editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Idiocracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047009</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1047009"/>
		<updated>2013-04-16T17:17:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* Unreliability of Wikipedia */ how wikipedia doesn't meet it's own standards of an encyclopedia&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia relies on self-selected &amp;quot;editors&amp;quot; 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 it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by &amp;quot;well-educated, well-informed content experts.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring venerability in valid secondary sources. But, as below (&amp;quot;Arbitrary Standards&amp;quot;), editors can delete, without collaboration, any entry they can find any of a number of reasons in Wikipedia guidelines, even those entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors for which they can find some secondary source to support it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: &amp;quot;''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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain &amp;quot;inaccuracies&amp;quot;, leading the &amp;quot;Daily Mail&amp;quot; to dub it &amp;quot;Iffy-pedia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; weight to the topic the information is about; that the editor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbiased editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Idiocracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046467</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046467"/>
		<updated>2013-04-14T00:44:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* Unreliability of Wikipedia */ moved Douglas Adams quote and attributed it to a &amp;quot;someone&amp;quot; who is the original editor who posted it; it's a good quote. Removed positive statement with no reference.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: &amp;quot;''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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain &amp;quot;inaccuracies&amp;quot;, leading the &amp;quot;Daily Mail&amp;quot; to dub it &amp;quot;Iffy-pedia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; weight to the topic the information is about; that the editor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbiased editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Idiocracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046464</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046464"/>
		<updated>2013-04-14T00:36:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: Consolidated &amp;quot;Quality&amp;quot; section with &amp;quot;Unreliability&amp;quot; section, and &amp;quot;Liberal Bias&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Leftist Bias&amp;quot;; added research on unreliability&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''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.''&lt;br /&gt;
—Douglas Adams&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain &amp;quot;inaccuracies&amp;quot;, leading hte &amp;quot;Daily Mail&amp;quot; to dub it &amp;quot;Iffy-pedia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; weight to the topic the information is about; that the editor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbiased editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Idiocracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046419</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046419"/>
		<updated>2013-04-13T21:00:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* See also */ http://www.conservapedia.com/Idiocracy&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; weight to the topic the information is about; that the editor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quality==&lt;br /&gt;
''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.''&lt;br /&gt;
—Douglas Adams&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==[[Liberal bias]]==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbiased editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Idiocracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046410</id>
		<title>Examples of Bias in Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046410"/>
		<updated>2013-04-13T20:27:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* Southern Poverty Law Center */ added ref&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia website.  Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact the website represents the viewpoint of its most strident and persistent editors.  This list together with the sublists linked below provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how [[Wikipedia]] has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The project was initiated by [[atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Although Wales &amp;quot;made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker,&amp;quot; He has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]].  The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was a lead founder of Wikipedia.  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because the list of examples is so long, it is divided into sublists based on subject matter.  Some of the most egregious examples are in these sublists, which are well worth reading. At risk of duplication, some of the most interesting examples from the sublists are also repeated on this main list to give an overview.  (We limit this main list to up to three examples from each sublist.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples of Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abortion ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Benazir Bhutto]]&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for &amp;quot;Pro-choice violence&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence&amp;quot; bizarrely redirects to the &amp;quot;Abortion debate&amp;quot; article.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before being redirected, the &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence&amp;quot; article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&amp;amp;oldid=298226073&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, while the &amp;quot;Anti-abortion violence&amp;quot; article matter-of-factly begins: &amp;quot;Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion.&amp;quot; ...the &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence&amp;quot; article dismissingly began: &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just &amp;quot;a term used in the pro-life movement.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it &amp;quot;concluded that [[abortion]] does not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer.  Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anti-Christianity ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&amp;amp;oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as &amp;quot;a pornography trafficker&amp;quot;. Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''&amp;quot;It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States&amp;quot;'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&amp;amp;oldid=497191070]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on &amp;quot;Jesus H. Christ,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term &amp;quot;often humorous,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;joking&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;comedic&amp;quot;, and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as &amp;quot;humorous&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elopement_%28marriage%29&amp;amp;oldid=527790928 elopement] appears to make light of the tradition of marriage and weddings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bestiality/zoophilia  ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As of July 18, 2012, [[Wikipedia]]'s article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;.  No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conservapedia smears ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Wikipedia]] states that &amp;quot;Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility.&amp;quot; But the two citations for this claim of &amp;quot;poor extrapolation and lack of credibility&amp;quot; are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].&lt;br /&gt;
#  For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as &amp;quot;Fanatics and Special Interests.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&amp;amp;oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC.  This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&amp;amp;oldid=516746349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conservative personalities and politicians ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[dead link]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos.  But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ethnic and racial bias ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]&lt;br /&gt;
# For over a year, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&amp;amp;ns0=1&amp;amp;redirs=0&amp;amp;search=nigger&amp;amp;limit=500&amp;amp;offset=0]&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Asians and blacks against discrimination and the Kl Klux Klan. These articles are now called &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]&amp;quot; despite being formerly called &amp;quot;American Civil Rights Movement.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Gender bias ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade which seeks to increase the percentage of female editors. (In practice that crusade has the effect of driving away male editors.)  There are also many serious examples of gender bias in Wikipedia's content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Global warming ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he &amp;quot;rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides not to allow any mention of his involvement with Climategate. Any mention of Climategate is immediately removed from Mann's page. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=332744981|title=Michael E. Mann}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Homosexuality ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms &amp;quot;he&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;she&amp;quot; in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as &amp;quot;she&amp;quot; while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as &amp;quot;he&amp;quot;, despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.&lt;br /&gt;
=== Internet policies ===&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against internet censorship.  Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled &amp;quot;List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&amp;amp;oldid=505551894&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Journalists===&lt;br /&gt;
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]&lt;br /&gt;
#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.  Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seignthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wikidrama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Israeli journalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy Gideon Levy's Wikipedia Biography] has been frequently vandalized with false facts, including allegations that his father was a Nazi collaborator.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273|title=&lt;br /&gt;
In a Web of lies, the newspaper must live|first=Gideon|last=Levy|date=October 11, 2012|accesdate=October 11, 2012|work=Haaretz Daily Newspaper}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  So many slanderous statements have been posted that the revisions to the article have been hidden from public view at least 22 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;amp;type=delete&amp;amp;page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false -- including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Liberal Politicians ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jimmy Carter]]&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia now promotes the late [[liberal]] icon [[Ted Kennedy]] as the leader of ... &amp;quot;progressivism&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;By the time of his death, he had come to be viewed as a major figure and spokesman for American progressivism.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Obama ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia added a &amp;quot;Controversies&amp;quot; sections to their article for the &amp;quot;Presidency of George W. Bush&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but not to their article on the &amp;quot;Presidency of Barack Obama&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It has since been removed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&amp;amp;diff=282810799&amp;amp;oldid=282227871&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for &amp;quot;Criticism of George W. Bush,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=278422248&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but the article for &amp;quot;Criticism of Barack Obama&amp;quot; had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like &amp;quot;Article that has no meaningful, substantive content&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Attack page or negative unsourced BLP.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia has since redirected &amp;quot;Criticism of George W. Bush&amp;quot; and added &amp;quot;Public image of&amp;quot; articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Paid Editing===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Public Policy in the United States ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Public Policy in the US]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#  Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Unsupported claims featured there include &amp;quot;Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield.&amp;quot; Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.909shot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:&lt;br /&gt;
