Very shady Wikipedia business

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06 ... overstock/

It seems Wikipedia has intentionally put itself in a position of power, with the ability to censor information. Perhaps time to start calling it Wikipravda?

The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone, even yourself, can go into Wikipedia and make changes in the text that they print.
It can give people alot of false information when they are looking for genuine information.

Hmm, I found some other shocking news too: http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/91733

"German Wikipedia receives state funding"

I guess they've started marketing their power. Even though it started only 6 years ago, Wikipedia now defines most topics, the main source for information about anything people don't know about and aren't constantly told about in mass media. Being a well-respected editor within the Wiki community must mean a lot of power and market value.

This was in the news not long ago - someone developed a tool that shows who's edited particular pages. Apparently the CIA, FBI, and Vatican are all very active in editing it...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm

Well.

That's interesting.

But then again.

That's not newsworthy. a fluff piece at most.

Great, wikipedia becomes biased. It shows its true face. Screw the power-hungry admins, I hope that someone hacks into wikipedia and shuts them down for a day.

Leave them be, most people are their own worst enemy.

As long as it was good, fine, when it becomes corrupt, a new market.

It is always a light overview, I do my real work somewhere else.

And that, children, is why the Wiki is never to be used as a source for your school papers...

I mean, holey moley, whatz awn teh InnternetZ iz mosely notz TROO? OHNOEZ!!

In Isvestia there is no Pravda, and in Pravda there is no Isvestia
(In News there is no Truth, and no Truth in News... - Russian Saying

Campaign operatives for various elections have been meddling too. Take it with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia bias against AS was mentioned in a recent thread here; several editors of the Asperger Syndrome page resigned in protest :

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt49566.html

There is now a case pending before Wikipedia's ArbCom (Arbitration Committee), where aspie editor Zareaph accuses more established editor SandyGeorgia of bias and personal harassment ... apparently no less than Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales has expressed support of the aspie ... stay tuned, kitties. I don't know much about this particular case, except one editor called Zaraeph 'mentally ill" for being Aspie ... that probably wasn't a good move :-b

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... on#Zeraeph

Wait a minute... Is their actually any (reasonable) people left who think Wikipedia is actually a source of good information? I mean, it's a laughing stock compared to legitimate encyclopedias.

I use it to get the gist of what something is, like a bit of background to explain something, but I generally then take that and research further to get more accurate details.