Wikitruth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The Wikitruth logo
Enlarge
The Wikitruth logo
Mainpage screenshot
Enlarge
Mainpage screenshot
Screenshot provided by the Wikitruth website, demonstrating administrator access to Wikipedia.
Enlarge
Screenshot provided by the Wikitruth website, demonstrating administrator access to Wikipedia.

Wikitruth is a website critical of Wikipedia. It runs on the MediaWiki software developed for Wikipedia, though it uses a feature to prohibit editing by anonymous users, and the site is not open for new account signups. The initial date on the site's home page indicates that it first went live on March 20, 2006.

The site posits that there are fundamental problems with the structure of Wikipedia. It highlights the reported actions and statements of prominent Wikimedia Foundation members like Jimmy Wales and probes what its contributors see as the concept of vandalism, censorship of articles on Wikipedia, and other aspects of the Wikipedia culture.

Contents

[edit] Ownership and editors

Wikitruth states that it is run by a group of disenchanted Wikipedia editors, including several administrators, who have spent hundreds of hours editing Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia head Jimmy Wales called the site "a hoax", and its creators "almost certainly trolls who have been banned by Wikipedia".[1] Wikitruth's editors responded that current Wikipedia administrators did indeed contribute to Wikitruth, claiming as evidence the fact that several articles could not have been written without someone having administrator status. [2]

[edit] Publicity

The first major media reference to Wikitruth was an article in The Guardian by Andrew Orlowski, the San Francisco bureau chief for The Register, who has also written articles critical of Wikipedia. The Guardian article states, among other things, that Wikipedia is "one example of a glut of hazy information."[3]

[edit] The Slashdot effect

Wikitruth gained wider notice when Slashdot, a technology-related news website, posted an item on April 16, 2006 called "Censored Wikipedia Articles Appear On Protest Site", which referenced the Guardian piece. The item specifically mentioned the deletion or significant modification by Wales or others of the articles about registered Ohio sex offender Brian Peppers, former child pornographer Justin Berry, and adult-film director Paul Barresi. [4] Due in part to being mentioned in a front-page news item on Slashdot, Wikitruth's servers were overrun with a flood of attention; they were slashdotted.[5] Later, Wikitruth was mentioned on Metafilter, Digg, and various other news sites as well. [6]

[edit] The Register article

The next day, Orlowski published another article, this time in The Register, titled "Wales and Sanger on Wikipedia". This article echoed several criticisms about Wikipedia from "Skip," whom Orlowski described as a Wikipedia administrator who is a part of Wikitruth. Some of the criticisms leveled by "Skip" in the article include comments about Wikipedia's lack of a CAPTCHA for securing registration or editing and preference for inclusion of certain kinds of articles such as Pokémon.[7]

[edit] Wikitruth's criticisms

Wikitruth satirizes the processes and personalities behind Wikipedia.
Enlarge
Wikitruth satirizes the processes and personalities behind Wikipedia.

The website levels several criticisms against Wikipedia. One group of these centers on Wales and WP:OFFICE, a meta page on Wikipedia set up to deal with certain legal and other issues. Wikitruth uses certain deletions carried out by Wales and others under the policy (actions that it characterizes as "Office Does It, Shut Up"[8]) to argue that Wikipedia content is censored. There is also a page describing Wales on the website, which contains several claims, including the assertion that Wales rules by fiat, enticing other "Wikipedians" to perform actions he wants, such as the insertion of certain website links into articles.[9] Some Wikipedia policies support Wales as the "ultimate authority on any matter"[10]; this policy has been upheld by Wikipedia's enforcement body, the Arbitration Committee[11].

Another group of criticisms centers on specific Wikipedia processes. For example, Wikitruth criticizes Wikipedia's recent changes patrol, a group of Wikipedia editors who inspect recent changes in Wikipedia articles, calling them "a Junior Woodchuck Club" that prevents legitimate edits to Wikipedia articles.[12] Wikitruth also states that it is easy for Wikipedia editors to "game the system" by outwardly following Wikipedia protocol.[13] The only protocol they have explicitly stated is flawed to enable "gaming" is the three revert rule and the use of administration in stepping in to resolve complications in such disputes.

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ Gonsalves, Antone (April 17, 2006). Wikipedia Founder Calls Protest Site Wikitruth 'A Hoax'. techweb.com. Retrieved November 13, 2006.
  2. ^ Jimbo Calls Us A Hoax. Wikitruth. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  3. ^ Andrew Orlowski. "A thirst for knowledge", The Guardian, 2006-04-13. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  4. ^ Gregory Rider. "Censored Wikipedia Articles Appear On Protest Site", Slashdot, 2006-04-17. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  5. ^ Hammered. Wikitruth. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  6. ^ PeterMcDermott. "Wikitruth, wikidare, wikikiss...", Metafilter, 2006-04-17. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  7. ^ Andrew Orlowski. "Wales and Sanger on Wikipedia", The Register, 2006-04-18. Retrieved on 2008-04-18.
  8. ^ WP:OFFICE. Wikitruth. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  9. ^ Jimbo Wales. Wikitruth. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  10. ^ Foundation Issues. Wikimedia Meta. Retrieved on 2006-10-30.
  11. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2006-10-30.
  12. ^ RC patrollers. Wikitruth. Retrieved on 2006-04-18.
  13. ^ Gaming the system. Wikitruth. Retrieved on 2006-04-18.

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikitruth.html"
In other languages