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Science and Evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Wiki Dembski&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a &amp;quot;prominent mathematician&amp;quot; in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Wiki Dembski&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conspiracy Theories ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;The Path to 9/11&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, the page contains a section titles &amp;quot;Controversy and criticisms,&amp;quot; which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled &amp;quot;Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11&amp;quot; only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton.  It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Blocking the Path to 9/11&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]&lt;br /&gt;
#The Wikipedia article &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&amp;amp;oldid=504359758 List of consipracy theories]&amp;quot; ridicules and dismisses as &amp;quot;conspiracy theories&amp;quot; more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&amp;amp;oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government.  Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a &amp;quot;conspiracy theory&amp;quot; that draws on &amp;quot;distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science&amp;quot;. In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist [[T. Boone Pickens]].  Yet, the page dismisses it, noting &amp;quot;There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&amp;amp;oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The Wikipedia article &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&amp;amp;oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]&amp;quot; is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list.  However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Naziism, Socialism, Communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Naziism, Socialism, Communism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a &amp;quot;dictator&amp;quot; by [[Wikipedia]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a &amp;quot;leader&amp;quot; or even a &amp;quot;president&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&amp;amp;oldid=235182888&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing &amp;quot;to attend a golf tournament&amp;quot; rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: &amp;quot;Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Cuba]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on far-left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-left promotes equality, while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like Black Panthers. While its far-right politics articles accuse them of maintaining a social hierarchy and being racist and being supremacists that keep the &amp;quot;oppression&amp;quot; in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-left. It promotes the far-left as bringing equality, while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like NBP for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Southern Poverty Law Center ===&lt;br /&gt;
# The lengthy Wikipedia article on the SPLC reads like a public relations brochure for the organization, violating Wikipedia's own rules about primary sources and self-published material. It was tagged as too dependent on primary sources and biased but those tags were removed without a substantial change in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
# The article contains only one brief (three and a half lines) paragraph on the controversy of the SPLC labeling peaceful organizations &amp;quot;hate-groups&amp;quot; and half that paragraph is dedicated to exonerating the SPLC.&lt;br /&gt;
# When an editor (Yeoberry) attempted to add material about a possible terrorist attack provoked by the SPLC's &amp;quot;hate-group list&amp;quot; and properly sourced material about the man who started listing hate-groups now critical of the SPLC's list, the material was deleted without consultation. When the editor tried to revert it, he was accused to &amp;quot;edit warring&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# An editor, with an apparent interest in the SPLC, Dougweller, proceeded to repeatedly post critical comments on Yeoberry's &amp;quot;talk&amp;quot; page, follow his contributions and encourage other editors to oppose him.&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia has several instances of citing the SPLC as a reliable source for describing which groups are &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot;, such as the Family Research Institute, repeating the SPLC's designations as if they were fact.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General/Uncategorized ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Jens Stoltenberg.]]&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized]]&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&amp;amp;oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy  Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Occupy_Wall_Street&amp;amp;oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&amp;amp;action=historysubmit&amp;amp;diff=407362660&amp;amp;oldid=407358740].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Structural problems with Wikipedia==&lt;br /&gt;
A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of &amp;quot;verifiability.&amp;quot;  Wikipedia proudly proclaims, &amp;quot;'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&amp;amp;oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  There have been many attempts to change this because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of such misuse involve radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&amp;amp;oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; when in fact it has never been played &amp;quot;at the Olympics.&amp;quot; Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was &amp;quot;technically an Olympic sport&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw.  Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Another bias is from &amp;quot;show and tell.&amp;quot;  Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the internet.  Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on flickr that was labeled, &amp;quot;The Girls Netball Team&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; even though it did not show anyone playing netball.  The editor then captioned the photo, &amp;quot;A Malawian netball team&amp;quot; and placed it along side a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&amp;amp;oldid=420915334&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the &amp;quot;show and tell&amp;quot; syndrome.  The need to &amp;quot;show and tell&amp;quot; can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article.  For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data is included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remains true today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;E.g., {{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&amp;amp;diff=502678275&amp;amp;oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions.  For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 census data. A standard paragraph on demographics which included 2000 data was automatically included in each article.  Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census.  Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source -- even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Britannica article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers instead of paid professionals.  For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It was kept because someone with a gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son.  She died without children&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and the photo's copyrighted actually belonged to Time, Inc. but the mistake was not detected until 2012.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Accountability===&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the website and enforce its rules.  The number of administrators continues to shrink.  In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=Feburary 7, 2013}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The number drops because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse.  If the action of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, perhaps it is because the actions are the product of anonymous, very young people or, in some cases, of mentally ill people.  For example, sysop Altenmann was  desysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years.  He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&amp;amp;oldid=491693521&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fundametally, the owner of a website is accountable for its governance and contents.  To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the WMF, its Board and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia.  Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it, and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses.  For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members.  If a person has a complaint about being falsely libled by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a &amp;quot;hands off&amp;quot; approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From July 26, 2011 to March 13, 2012, the Wikipedia article &amp;quot;Cannabis reform at the international level&amp;quot; referred to the &amp;quot;U.S Department of Justice Drug Endorsement Administration&amp;quot; instead of the Drug Enforcement Administration.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_reform_at_the_international_level&amp;amp;diff=481706462&amp;amp;oldid=441608281&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The phrase had been inserted by User &amp;quot;Dala11a&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[ Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]--Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky| cult leader]] behind the radical left's talking points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Guidelines for inclusion''':&lt;br /&gt;
* Each entry must include a &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;diff&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Bias in wikipedia}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Wikipedia]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046409</id>
		<title>Examples of Bias in Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046409"/>
		<updated>2013-04-13T20:23:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: adding about SPLC&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia website.  Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact the website represents the viewpoint of its most strident and persistent editors.  This list together with the sublists linked below provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how [[Wikipedia]] has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The project was initiated by [[atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Although Wales &amp;quot;made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker,&amp;quot; He has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]].  The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was a lead founder of Wikipedia.  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because the list of examples is so long, it is divided into sublists based on subject matter.  Some of the most egregious examples are in these sublists, which are well worth reading. At risk of duplication, some of the most interesting examples from the sublists are also repeated on this main list to give an overview.  (We limit this main list to up to three examples from each sublist.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples of Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abortion ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Benazir Bhutto]]&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for &amp;quot;Pro-choice violence&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence&amp;quot; bizarrely redirects to the &amp;quot;Abortion debate&amp;quot; article.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before being redirected, the &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence&amp;quot; article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&amp;amp;oldid=298226073&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, while the &amp;quot;Anti-abortion violence&amp;quot; article matter-of-factly begins: &amp;quot;Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion.&amp;quot; ...the &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence&amp;quot; article dismissingly began: &amp;quot;Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just &amp;quot;a term used in the pro-life movement.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it &amp;quot;concluded that [[abortion]] does not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer.  Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anti-Christianity ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&amp;amp;oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as &amp;quot;a pornography trafficker&amp;quot;. Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''&amp;quot;It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States&amp;quot;'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&amp;amp;oldid=497191070]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on &amp;quot;Jesus H. Christ,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term &amp;quot;often humorous,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;joking&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;comedic&amp;quot;, and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as &amp;quot;humorous&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elopement_%28marriage%29&amp;amp;oldid=527790928 elopement] appears to make light of the tradition of marriage and weddings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bestiality/zoophilia  ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As of July 18, 2012, [[Wikipedia]]'s article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;.  No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conservapedia smears ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Wikipedia]] states that &amp;quot;Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility.&amp;quot; But the two citations for this claim of &amp;quot;poor extrapolation and lack of credibility&amp;quot; are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].&lt;br /&gt;
