Wikipedia: Push Your Propaganda

My apologies for the lack of updates. I have been busy doing preliminary reading for my upcoming semester at Oxford, and also reading a lot about the abuses of Wikipedia, as well as editing it.

In some fields and some topics, there are groups who 'squat' on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles.

- Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia 

It’s chilling because so many people — young journalists especially — look to Wikipedia first. They not only shun print reference sources, they even balk at scouring the Web for information if it entails, God forbid, clicking on more than a single link.

-Steve Cuozzo, New York Daily Post

Wikipedia is rapidly becoming prime source material for American judges.

-Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian 

There are quite a few great articles out there, as well as blogs you should be watching.

Wikipedia Hijacked
The Wikipedia Battle for Rupert Sheldrake
Climategate
Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia Watchdog Organization

I have already mentioned Gerbic and her Gueurilla Skeptics in previous posts. What's even more interesting is what happened from 2003 until 2010. Instead of a group of ideologues hijacking Wikipedia, as Gerbic has done, a dedicated Green Party ideologue named William Connolley completely rewrote pretty much everything Wikipedia had to say about global warming.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

 Not only was he able to hijack over 5,000 articles, his admin status helped him control who got to write Wikipedia articles and who didn't. Ideologues know that the people who educate are in the best position to indoctrinate. This is why so many of them seek jobs as teachers and professors. Control where people get their information, and you will control where they receive their ideologies.

Co-founder Larry Sanger quit the Wikimedia Foundation out of concerns of Wikipedia's integrity, and founded rival online encyclopedia Citizendium. It allows anyone to edit, but requires verification by experts. I don't know if this will be any better, but I suppose time will tell if Citizendium becomes hijacked in the way that Wikipedia has.

What can we do about it? I have suggested building counter-movements to the one run by Gerbic. There are other ways.

For one, it is against the rules to run a "secret cabal" for editing Wikipedia the way that Gerbic is doing. So if you want to do something about it, email, call, or Skype the people at the Wikimedia Foundation. Let them know about these tactics, and that they have to put an end to this ideologically-driven madness.