Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - A Wikipedia content-abuse story -- only with real-world violence 1

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "Once again, the Wikipediocracy website has uncovered a substantial abuse of the truth on Wikipedia. Like the "Qworty" debacle that ran in the news media last year, this post describes people who are deliberately inserting misinformation and attacking anyone who criticizes them for it. Unlike Qworty, it involves two editors — one is simply not very competent, the other (called only "Henry" here, possibly for fear of the author's safety) is not only protecting her, he is also posting his own phony articles and outright lies on Wikipedia. By the way, he spent years in prison for beating a woman with a pool cue."

+ - German Wikipedia Has Problems With Paid Editing -- And Threats Of Violence 2

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "As German journalist Marvin Oppong learned recently, there are a number of people who work to make articles about certain corporations and trade groups on German Wikipedia "look better". And when Oppong published his discoveries, one reaction was an openly violent threat, aimed at him, posted on de-WP's "Kurier" noticeboard. Just as with English Wikipedia, it is apparently a "terrible crime" to criticize German Wikipedia, even when Jimbo Wales's "bright line" rule on paid editing is being violated. Unlike English WP, the Germans will threaten to "curbstone" people for saying it."

+ - Major Wikipedia donors caught editing their own articles 7

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "As reported before on Slashdot, one of the most terrible sins on Wikipedia is to edit articles for pay, or otherwise violate the "neutral point of view" policy, per their co-founder Jimmy Wales. And yet, the Wikipedia-criticism website Wikipediocracy has recently performed a study showing that a large percentage of the Wikimedia Foundation's largest cash donors have violated that policy. Repeatedly, and wantonly. In short, they wrote articles about themselves or their companies, then gave the WMF big donations — and were not confronted about violating the NPOV policy. It reeks of outright favoritism. The first installment of an upcoming multi-part series discusses the co-creator of Cards Against Humanity, and his blatant editing of the Wikipedia article about his card game, followed by a $70,000 donation to the WMF. An honest donation, or hush money?"

Comment: COI is inevitable (Score 1) 7

by Stanistani (#46453193) Attached to: Major Wikipedia donors caught editing their own articles
Most anyone interested enough to navigate the hostile waters of Wikipedia has an interest in a subject, either through employment, advocacy, or just plain liking or disliking the topic of an article. The ‘Bright Line’ rule is doomed, as paid editing and advocacy is already rampant in Wikipedia. It’s time to manage this, not demonize it. I’m looking forward to subsequent chapters in this COI saga.

+ - Why do people add to Wikipedia? Sometimes it's pure self-indulgence.-> 2

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Uncounted thousands of people have added content to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". And this has been celebrated as a success of the "open web". However, Wikipedia also has a number of very serious flaws, from paid editors to corporate promotion to self-centered "autobiographies". Not to mention bizarre biases, resulting from political battles and obsessive attention to minor subjects such as highways, storms and videogaming. Or the Wikimedia Foundation's apparent push in favor of more traffic, not content quality. A new Wikipediocracy article summarizes some of the worst abuses. These disputes are rarely discussed outside Wikipedia circles, and are only the tip of the iceberg."
Link to Original Source
Wikipedia

+ - Wikimedia UK's chair banned...from Wikipedia-> 3

Submitted by
Larry Sanger
Larry Sanger writes "The Chair of Wikimedia UK, a £1 million charity independent of the Wikimedia Foundation, was banned 11 days ago, for allegedly posting bondage porn of himself and otherwise violating Wikipedia policies. So he was removed as head of WMUK, right? Er, no. On July 26, their Board declared their "united" support of Van Haeften. So the chair of Wikipedia's UK £1 million charity is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. The Chair of the UK's Wikipedia charity is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. So this immediately became a big scandal, right? Er, no. Wikipedia routinely gets a pass for its many foibles. The first mainstream story to appear about it came out just this morning in the Telegraph. More background here."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Toothbrush (Score 1) 3

by Stanistani (#40176527) Attached to: What should we do about Wikipedia's porn problem?
Without the image filter (something all other major sites have) if you search on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons for normal, everyday items such as' necklace', 'toothbrush' or, in French, 'homework' (devoir) you get as your top or second hit, porn. Children are encouraged to use these resources. Teens are often admin on these sites, cataloging and categorizing the porn. Yech.
Wikipedia

+ - What should we do about Wikipedia's porn problem?-> 3

Submitted by
Larry Sanger
Larry Sanger writes "In 2011, the Wikimedia Board committed to installing a "controversial content" filter even weaker than Google's SafeSearch, as proposed by the "2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content." Since then, after growing opposition by some Wikipedians, some board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Nevertheless, as TFA makes clear, Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn and other material most parents don't want their kids stumbling across. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. Nevertheless, children remain some of Wikipedia's heaviest users. Jimmy Wales has recently reiterated his support for such a filter, but no work is being done on it, and the Foundation has not yet issued any statement about whether they intend to continue work on it."
Link to Original Source

1: No code table for op: ++post

Working...