#  For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as &amp;quot;Fanatics and Special Interests.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&amp;amp;oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC.  This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&amp;amp;oldid=516746349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conservative personalities and politicians ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[dead link]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos.  But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ethnic and racial bias ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]&lt;br /&gt;
# For over a year, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&amp;amp;ns0=1&amp;amp;redirs=0&amp;amp;search=nigger&amp;amp;limit=500&amp;amp;offset=0]&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Asians and blacks against discrimination and the Kl Klux Klan. These articles are now called &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]&amp;quot; despite being formerly called &amp;quot;American Civil Rights Movement.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Gender bias ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade which seeks to increase the percentage of female editors. (In practice that crusade has the effect of driving away male editors.)  There are also many serious examples of gender bias in Wikipedia's content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Global warming ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he &amp;quot;rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides not to allow any mention of his involvement with Climategate. Any mention of Climategate is immediately removed from Mann's page. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=332744981|title=Michael E. Mann}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Homosexuality ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms &amp;quot;he&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;she&amp;quot; in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as &amp;quot;she&amp;quot; while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as &amp;quot;he&amp;quot;, despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.&lt;br /&gt;
=== Internet policies ===&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against internet censorship.  Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled &amp;quot;List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&amp;amp;oldid=505551894&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Journalists===&lt;br /&gt;
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]&lt;br /&gt;
#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.  Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seignthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wikidrama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Israeli journalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy Gideon Levy's Wikipedia Biography] has been frequently vandalized with false facts, including allegations that his father was a Nazi collaborator.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273|title=&lt;br /&gt;
In a Web of lies, the newspaper must live|first=Gideon|last=Levy|date=October 11, 2012|accesdate=October 11, 2012|work=Haaretz Daily Newspaper}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  So many slanderous statements have been posted that the revisions to the article have been hidden from public view at least 22 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;amp;type=delete&amp;amp;page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false -- including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Liberal Politicians ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jimmy Carter]]&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia now promotes the late [[liberal]] icon [[Ted Kennedy]] as the leader of ... &amp;quot;progressivism&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;By the time of his death, he had come to be viewed as a major figure and spokesman for American progressivism.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Obama ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia added a &amp;quot;Controversies&amp;quot; sections to their article for the &amp;quot;Presidency of George W. Bush&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but not to their article on the &amp;quot;Presidency of Barack Obama&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It has since been removed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&amp;amp;diff=282810799&amp;amp;oldid=282227871&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for &amp;quot;Criticism of George W. Bush,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=278422248&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but the article for &amp;quot;Criticism of Barack Obama&amp;quot; had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like &amp;quot;Article that has no meaningful, substantive content&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Attack page or negative unsourced BLP.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia has since redirected &amp;quot;Criticism of George W. Bush&amp;quot; and added &amp;quot;Public image of&amp;quot; articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Paid Editing===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Public Policy in the United States ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Public Policy in the US]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#  Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Unsupported claims featured there include &amp;quot;Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield.&amp;quot; Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.909shot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:&lt;br /&gt;
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Science and Evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Wiki Dembski&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a &amp;quot;prominent mathematician&amp;quot; in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Wiki Dembski&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conspiracy Theories ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;The Path to 9/11&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, the page contains a section titles &amp;quot;Controversy and criticisms,&amp;quot; which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled &amp;quot;Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11&amp;quot; only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton.  It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Blocking the Path to 9/11&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]&lt;br /&gt;
#The Wikipedia article &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&amp;amp;oldid=504359758 List of consipracy theories]&amp;quot; ridicules and dismisses as &amp;quot;conspiracy theories&amp;quot; more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&amp;amp;oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government.  Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a &amp;quot;conspiracy theory&amp;quot; that draws on &amp;quot;distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science&amp;quot;. In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist [[T. Boone Pickens]].  Yet, the page dismisses it, noting &amp;quot;There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&amp;amp;oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The Wikipedia article &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&amp;amp;oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]&amp;quot; is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list.  However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Naziism, Socialism, Communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Naziism, Socialism, Communism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a &amp;quot;dictator&amp;quot; by [[Wikipedia]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a &amp;quot;leader&amp;quot; or even a &amp;quot;president&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&amp;amp;oldid=235182888&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing &amp;quot;to attend a golf tournament&amp;quot; rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: &amp;quot;Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Cuba]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia's article on far-left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-left promotes equality, while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like Black Panthers. While its far-right politics articles accuse them of maintaining a social hierarchy and being racist and being supremacists that keep the &amp;quot;oppression&amp;quot; in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-left. It promotes the far-left as bringing equality, while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like NBP for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Southern Poverty Law Center ===&lt;br /&gt;
# The lengthy Wikipedia article on the SPLC reads like a public relations brochure for the organization, violating Wikipedia's own rules about primary sources and self-published material. It was tagged as too dependent on primary sources and biased but those tags were removed without a substantial change in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
# The article contains only one brief (three and a half lines) paragraph on the controversy of the SPLC labeling peaceful organizations &amp;quot;hate-groups&amp;quot; and half that paragraph is dedicated to exonerating the SPLC.&lt;br /&gt;
# When an editor (Yeoberry) attempted to add material about a possible terrorist attack provoked by the SPLC's &amp;quot;hate-group list&amp;quot; and properly sourced material about the man who started listing hate-groups now critical of the SPLC's list, the material was deleted without consultation. When the editor tried to revert it, he was accused to &amp;quot;edit warring&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# An editor, with an apparent interest in the SPLC, Dougweller, proceeded to repeatedly post critical comments on Yeoberry's &amp;quot;talk&amp;quot; page, follow his contributions and encourage other editors to oppose him.&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia has several instances of citing the SPLC as a reliable source for describing which groups are &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot;, such as the Family Research Institute, repeating the SPLC's designations as if they were fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General/Uncategorized ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Jens Stoltenberg.]]&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized]]&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&amp;amp;oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy  Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Occupy_Wall_Street&amp;amp;oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&amp;amp;action=historysubmit&amp;amp;diff=407362660&amp;amp;oldid=407358740].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Structural problems with Wikipedia==&lt;br /&gt;
A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of &amp;quot;verifiability.&amp;quot;  Wikipedia proudly proclaims, &amp;quot;'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&amp;amp;oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  There have been many attempts to change this because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of such misuse involve radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&amp;amp;oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; when in fact it has never been played &amp;quot;at the Olympics.&amp;quot; Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was &amp;quot;technically an Olympic sport&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw.  Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Another bias is from &amp;quot;show and tell.&amp;quot;  Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the internet.  Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on flickr that was labeled, &amp;quot;The Girls Netball Team&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; even though it did not show anyone playing netball.  The editor then captioned the photo, &amp;quot;A Malawian netball team&amp;quot; and placed it along side a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&amp;amp;oldid=420915334&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the &amp;quot;show and tell&amp;quot; syndrome.  The need to &amp;quot;show and tell&amp;quot; can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article.  For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data is included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remains true today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;E.g., {{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&amp;amp;diff=502678275&amp;amp;oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions.  For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 census data. A standard paragraph on demographics which included 2000 data was automatically included in each article.  Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census.  Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source -- even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Britannica article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers instead of paid professionals.  For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It was kept because someone with a gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son.  She died without children&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and the photo's copyrighted actually belonged to Time, Inc. but the mistake was not detected until 2012.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Accountability===&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the website and enforce its rules.  The number of administrators continues to shrink.  In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=Feburary 7, 2013}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The number drops because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse.  If the action of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, perhaps it is because the actions are the product of anonymous, very young people or, in some cases, of mentally ill people.  For example, sysop Altenmann was  desysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years.  He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&amp;amp;oldid=491693521&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fundametally, the owner of a website is accountable for its governance and contents.  To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the WMF, its Board and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia.  Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it, and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses.  For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members.  If a person has a complaint about being falsely libled by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a &amp;quot;hands off&amp;quot; approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From July 26, 2011 to March 13, 2012, the Wikipedia article &amp;quot;Cannabis reform at the international level&amp;quot; referred to the &amp;quot;U.S Department of Justice Drug Endorsement Administration&amp;quot; instead of the Drug Enforcement Administration.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_reform_at_the_international_level&amp;amp;diff=481706462&amp;amp;oldid=441608281&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The phrase had been inserted by User &amp;quot;Dala11a&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[ Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]--Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky| cult leader]] behind the radical left's talking points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Guidelines for inclusion''':&lt;br /&gt;
