Or just Google to find independent confirmation yourself. The California-based Wikimedia Foundation is the funding and control center that operates the highly influential but controversial Wikipedia online encyclopedia , which for years has ranked among the top 10 most-visited websites in the world.
Hundreds of millions of dollars from far-left foundation grants and individuals over the past decade — as well as a bias among senior editors — have led Wikipedia to routinely favor liberal views and smear opponents.
The officers are responsible for directing general content policies and managing all 80, volunteer contributors, editors, as well as millions of one-time or occasional contributors. Wikipedia itself has no separate legal status and is thus not incorporated nor recognized by the IRS.
For instance, Wikimedia has added its anti-technology, anti-corporation, and anti-free enterprise philosophy to the profiles of many individuals and organizations, particularly on contentious issues such as climate change.
Wikimedia Foundation boasts of its transparency, yet its own profile page on Wikipedia is an empty redirect page pointing to a long Frequently Asked Questions list that reads like a blatant yet evasive self-promotional screed and does not provide the solid, detailed who-what-when-where reportorial information of other Wikipedia foundation entries such as those of the Ford Foundation or the Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Wikimedia Foundation has had three executive directors in the two years from to , Sue Gardner resigned 1 May, , Lila Tretikov resigned 25 February, and Katherine Maher from June, Wikipedia's Zealots , Lawrence Solomon Apr 12, Anonymous Wikipedia editors explain why they don't want you to know who they are , Drexel University, Phys. Experiment concludes: Most misinformation inserted into Wikipedia may persist , Gregory Kohs, Wikipediocracy Apr 13, Corruption and bribes in Wikipedia , Doctor Ethics, Medium.
Wikibullies at work. Garrison, First Monday Oct Cultural bias in Wikipedia content on famous persons , Ewa S. Callahan, Susan C.
Herring, Wiley Jul Conservapedia Examples of bias at Wikipedia. Discover the Networks. Heartland is a year-old national think tank based in Chicago. According to the latest official figures, there are Wikipedia sites in different languages, with some 46 million articles accessed by 1. And it is all completely voluntary. There are fewer than full-time staff worldwide, nine of them in the UK. But everything else you see on Wikipedia has been put there voluntarily.
That is the collaborative nature of Wikipedia; someone, somewhere, has an interest or expertise in the most obscure of subjects, and they are willing to spend their time putting what they know online just in case you ever want to know, say, a full list of every single member ever of the Justice League of America, the scores in every final of the English Football League Trophy since , or the names of all the volcanoes in Indonesia.
But anyone with an internet access and a free website creator programme, which abound on the internet, can do that. Because behind those who are putting all this data online purely because they want to is another wave of volunteers who are constantly questioning, demanding verification for and keeping in check this tsunami of information. Those numbers are links to citations, or primary sources that back up the information, and the more of them that a Wikipedia entry has, the better.
One is marked Edit, and that brings the collaborative nature of the project right home. Then you can click on this tab, and quickly and easily change the entire page. Want to send comics fans into a tailspin by editing that Justice League of America page to replace all the DC comics characters with superheroes published by rival company Marvel? Go right ahead. And the answer is, we can trust Wikipedia just about as much as we can trust anyone who tells us anything.
One obvious one is not being dishonest. Another is avoiding opinion and sticking to verifiable facts. But it is possible to set up a user account with a pseudonymous username to allow you to edit anonymously. However, using anonymous accounts for blatant misrepresentation and puffery - known as sock puppetry - is often spotted and the offending content challenged or removed by other editors.
Blatant self-promotion is frowned upon by the community and viewed as a conflict of interest. Anyway, as you don't control the page, less flattering information may soon be added by others. But examples of Wikispam, as it's sometimes called, are "speedily deleted" according to the website.
You don't need to log in to the site to read or edit articles, but setting up an account and registering allows you to create your own pages, upload content and edit without your internet protocol IP address - the number that identifies a mobile phone or computer on a network - being visible to the public.
The Wiki administrators, who number around 1,, can usually identify the IP address of someone editing articles and this can be tracked to a rough location, enabling them to spot suspicious patterns of behaviour.
Offending accounts can be suspended, without individuals necessarily being identified. If the IP address is different - you use a different computer or phone than the one you used before and, if you're being really sneaky, move location to do your editing - there's no reason why you can't set up another anonymous account and carry on as before.
And there are plenty of services allowing internet users to hide their IP addresses anyway, for example, by using an encrypted virtual private network. Someone going to great lengths to hide their IP address is sometimes enough to arouse suspicion among the site's administrators.
0コメント