Wikipedians

Article on Vice.com. Excerpt:

"We all know that Wikipedia can be subverted – it’s an inevitability of an open platform that some people will seek to abuse it, whether to gain some advantage or just for a laugh. Fortunately, the Wikipedia community has strong mechanisms in place to deal with this, from the famous cry of [citation needed] to the rigorous checks and standards put in place by its hierarchy of editors and admins.

"In recent months though, insiders have encountered something altogether more worrying: a concerted attack on the very fabric of Wikipedia by PR companies that have subverted the online encyclopaedia’s editing hierarchy to alter articles on a massive scale – perhaps tens of thousands of them. Wikipedia is the world’s most popular source of cultural, historical and scientific knowledge – if their fears are correct, it’s all-important credibility could be on the line.

"The king of these Wikipedia reputation managers is a company called Wiki-PR, who specialise in editing Wikipedia on behalf of their paying clients. The promise on their Twitter profile couldn’t be clearer: “We write it. We manage it. You never worry about Wikipedia again.“"

Is the PR Industry Buying Influence Over Wikipedia? article on Vice.com

Ars Technica: Wikipedia editor allegedly forced by French intelligence to delete “classified” entry

"This volunteer, which was one of those having access to the tools that allow the deletion of pages, was forced to delete the article while in the DCRI offices, on the understanding that he would have been held in custody and prosecuted if he did not comply. Under pressure, he had no other choice than to delete the article, despite explaining to the DCRI this is not how Wikipedia works. He warned the other sysops that trying to undelete the article would engage their responsibility before the law.

"This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices. He was chosen and summoned because he was easily identifiable.

"The "Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute" entry is currently the most-viewed page in french-language Wikipedia."

fr:Wikipedia: Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute

en:Wikipedia: Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station

See also: Streisand effect

Wikipedia article on Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as of 7 March 2013, before he was elected Pope.

Guardian: "Why Philip Roth needs a secondary source

How hard is it to prove online that you are who you say you are? Author Philip Roth had to publish a letter in The New Yorker to satisfy the editors of Wikipedia"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/19/why-philip-roth-needs-secondary-source

So, Edward Groesbeck Voss recently died. This was reported on important mailing lists and on blogs. But we can't say it in his Wikipedia article! After all, these are not reliable!

Then comes along a helpful gnome, who adds Persondata and the Category "Living people". Wait! We can't have that either! That's uncited too!

So basically we have a guy and we are not allowed to state either that he is alive OR that he is dead. What are we to do? Describe him as a Zombie? Schrödinger would be proud.

CNN: Why Wikipedia went down at midnight

Includes video interview with Jimbo Wales.

It's probably a sign that some people consider your advertising obnoxious when an ap is available to hide it.

Google Chrome Store: Banner Free Wikipedia

LiveJournal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astrology

I'd add that the importance of astrological writers like Claudius Ptolemy, William Lilly, and Alan Leo are recognized several times over by scholarly texts. They meet all the normal tests for being reliable sources. The text of these authoritative treatises is public domain encyclopedic material that we should grab with both hands. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)