* Each entry must include a &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;diff&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Bias in wikipedia}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Wikipedia]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046400</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046400"/>
		<updated>2013-04-13T19:58:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* Unbiased editor recruitment */ corrected spelling of &amp;quot;biased&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; weight to the topic the information is about; that the editor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quality==&lt;br /&gt;
''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.''&lt;br /&gt;
—Douglas Adams&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==[[Liberal bias]]==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbiased editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046396</id>
		<title>Wikipedia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&amp;diff=1046396"/>
		<updated>2013-04-13T19:50:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: changed &amp;quot;hearsay&amp;quot; to arbitrary standards with a description of a real case&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;amp;mdash; a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's &amp;quot;spiritual leader&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent loss of influence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was &amp;quot;Wikipedia's worst nightmare&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's &amp;quot;Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia&amp;quot; posting: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making &amp;quot;critical decisions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
Despite its official &amp;quot;neutrality policy,&amp;quot; [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled &amp;quot;Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue,&amp;quot; [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=83640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia &amp;quot;the abomination that causes misinformation&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word &amp;quot;duh&amp;quot; did Wikipedia eventually remove it)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to singles by obscure rock bands&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to arcane British nobility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, &amp;quot;WIKIPEDIA,&amp;quot; The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leftist bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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 Rand​ian]] [[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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] 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.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Research ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Swindle wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;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?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Purported &amp;quot;Tertiary&amp;quot; Source and Arbitrary Standards==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia purports to be a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 a agglomeration of reheated &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Yeoberry&amp;quot; (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about &amp;quot;Icons&amp;quot; on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a &amp;quot;tertiary&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with &amp;quot;edit warring.&amp;quot; When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;UNDUE&amp;quot; weight to the topic the information is about; that the editor has a &amp;quot;COI&amp;quot; (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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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 &amp;quot;arguments for zoophilia&amp;quot; plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on &amp;quot;arguments against zoophilia&amp;quot;. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a &amp;quot;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law&amp;quot;] 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of &amp;quot;Zoopilia and the law&amp;quot;|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Register'' said:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of &amp;quot;an encyclopedia anyone can edit&amp;quot; with the more utilitarian goal of &amp;quot;a website anyone would want to read&amp;quot;. 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quality==&lt;br /&gt;
''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.''&lt;br /&gt;
—Douglas Adams&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==[[Liberal bias]]==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to &amp;quot;delete well-referenced information&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;[[undue weight]]&amp;quot; like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;conservative bias&amp;quot;. [[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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scandals and decline==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;life and death,&amp;quot; Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, &amp;quot;OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!&amp;quot; [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==False claim about Brent Bozell==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Right there on the screen, under the heading &amp;quot;Criticism,&amp;quot; it stated that I had attacked him, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;convenient&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;profitable&amp;quot; for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS &amp;quot;News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;History&amp;quot; section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: &amp;quot;Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT.&amp;quot; (Capitals theirs.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;Essjay&amp;quot; online and described on his user profile &amp;quot;as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rewriting its own history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable,&amp;quot; he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, &amp;quot;Wikipedia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I am not bent out of shape about it,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seigenthaler scandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&amp;amp;article=336&amp;amp;author=India+Camm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== CNN interview ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, &amp;quot;I find it hard to take him very seriously at all,&amp;quot; and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, &amp;quot;we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler told the audience &amp;quot;with accountability comes credibility&amp;quot; and expressed fear that, &amp;quot;I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Grand Dragon of the Republican Party.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location= WikiScanner]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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 &amp;quot;Nazi,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;fascist-oriented&amp;quot; ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, &amp;quot;Press photo of Seigenthaler.&amp;quot; The accompanying line: &amp;quot;He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews.&amp;quot; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accountability and Section 230 ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;Two wikifascists find someone without a biography.&amp;quot;'']]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.&amp;quot; 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, &lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Essjay given oversight ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter].  Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, &amp;quot;The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious,&amp;quot; and quoted some comments, &amp;quot;We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005.  Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others said, &amp;quot;Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed,&amp;quot; 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: &amp;quot;Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia&amp;quot; as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scandal was originally billed as a &amp;quot;hoax&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; then downgraded to &amp;quot;incident,&amp;quot; and now re-upgraded to &amp;quot;controversy,&amp;quot; evidently in response to criticism.  The Wikipedia entry on &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, &amp;quot;After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.&amp;quot;  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 &amp;quot;sockpuppet accounts.&amp;quot;  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.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's &amp;quot;Seigenthaler controversy&amp;quot; also states, &amp;quot;The Foundation added a new level of &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; one of whom was Essjay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Brandt / Berlet feud==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]&lt;br /&gt;
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist &amp;quot;Watchdog&amp;quot; Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.namebase.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;quot;  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”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;accountability activist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&amp;amp;st=40&amp;amp;p=21441&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry21441&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out.  The revising editor commented, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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'''),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; would use a source she did not consider credible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biographies of living persons===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&amp;amp;diff=31947681&amp;amp;oldid=31753956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Editor &amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor &amp;amp; Publisher'', December 01, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wales comments added '''undue weight'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ('''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 &amp;quot;expert.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]&lt;br /&gt;
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community.  WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Wordbomb Saga==&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]]&lt;br /&gt;
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.overstock.com/community&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its CEO Patrick Byrne,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=48341962&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=36485&amp;amp;mode=linear#entry36485&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
[[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/] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&amp;amp;diff=158954587&amp;amp;oldid=158809362&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&amp;amp;diff=165916446&amp;amp;oldid=165916313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;amp;Number=2762#Post2757&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Michael Moore==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,&lt;br /&gt;
{{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).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is &amp;quot;absolute and non-negotiable.&amp;quot;[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, &amp;quot;Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support.&amp;quot; [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, &amp;quot;How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?&amp;quot;, the ArbCom chairman responded, &amp;quot;Not at all.&amp;quot; [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 &amp;quot;a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]].&amp;quot;[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sinbad hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: &amp;quot;He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007.&amp;quot;  This hoax was widely reported in the media&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&amp;amp;iArticleId=3734818&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bondy, Filip. &amp;quot;They Can Finally Say They Belong Here&amp;quot;, New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;bloody disgrace&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==GFDL License Issue==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;page=Brian+Peppers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cyberbullying==&lt;br /&gt;
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ABCLocal&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;LATimes2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trademarks and domain names ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;wiki&amp;quot; including &amp;quot;[[wikileaks]]&amp;quot;.  WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. (&amp;quot;Wiki&amp;quot; describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a &amp;quot;protective brand measure&amp;quot; in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia&amp;gt;{{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}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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 &amp;quot;Wikileaks scandal broke.&amp;lt;ref name=wikia/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is &amp;quot;a 26-year-old geeky male&amp;quot; who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Song excerpt ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,&lt;br /&gt;
whiter than sour cream... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They see me strollin', they're laughin'&lt;br /&gt;
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so&lt;br /&gt;
White and nerdy&amp;quot;. - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unbaised editor recruitment==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it.  It is to an extent, 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 &amp;quot;24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change&amp;quot; conference in Baltimore, Maryland.  The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia.  Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Teahouse&amp;quot; for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&amp;amp;oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explained, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008 &lt;br /&gt;
*[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'', 6th December 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[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&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]&lt;br /&gt;
*[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.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046161</id>
		<title>Frank Schaeffer</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046161"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T20:37:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: Introducing quote&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Frank Schaeffer''' (born August 3, 1952) is the son of American Christian theologian and philosopher, [[Francis Schaeffer]]. He has authored several books and has criticized American [[Christian]] Conservatives which he claims to have helped create. These claims are rejected by evangelicals, like Os Guiness, who were also witnesses at the events Schaeffer recounts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Os Guinness, who lived with the Francis and Edith Schaeffer and was Frank's best man, wrote in a published review of  &amp;quot;Crazy for God&amp;quot;, that Frank Schaeffer is a typical example of a spoiled kid who is now dishonoring his parents as revenge for not getting the attention he craved as a child. &amp;quot;The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of &amp;quot;fundamentalist missionaries.&amp;quot; . . . He was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a &amp;quot;little Napoleon,&amp;quot;. . .In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Os Guinness, &amp;quot;Fathers and Sons, On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God&amp;quot;, Books and Culture, Christianity Today, March/April 2008.http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the early 1990s he turned from Christian conservatism and became out-spoken in his criticism of evangelicalism and the &amp;quot;religious right&amp;quot;, out-outspokenness that gained him attention from PBS and other such out-lets, giving publicity to his books. He is used as an example of an &amp;quot;ex-evangelical&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;ex-right-winger&amp;quot; by main-stream news out-lets. He was a public supporter of Barack Obama in 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he claims to have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 1990s, by 2012 he was professing agonsticism regarding the central tenets of Christianity and even the usefulness of faith itself, all while still attending and taking communion in an Orthodox church. He said, “to be a Christian is not to believe in Jesus in terms of who he was, whether he is the Son of God, rose from the dead or not, it is to believe in that life as an example. . . . Belief is useless … but doing is very difficult.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2285&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046158</id>
		<title>Frank Schaeffer</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046158"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T20:25:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Frank Schaeffer''' (born August 3, 1952) is the son of American Christian theologian and philosopher, [[Francis Schaeffer]]. He has authored several books and has criticized American [[Christian]] Conservatives which he claims to have helped create. These claims are rejected by evangelicals, like Os Guiness, who were also witnesses at the events Schaeffer recounts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Os Guinness, who lived with the Francis and Edith Schaeffer and was Frank's best man, wrote in a published review of  &amp;quot;Crazy for God&amp;quot;, that Frank Schaeffer is a typical example of a spoiled kid who is now dishonoring his parents as revenge for not getting the attention he craved as a child. &amp;quot;The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of &amp;quot;fundamentalist missionaries.&amp;quot; . . . He was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a &amp;quot;little Napoleon,&amp;quot;. . .In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Os Guinness, &amp;quot;Fathers and Sons, On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God&amp;quot;, Books and Culture, Christianity Today, March/April 2008.http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the early 1990s he turned from Christian conservatism and became out-spoken in his criticism of evangelicalism and the &amp;quot;religious right&amp;quot;, out-outspokenness that gained him attention from PBS and other such out-lets, giving publicity to his books. He is used as an example of an &amp;quot;ex-evangelical&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;ex-right-winger&amp;quot; by main-stream news out-lets. He was a public supporter of Barack Obama in 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he claims to have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 1990s “to be a Christian is not to believe in Jesus in terms of who he was, whether he is the Son of God, rose from the dead or not, it is to believe in that life as an example. . . . Belief is useless … but doing is very difficult.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2285&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046157</id>
		<title>Frank Schaeffer</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046157"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T20:25:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Frank Schaeffer''' (born August 3, 1952) is the son of American Christian theologian and philosopher, [[Francis Schaeffer]]. He has authored several books and has criticized American [[Christian]] Conservatives which he claims to have helped create. These claims are rejected by evangelicals, like Os Guiness who were also witnesses at the events Schaeffer recounts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Os Guinness, who lived with the Francis and Edith Schaeffer and was Frank's best man, wrote in a published review of  &amp;quot;Crazy for God&amp;quot;, that Frank Schaeffer is a typical example of a spoiled kid who is now dishonoring his parents as revenge for not getting the attention he craved as a child. &amp;quot;The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of &amp;quot;fundamentalist missionaries.&amp;quot; . . . He was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a &amp;quot;little Napoleon,&amp;quot;. . .In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Os Guinness, &amp;quot;Fathers and Sons, On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God&amp;quot;, Books and Culture, Christianity Today, March/April 2008.http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the early 1990s he turned from Christian conservatism and became out-spoken in his criticism of evangelicalism and the &amp;quot;religious right&amp;quot;, out-outspokenness that gained him attention from PBS and other such out-lets, giving publicity to his books. He is used as an example of an &amp;quot;ex-evangelical&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;ex-right-winger&amp;quot; by main-stream news out-lets. He was a public supporter of Barack Obama in 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he claims to have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 1990s “to be a Christian is not to believe in Jesus in terms of who he was, whether he is the Son of God, rose from the dead or not, it is to believe in that life as an example. . . . Belief is useless … but doing is very difficult.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2285&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046156</id>
		<title>Frank Schaeffer</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046156"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T20:24:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Frank Schaeffer''' (born August 3, 1952) is the son of American Christian theologian and philosopher, [[Francis Schaeffer]]. He has authored several books and has criticized American [[Christian]] Conservatives which he claims to have helped create. These claims are rejected by evangelicals, like Os Guiness who were also witnesses at the events Schaeffer recounts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Os Guinness, who lived with the Francis and Edith Schaeffer and was Frank's best man, wrote in a published review of  &amp;quot;Crazy for God&amp;quot;, that Frank Schaeffer is a typical example of a spoiled kid who is now dishonoring his parents as revenge for not getting the attention he craved as a child. &amp;quot;The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of &amp;quot;fundamentalist missionaries.&amp;quot; . . . He was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a &amp;quot;little Napoleon,&amp;quot;. . .In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Os Guinness, &amp;quot;Fathers and Sons, On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God&amp;quot;, Books and Culture, Christianity Today, March/April 2008.http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the early 1990s he turned from Christian conservatism and became out-spoken in his criticism of evangelicalism and the &amp;quot;religious right&amp;quot;, out-outspokenness that gained him attention from PBS and other such out-lets, giving publicity to his books. He is used as an example of an &amp;quot;ex-evangelical&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;ex-right-winger&amp;quot; by main-stream news out-lets. He was a public supporter of Barack Obama in 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he claims to have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 1990s “to be a Christian is not to believe in Jesus in terms of who he was, whether he is the Son of God, rose from the dead or not, it is to believe in that life as an example. . . . Belief is useless … but doing is very difficult.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2285&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --[[User:Yeoberry|Yeoberry]] 16:22, 12 April 2013 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046155</id>
		<title>Frank Schaeffer</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046155"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T20:24:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: added &amp;lt;references/&amp;gt; and info about support of Obama&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Frank Schaeffer''' (born August 3, 1952) is the son of American Christian theologian and philosopher, [[Francis Schaeffer]]. He has authored several books and has criticized American [[Christian]] Conservatives which he claims to have helped create. These claims are rejected by evangelicals, like Os Guiness who were also witnesses at the events Schaeffer recounts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Os Guinness[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_Guinness]], who lived with the Francis and Edith Schaeffer and was Frank's best man, wrote in a published review of  &amp;quot;Crazy for God&amp;quot;, that Frank Schaeffer is a typical example of a spoiled kid who is now dishonoring his parents as revenge for not getting the attention he craved as a child. &amp;quot;The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of &amp;quot;fundamentalist missionaries.&amp;quot; . . . He was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a &amp;quot;little Napoleon,&amp;quot;. . .In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Os Guinness, &amp;quot;Fathers and Sons, On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God&amp;quot;, Books and Culture, Christianity Today, March/April 2008.http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the early 1990s he turned from Christian conservatism and became out-spoken in his criticism of evangelicalism and the &amp;quot;religious right&amp;quot;, out-outspokenness that gained him attention from PBS and other such out-lets, giving publicity to his books. He is used as an example of an &amp;quot;ex-evangelical&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;ex-right-winger&amp;quot; by main-stream news out-lets. He was a public supporter of Barack Obama in 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he claims to have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 1990s “to be a Christian is not to believe in Jesus in terms of who he was, whether he is the Son of God, rose from the dead or not, it is to believe in that life as an example. . . . Belief is useless … but doing is very difficult.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2285&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --[[User:Yeoberry|Yeoberry]] 16:22, 12 April 2013 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046154</id>
		<title>Frank Schaeffer</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Schaeffer&amp;diff=1046154"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T20:22:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: material from Christianity Today, his heresy&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Frank Schaeffer''' (born August 3, 1952) is the son of American Christian theologian and philosopher, [[Francis Schaeffer]]. He has authored several books and has criticized American [[Christian]] Conservatives which he claims to have helped create. These claims are rejected by evangelicals, like Os Guiness who were also witnesses at the events Schaeffer recounts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Os Guinness[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_Guinness]], who lived with the Francis and Edith Schaeffer and was Frank's best man, wrote in a published review of  &amp;quot;Crazy for God&amp;quot;, that Frank Schaeffer is a typical example of a spoiled kid who is now dishonoring his parents as revenge for not getting the attention he craved as a child. &amp;quot;The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of &amp;quot;fundamentalist missionaries.&amp;quot; . . . He was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a &amp;quot;little Napoleon,&amp;quot;. . .In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Os Guinness, &amp;quot;Fathers and Sons, On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God&amp;quot;, Books and Culture, Christianity Today, March/April 2008.http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the early 1990s he turned from Christian conservatism and became out-spoken in his criticism of evangelicalism and the &amp;quot;religious right&amp;quot;, out-outspokenness that gained him attention from PBS and other such out-lets, giving publicity to his books. He is used as an example of an &amp;quot;ex-evangelical&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;ex-right-winger&amp;quot; by main-stream news out-lets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he claims to have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 1990s “to be a Christian is not to believe in Jesus in terms of who he was, whether he is the Son of God, rose from the dead or not, it is to believe in that life as an example. . . . Belief is useless … but doing is very difficult.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2285&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --[[User:Yeoberry|Yeoberry]] 16:22, 12 April 2013 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&amp;diff=1046099</id>
		<title>Southern Poverty Law Center</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&amp;diff=1046099"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T16:12:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: /* SPLC attacks on conservatives */ adding info I originally wrote for wikipedia but was suppressed by pro-SPLC censors&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Southern Poverty Law Center''' is a left-wing legal and activist [[organization]] created in 1971 in Montgomery, [[Alabama]]. It was founded by trial lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin, and its first president was civil rights leader Julian Bond, who would later take control of the [[NAACP]]. SPLC supports a wide variety of liberal positions; it is pro-[[immigration]] (both legal and [[illegal immigration|illegal]]), advocates [[multiculturalism]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], supports racial preferences and defendants' rights, and advocates against what it considers &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot;. In 2012, Black pastors confronted the Southern Poverty Law Center for smearing as ‘hate groups’ pro-family organizations opposed to [[homosexual agenda]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://americansfortruth.com/2012/01/16/press-conf-black-pastors-confront-southern-poverty-law-center-for-smearing-pro-family-organizations-opposed-to-homosexual-agenda-as-hate-groups/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden declared that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with [[homosexuality|homosexual]] perversion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://americansfortruth.com/2012/01/16/press-conf-black-pastors-confront-southern-poverty-law-center-for-smearing-pro-family-organizations-opposed-to-homosexual-agenda-as-hate-groups/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SPLC's op-ed writings have appeared in the [[Communist Party USA]]'s newspaper ''People's World''. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/22/splc-article-featured-in-communist-newspaper/ SPLC article featured in communist newspaper, The Daily Caller, January 22, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This &amp;quot;controversial, liberal organization&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/dec98/southern19.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been criticized in mainstream press for being extravagant in its spending, and using charges of racism to stifle conservatives. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cofcc.org/?p=984&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Finances==&lt;br /&gt;
The last year that the [[Better Business Bureau]]'s Philanthropic Advisory Service reported on the SPLC, in 1994, Dees and then Executive Director Edward Ashworth took home over $150,000 each, and the organization then possessed over $62 million in assets &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.zpub.com/notes/znote-splc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. It now controls over $200 million, and Dees pulls $286,000 in salary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.splcenter.org/donate/financialinfo/financial.jsp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2000, SPLC fundraised $27 million and made an additional $17 million from investments, but spent only $13 million on its civil rights program. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3e5cb925c4.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is no longer listed in the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.aspx?site=113&amp;amp;id=1bce9b1f-74e9-4c94-96e8-1ee2b519b0c4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; because that would require that &amp;quot;at least 50 percent of total income from all sources, should be applied to programs and activities directly related to the purposes for which the organization exists.&amp;quot; The SPLC spent 89 percent of its total income on fund-raising and administrative costs. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theamericanresistance.com/thousand_words/pics_splc_expands.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to donations from liberal members, which are often elicited by sensationalizing hate crimes, the center raises a lot of revenue seizing assets of violent groups, and by extorting groups that do not want to be accused of racism. In 1987, the SPLC won a major case on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, the mother of a Klan lynching victim. This was the invention of a clever new tactic-- suing domestic terrorist groups into bankruptcy-- but Ms. Donald benefitted very little. Of the $7 million verdict, only $50,000 went to her. This was because the Klan chapter had no assets other than a warehouse used as a headquarters, the warehouse itself was valued at about $50,000. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SPLC's fundraising tactics came under heavy criticism most recently by the Council of Conservative Citizens, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cofcc.org/?p=5108&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; as well as by articles in ''Harper's'' magazine in 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Silverstein, Ken.  &amp;quot;The Church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Profits from Intolerance&amp;quot;.  ''Harper's'', November, 2000.  http://www.harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in the local ''Montgomery Advertiser'' newspaper in 1994.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morse, Dan and Greg Jaffe. &amp;quot;Critics Question $52 Million Reserve, Tactics of Wealthiest Civil Rights Group&amp;quot;. ''Montgomery Advertiser'', February 13, 1994&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==SPLC attacks on conservatives==&lt;br /&gt;
While SPLC organizes against obvious hate groups such as the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood, it also lumps in conservative organizations in an attempt to intimidate them. For instance, SPLC considers Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a &amp;quot;hate group&amp;quot;, because it opposes illegal immigration, and uses demonstrations as a method, which the SPLC deems intimidation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate&amp;amp;splcnewsletter=panewsgen-121107/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Similarly, the center labels the immigration reductionist/reformist website VDARE as a &amp;quot;hate group&amp;quot;, because it argues against illegal immigration &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/10/07/freedom-folksblogs4borders-interview-with-peter-brimelow/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SPLC followed Laird Wilson in publishing a list of &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot; but after Wilson rejected the usefulness of that approach, the SPLC continued with it, becoming prominent for using it against groups standing for traditional values.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0223/Annual-report-cites-rise-in-hate-groups-but-some-ask-What-is-hate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://editioncnn.com/2012/08/16us/dc-shooting-blame/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thehill.com/blogs?blog-briefing-room/news/243921-shooting-spurs-heated-battle-on-gay-rights-and-hate-group-label&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Laird Wilcox, claims to have provided SPLC with some of the information initially used to compile their list of &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot;. He &amp;quot;concluded that a lot of [the SPLC's hate groups] were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC.&amp;quot; Some of the &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot; were creations of SPLC informants, rather than legitimate groups. And with the advent of the internet, some of them exist &amp;quot;nowhere except in cyberspace.&amp;quot; Wilcox concludes, &amp;quot;The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;An Expert on Fringe Political Movements Reflects on the SPLC’s Political Agenda - An Exclusive Interview with Author and Researcher Laird Wilcox,&amp;quot;Volume 20, Number 3 (Spring 2010)  http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_3/tsc_20_3_wilcox_interview.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the [[Family Research Council]], some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group. Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post, wrote that the SPLC was &amp;quot;reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-on-hate-groups/2012/08/16/70a60ac6-e7e8-11el-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22dana-milbank-washington-post-family-research-council-hate-group_n_1822805.html Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writer, Slams LGBT Activists, SPLC For FRC's 'Hate Group' Label]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council,” said, after the attack, “I believe [the gunman Floyd Corkins] was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;FRC's Perkins: Southern Poverty Law Center Gave Gunman 'License to Shoot', http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/perkins-shooting-family-research/2012/08/16/id/448862?s=al&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Capital Research Center states that the SPLC &amp;quot;deliberately mischaracterizes conservatives and tea partiers as “extremists”.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate, http://www.capitalresearch.org/2012/09/southern-poverty-law-center-wellspring-of-manufactured-hate/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also smeared as &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot; by the SPLC include: the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, and The Social Contract Press (a liberal group publishing [[environmentalist]] works such as those of [[Garrett Hardin]], apparently solely because they republished French writer [[Jean Raspail]]'s 1973 novel ''The Camp of the Saints'' which foretells catasrophe befalling [[Europe]] from boatloads of illegal immigrants arriving from South Asia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another example is the Council of Conservative Citizens, a conservative activist organization that advocates on behalf of states' rights and against immigration, communism, racial quotas and gun control. SPLC labels all members as racist because a minority of members had decades-past connections to segregationist organizations. In fact, the CCC attracts such mainstream speakers such as former Sen. [[Trent Lott]] (R-Miss.), Gov. [[Kirk Fordice]] (R-MS) and Rep. [[Bob Barr]] (R-Ga.), and engages in charitable and cultural events.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SPLC has also recently added new categories to its categories of &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot;, including Traditionalist [[Catholic]]s (that is, those who advocate for a return to the [[Latin]] [[Mass]]), and an &amp;quot;anti-gay&amp;quot; category of groups who do not support the homosexual agenda and/or advocate for homosexuals to come out of that lifestyle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the 1990s, the SPLC maintained a separate list of &amp;quot;patriot groups&amp;quot;, which although they did not include them as part of their &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot; list, carried the same intent: to [[guilt by association|smear those groups by association]], and create the public impression those groups were some sort of threat to society.  Their &amp;quot;patriot groups&amp;quot; list included groups opposed to the [[income tax]], groups campaigning for jury and court reform, and the venerable conservative organization the [[John Birch Society]], among others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010, the SPLC created a list entitled &amp;quot;Meet the Patriots&amp;quot;, which included such people such as [[Chuck Baldwin]], [[Orly Taitz]], and [[Alex Jones]] as supporters of this &amp;quot;patriot movement&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/meet-the-patriots?page=0,0&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A supplement entitled &amp;quot;The Enablers&amp;quot; was also released, which included [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Glenn Beck]], [[Ron Paul]], and [[Judge Napolitano]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/meet-the-patriots/the-enablers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the SPLC found four individuals to file a law suit against a group providing therapy to homosexual men in order to help them become [[ex-homosexuals]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/27/15486181-four-men-sue-new-jersey-organization-over-gay-conversion-therapy?lite&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The SPLC alleges the group violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud law in advertising that conversion therapy will help people become [[ex-homosexuals]].  Instead of being a pro-consumer lawsuit, as the SLPC implies, the suit is a collateral attack on conversion therapy, and the free exercise of religion. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These incidents further prove the SPLC is a left-wing political organization rather than one focused on racism and civil rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Infiltration into the classroom==&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the SPLC runs tolerance.org, a website that advocates multiculturalism, the homosexual agenda and &amp;quot;social justice&amp;quot;. It is designed with teachers in mind so that these ideas can influence young children in the classroom &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tolerance.org/teach/activities/index.jsp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For instance, teachers can click &amp;quot;classroom activities&amp;quot; then &amp;quot;early grades&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Tolerance Issues: Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual issues:&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;tolerance issues: Gender Issues&amp;quot; and arrive at a pro-alternative family article, among others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tolerance.org/teach/current/event.jsp?cid=305&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Its magazine is sent to over 400,000 eduators, and over 10,000 schools participate in its programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Interference in the Sierra Club==&lt;br /&gt;
In early 2004, Morris Dees filed to run as a candidate for the board of directors of the [[Sierra Club]], an [[environmentalist]] organization.  Dees', who has no background in environmental issues at all, ran only to use his ballot statement to smear three other candidates for the Sierra Club board, who advocated the Sierra Club address the environmental impact of excessive legal and illegal immigration into the United States.  Dees and two other fake board candidates were part of a broader smear campaign by the radical left, which also included [[MoveOn.org]].  Dees, MoveOn, and others smeared these three candidates, all of whom were staunch liberals and environmentalists (one of them, former [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] governor of [[Colorado]], [[Richard Lamm]]) solely because they understood excessive immigration numbers to be an environmental issue.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For much background and material on the takeover of the Sierra Club in 2004 by radical pro-immigration and [[political correctness]] advocates, including Dees' role as a fake board candidate, see http://sierrademocracy.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cooperation with law enforcement==&lt;br /&gt;
The SPLC has been criticized by civil rights writer Laird Wilcox for essentially functioning as a private intelligence gathering agency for the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] and other [[law enforcement]] agencies, doing activities as a private organization that public law enforcement agencies are barred by law from doing (such as keeping dossiers on people solely because of their political or religious views) because for a government agency to do them would be a violation of [[civil rights]].  Wilcox points out the dangers of the FBI and other law enforcement working with ideologically-driven groups like the SPLC, which has its roots in 1960s radical liberal activism, because of the danger this poses that the SPLC's own ideological differences with another group can be treated as a law enforcement issue rather than as an ideological dispute between a left-wing group (the SPLC) and a group on the right.  This can, and has, led to attacks on such groups' freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilcox, Laird.  ''The Watchdogs''.  Olathe, Kansas: Editorial Research Service, 1999.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, the SPLC has a history of adding groups to its listing of purported &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot; in advance of a government law enforcement campaign against them.  The SPLC inexplicably added the [[Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints]] (FLDS) to its &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot; list just before FLDS leader Warren Jeffs was indicted on charges of arranging [[polygamy|polygamous]] underage marriages.  The timing of this listing by SPLC was suspicious, as is the accuracy of calling FLDS a &amp;quot;hate group&amp;quot; to begin with, any controversy over their polygamous practices notwithstanding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==''Into the Mainstream'' controversy==&lt;br /&gt;
In the summer of 2003, the SPLC's ''Intelligence Journal'' carried a feature article entitled &amp;quot;Into the Mainstream&amp;quot;, by [[Chip Berlet]].  The cover of the journal had an image of [[Adolf Hitler]] in front of the [[American flag]] and the caption, &amp;quot;Marching toward the Mainstream: the radical Right invades American culture&amp;quot;.  The implication was that such conservative activists as [[David Horowitz]] and his [[Center for the Study of Popular Culture]], as well as other groups including the [[libertarian]] Ludwig von Mises Institute, were &amp;quot;radical right&amp;quot; and Hitlerian.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kantor, Myles.  &amp;quot;Morris Dees' Defamation&amp;quot;.  ''FrontPage magazine'', September 25, 2003.  http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=52878574-A7B7-4885-A6F9-58C15841D70C&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This smear was denounced by David Horowitz, who demanded an apology, although none was forthcoming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For further details see [[Chip_Berlet#Hate_speech]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==SPLC as film critic==&lt;br /&gt;
The SPLC has published criticisms of [[movie]]s they deem to be not [[politically correct]], often smearing the filmmakers in the process and portraying them to be part of a purported &amp;quot;radical right&amp;quot; conspiracy to influence the culture.  Films the SPLC has criticized in this manner include [[Ronald Maxwell]]'s [[American Civil War]] epics ''Gettysburg'' (1993) and ''Gods and Generals'' (2003), and [[Mel Gibson]]'s 2004 film ''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Center for Democratic Renewal]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Black church-burning hoax]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Yeoberry&amp;diff=1046072</id>
		<title>User talk:Yeoberry</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Yeoberry&amp;diff=1046072"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T13:25:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: Blanked the page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Covenant_Reformed_Baptist_Church&amp;diff=1046070</id>
		<title>Covenant Reformed Baptist Church</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Covenant_Reformed_Baptist_Church&amp;diff=1046070"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T13:05:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Covenant Reformed Baptist Church is a Baptist Church in Providence, North Carolina, in the Danville, Virginia area. It professes three distinctives: being &amp;quot;Reformed&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Inter-racial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Active&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Covenant Reformed Baptist Church pamphlet &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church was begun in March, 2008, first as &amp;quot;Covenant Fellowship&amp;quot;, meeting in the Caswell County Parks and Recreation Gym, as an experiment seeking if their area needed a new church &amp;quot;committed to being Reformed, Inter-racial, and active.&amp;quot; After a three month exploratory stage, the initial congregants decided to go forward, naming themselves Covenant Reformed Baptist Church (CRBC), seeking a founding membership willing to be committed to the church's covenant and statement of faith, being inter-racial and active in out-reach. That &amp;quot;formation stage&amp;quot; of the church ended in November 2008 when it members ratified a church constitution and called as pastor Dr. John Carpenter and as a lay-elder Joe Scruggs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;New Church Forms and Expands,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', November 12, 2008, p. 11.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In early 2009 the new church purchased the gymnasium originally built for the Piedmont Academy, a now defunct segregated school in Providence, North Carolina, which has since served as it's main facility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Covenant opens new building in Providence,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', March 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reformed==&lt;br /&gt;
Professing to being &amp;quot;Reformed&amp;quot; is exceptional in North Carolina. It designates a theological commitment to what are known as &amp;quot;the five point of Calvinism&amp;quot; Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints. In the case of CRBC, it also shows a commitment to specific matters of church practice, in worship and polity. For example, the church eschews high pressure altar calls or manipulative use of music.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeVane, Steve. &amp;quot;‘Reformed’ in church name shows Calvinism’s growth,&amp;quot; ''The Biblical Recorder'', November 24, 2008. http://www.brnow.org/News/November-2008/%E2%80%98Reformed%E2%80%99-in-church-name-shows-Calvinism%E2%80%99s-growth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The church aligns itself to &amp;quot;The 9 Marks of a Healthy Church&amp;quot;, thus professing support for expository preaching through all of the Bible, meaningful membership, and church discipline.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.9marks.org/churchsearch/locator.php?zip=27379&amp;amp;radius=5&amp;amp;x=81&amp;amp;y=32&amp;amp;action=search&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Taking Colossians 3:16 literally, the church sings a psalm every service, sequentially singing through the psalter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Inter-racial==&lt;br /&gt;
From it's origins the church has sought to be &amp;quot;inter-racial&amp;quot;. John Carpenter said, &amp;quot;We're not playing church, not cultural Christianity for just one kind of people but a loving flock for all of God's people.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Another Milestone for new church,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', September 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In February 2009, the church took a group of youth from it's area to see the Martin Luther King, Jr National Historic Site in Atlanta, Georgia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Caswell Messenger'', March 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The church, led by Mary Yeo of Singapore, has reached out to and included the area Chinese community. Besides welcoming Chinese into membership, Yeo brought back a small library of Chinese language Christian books. John Carpenter said, From our beginnings in 2008, we've sought to be a truly inter-racial church, with black, white and now Chinese. We don't believe in segregated churches. . . . Here there has been a shameful racial segregation. We're working, with Jesus' love, to bridge those gaps and let Jesus build one church out of many believing people.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Covenant reaches out to Chinese community,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', July 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Upon the death of an 13-year old African American boy, Demion Farmer, who attended the churches functions, Carpenter wrote, &amp;quot;We're also reminded of why we've been called to be a church for all kinds of people. Our building was originally built in the 1970's for a segregated school, to keep the races apart. But apparently King Jesus decided that He had a better use for that building: to welcome all kinds of children (and adults) in.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carpenter, John, &amp;quot;Loss of a Child,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger''. February 22, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Active==&lt;br /&gt;
The church professes a commitment to evangelism and says that because of that commitment it purchased a gymnasium.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Church refurbishes Providence Gym, since purchase in 2009,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', July 13, 2011, p. A9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The church runs two programs geared toward outsiders: Gym, Jr and Gym. Gym, Jr is for children ages six to twelve, led by Justin Scruggs, a certified Physical Education teacher. GYM is an acronym for &amp;quot;Godward Youth Ministry&amp;quot;. The youth ministry, for those 13 and over, allows local youth to use the gym and the church provides snack and Biblical instruction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Gym Jr celebrates Christmas for local children,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', January 2, 2013, p. 9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Founding Pastor==&lt;br /&gt;
John Carpenter earned a Ph.D. in church history studying Puritanism (Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago). He also has a B.A. from Samford University; an M.Div. from Fuller Theological Seminary; and a Th.M. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Church refurbishes Providence Gym, since purpose in 2009&amp;quot;, ''The Caswell Messenger'', July 2011. Covenant Reformed Baptist Church pamphlet.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some of his sermons are available through youtube and at the church's web-site.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEWT0r86ch_R0bMwt1p4V2ZnheUiMBtCS. www.covenantcaswell.org.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He is the author of &amp;quot;The Fourth Great Awakening Or Apostasy:  Is American Evangelicalism Cycling Upwards Or Spiraling Downwards?&amp;quot; and various other articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society'', 44/4 (December 2001) 647–70. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/44/44-4/44-4-PP647-70_JETS.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Covenant_Reformed_Baptist_Church&amp;diff=1046069</id>
		<title>Covenant Reformed Baptist Church</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Covenant_Reformed_Baptist_Church&amp;diff=1046069"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T13:04:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: Covenant Reformed Baptist Church&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Covenant Reformed Baptist Church is a Baptist Church in Providence, North Carolina, in the Danville, Virginia area. It professes three distinctives: being &amp;quot;Reformed&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Inter-racial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Active&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Covenant Reformed Baptist Church pamphlet &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church was begun in March, 2008, first as &amp;quot;Covenant Fellowship&amp;quot;, meeting in the Caswell County Parks and Recreation Gym, as an experiment seeking if their area needed a new church &amp;quot;committed to being Reformed, Inter-racial, and active.&amp;quot; After a three month exploratory stage, the initial congregants decided to go forward, naming themselves Covenant Reformed Baptist Church (CRBC), seeking a founding membership willing to be committed to the church's covenant and statement of faith, being inter-racial and active in out-reach. That &amp;quot;formation stage&amp;quot; of the church ended in November 2008 when it members ratified a church constitution and called as pastor Dr. John Carpenter and as a lay-elder Joe Scruggs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;New Church Forms and Expands,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', November 12, 2008, p. 11.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In early 2009 the new church purchased the gymnasium originally built for the Piedmont Academy, a now defunct segregated school in Providence, North Carolina, which has since served as it's main facility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Covenant opens new building in Providence,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', March 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reformed==&lt;br /&gt;
Professing to being &amp;quot;Reformed&amp;quot; is exceptional in North Carolina. It designates a theological commitment to what are known as &amp;quot;the five point of Calvinism&amp;quot; Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints. In the case of CRBC, it also shows a commitment to specific matters of church practice, in worship and polity. For example, the church eschews high pressure altar calls or manipulative use of music.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeVane, Steve. &amp;quot;‘Reformed’ in church name shows Calvinism’s growth,&amp;quot; ''The Biblical Recorder'', November 24, 2008. http://www.brnow.org/News/November-2008/%E2%80%98Reformed%E2%80%99-in-church-name-shows-Calvinism%E2%80%99s-growth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The church aligns itself to &amp;quot;The 9 Marks of a Healthy Church&amp;quot;, thus professing support for expository preaching through all of the Bible, meaningful membership, and church discipline.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.9marks.org/churchsearch/locator.php?zip=27379&amp;amp;radius=5&amp;amp;x=81&amp;amp;y=32&amp;amp;action=search&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Taking Colossians 3:16 literally, the church sings a psalm every service, sequentially singing through the psalter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Inter-racial==&lt;br /&gt;
From it's origins the church has sought to be &amp;quot;inter-racial&amp;quot;. John Carpenter said, &amp;quot;We're not playing church, not cultural Christianity for just one kind of people but a loving flock for all of God's people.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Another Milestone for new church,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', September 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In February 2009, the church took a group of youth from it's area to see the Martin Luther King, Jr National Historic Site in Atlanta, Georgia.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Caswell Messenger'', March 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The church, led by Mary Yeo of Singapore, has reached out to and included the area Chinese community. Besides welcoming Chinese into membership, Yeo brought back a small library of Chinese language Christian books. John Carpenter said, From our beginnings in 2008, we've sought to be a truly inter-racial church, with black, white and now Chinese. We don't believe in segregated churches. . . . Here there has been a shameful racial segregation. We're working, with Jesus' love, to bridge those gaps and let Jesus build one church out of many believing people.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Covenant reaches out to Chinese community,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', July 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Upon the death of an 13-year old African American boy, Demion Farmer, who attended the churches functions, Carpenter wrote, &amp;quot;We're also reminded of why we've been called to be a church for all kinds of people. Our building was originally built in the 1970's for a segregated school, to keep the races apart. But apparently King Jesus decided that He had a better use for that building: to welcome all kinds of children (and adults) in.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carpenter, John, &amp;quot;Loss of a Child,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger''. February 22, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Active==&lt;br /&gt;
The church professes a commitment to evangelism and says that because of that commitment it purchased a gymnasium.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Church refurbishes Providence Gym, since purchase in 2009,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', July 13, 2011, p. A9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The church runs two programs geared toward outsiders: Gym, Jr and Gym. Gym, Jr is for children ages six to twelve, led by Justin Scruggs, a certified Physical Education teacher. GYM is an acronym for &amp;quot;Godward Youth Ministry&amp;quot;. The youth ministry, for those 13 and over, allows local youth to use the gym and the church provides snack and Biblical instruction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Gym Jr celebrates Christmas for local children,&amp;quot; ''The Caswell Messenger'', January 2, 2013, p. 9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Founding Pastor==&lt;br /&gt;
John Carpenter earned a Ph.D. in church history studying Puritanism (Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago). He also has a B.A. from Samford University; an M.Div. from Fuller Theological Seminary; and a Th.M. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Church refurbishes Providence Gym, since purpose in 2009&amp;quot;, ''The Caswell Messenger'', July 2011. Covenant Reformed Baptist Church pamphlet.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some of his sermons are available through youtube and at the church's web-site.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEWT0r86ch_R0bMwt1p4V2ZnheUiMBtCS. www.covenantcaswell.org.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He is the author of &amp;quot;The Fourth Great Awakening Or Apostasy:  Is American Evangelicalism Cycling Upwards Or Spiraling Downwards?&amp;quot; and various other articles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society'', 44/4 (December 2001) 647–70. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/44/44-4/44-4-PP647-70_JETS.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Icon&amp;diff=1046066</id>
		<title>Icon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Icon&amp;diff=1046066"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T12:53:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: added material from recent article on icons&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''icon''' comes from the Greek &amp;quot;eikon&amp;quot; which mean &amp;quot;image&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
An '''icon''' can also mean somebody symbolizing a movement (i.e. [[conservative]] ''icon'' [[Phyllis Schlafly]]). &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861619909/icon.html Icon definition], Dictionary - MSN Encarta&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An '''icon''' is a holy image which is an art form of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]. The icon is not simply decorative. Many Orthodox churches have icons on the walls and the ceilings. In the ceiling or dome is the icon of Christ the Almighty, the Pantocrator. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not permit icons representing God the Father. In addition, icons cannot be 3 dimensional (statues). The Eastern Orthodox Church also does not permit the Virgin Mary to be depicted in an icon without Christ (excluding the icon of the Annunciation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is common practice for iconographers not to sign their work in the belief that the glory goes to God, not to the artist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The early church appears to have inherited the opposition to icons inherent in second temple, Talmudic Judaism. Hence, early Christians were accused of being &amp;quot;atheists&amp;quot; by Romans who assumed the absence of images meant the absence of belief in gods.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, ''Martyrdom of Polycarp'', chapter 9; cited by John B. Carpenter, &amp;quot;Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church,&amp;quot; ''Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics'', Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, p. 111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Origen (184-254) responded to the charge of &amp;quot;atheism&amp;quot; by admitting that Christians did not use images in worship, following the Second Commandment.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64; according to John B. Carpenter, &amp;quot;Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church,&amp;quot; ''Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics'', Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, p. 112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira (c. 305) states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” About the year 327 the early church historian Eusebius (c. AD 263 – 339) wrote, &amp;quot;To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David M. Gwynn, “From Iconoclasm to Arianism: The Construction of Christian Tradition in the Iconoclast Controversy” [Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47 (2007) 225–251], p. 227. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Epiphanius (inter 310–320 – 403), bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus wrote, in Letter 51 (c. 394), to John, Bishop of Jerusalem about an incident of finding an image in a church in his jurisdiction: &amp;quot;I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person.&amp;quot; He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John B. Carpenter, &amp;quot;Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church,&amp;quot; ''Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics'', Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, p. 118.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Iconoclastic controversy]] was a dispute over the veneration of icons within Christianity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Icon2.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sources ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Carpenter, John B. &amp;quot;Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church,&amp;quot; ''Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics'', Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.goarch.org Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.flickr.com Flickr Public Photos]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:religion]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Yeoberry&amp;diff=1046064</id>
		<title>User talk:Yeoberry</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Yeoberry&amp;diff=1046064"/>
		<updated>2013-04-12T12:49:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yeoberry: missing articles&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Hi, Where's my article on &amp;quot;Covenant Reformed Baptist Church&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
I also put one up about Gail Riplinger.--[[User:Yeoberry|Yeoberry]] 08:49, 12 April 2013 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Yeoberry</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>