Criticism of Wikipedia
The free online encyclopedia
Criticism of content
The reliability of
In his article The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (2012), Timothy Messer–Kruse criticized the
Wikipedia is sometimes characterized as having a hostile editing environment. In Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014), Dariusz Jemielniak, a steward for Wikimedia Foundation projects, stated that the complexity of the rules and laws governing editorial content and the behavior of the editors is a burden for new editors and a license for the "office politics" of disruptive editors.[7][8] In a follow-up article, Jemielniak said that abridging and rewriting the editorial rules and laws of Wikipedia for clarity of purpose and simplicity of application would resolve the bureaucratic bottleneck of too many rules.[8] In The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity is Causing its Decline (2013), Aaron Halfaker said the over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally provoked the decline in editorial participation that began in 2009—frightening away new editors who otherwise would contribute to Wikipedia.[9][10][failed verification]
There have also been works that describe the possible misuse of Wikipedia. In Wikipedia or Wickedpedia? (2008), the Hoover Institution said Wikipedia is an unreliable resource for correct knowledge, information, and facts about a subject, because, as an open-source website, the editorial content of the articles is readily subjected to
Accuracy of information
Not authoritative
Wikipedia
Comparative study of science articles
In "Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head-to-head", a 2005 article published in the scientific journal
The dissatisfaction of the Encyclopædia Britannica editors led to Nature publishing additional survey documentation that substantiated the results of the comparative study.[19] Based upon the additional documents, Encyclopædia Britannica denied the validity of the study, stating it was flawed, because the Britannica extracts were compilations that sometimes included articles written for the youth version of the encyclopedia.[20] In turn, Nature acknowledged that some Britannica articles were compilations, but denied that such editorial details invalidated the conclusions of the comparative study of the science articles.[21]
The editors of Britannica also said that while the Nature study showed that the rate of error between the two encyclopedias was similar, the errors in a Wikipedia article usually were errors of fact, while the errors in a Britannica article were errors of omission. According to the editors of Britannica, Britannica was more accurate than Wikipedia in that respect.[20] Subsequently, Nature magazine rejected the Britannica response with a rebuttal of the editors' specific objections about the research method of the study.[22][23]
Lack of methodical fact-checking
Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged. The most prominent cases reported by mainstream media involved biographies of living people.
The Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident demonstrated that the subject of a biographical article must sometimes fix blatant lies about his own life. In May 2005, an anonymous user edited the biographical article on American journalist and writer John Seigenthaler so that it contained several false and defamatory statements.[24][25] The inaccurate claims went unnoticed from May until September 2005 when they were discovered by Victor S. Johnson Jr., a friend of Seigenthaler. Wikipedia content is often mirrored at sites such as Answers.com, which means that incorrect information can be replicated alongside correct information through a number of web sources. Such information can thereby develop false authority due to its presence at such sites.[26]
In another example, on March 2, 2007, MSNBC.com reported that then-
There have also been instances of users deliberately inserting false information into Wikipedia in order to test the system and demonstrate its alleged unreliability. Gene Weingarten, a journalist, ran such a test in 2007, in which he inserted false information into his own Wikipedia article; it was removed 27 hours later by a Wikipedia editor.[31] Wikipedia considers the deliberate insertion of false and misleading information to be vandalism.[32]
Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest
Wikipedia regards the concept of a
In August 2007, a tool called WikiScanner—developed by Virgil Griffith, a visiting researcher from the
The WikiScanner is thus an important development in bringing down a pernicious influence on our intellectual life. Critics of the web decry the medium as the cult of the amateur. Wikipedia is worse than that; it is the province of the covert lobby. The most constructive course is to stand on the sidelines and jeer at its pretensions.
WikiScanner reveals conflicts of interest only when the editor does not have a Wikipedia account and their IP address is used instead. Conflict-of-interest editing done by editors with accounts is not detected, since those edits are anonymous to everyone except some Wikipedia administrators.[39]
Scientific disputes
The 2005 Nature study also gave two brief examples of challenges that Wikipedian science writers purportedly faced on Wikipedia. The first concerned the addition of a section on violence to the
Another dispute involved the climate researcher
Exposure to political operatives and advocates
While Wikipedia policy requires articles to have a neutral point of view, it is not immune from attempts by outsiders (or insiders) with an agenda to place a
Larry Delay and Pablo Bachelet wrote that from their perspective, some articles dealing with Latin American history and groups (such as the Sandinistas and Cuba) lack political neutrality and are written from a sympathetic Marxist perspective which treats socialist dictatorships favorably at the expense of alternative positions.[43][44]
In 2008, the pro-Israel group
Israeli political commentator Haviv Rettig Gur, reviewing widespread perceptions in Israel of systemic bias in Wikipedia articles, has argued that there are deeper structural problems creating this bias: anonymous editing favors biased results, especially if the editors organize concerted campaigns of defamation as has been done in articles dealing with Arab-Israeli issues, and current Wikipedia policies, while well-meant, have proven ineffective in handling this.[48]
On August 31, 2008, The New York Times ran an article detailing the edits made to the biography of Alaska governor Sarah Palin in the wake of her nomination as the running mate of Arizona Senator John McCain. During the 24 hours before the McCain campaign announcement, 30 edits, many of them adding flattering details, were made to the article by the user "Young_Trigg".[49] This person later acknowledged working on the McCain campaign, and having several other user accounts.[50]
In November 2007, libelous accusations were made against two politicians from southwestern France,
On August 25, 2010, the Toronto Star reported that the Canadian "government is now conducting two investigations into federal employees who have taken to Wikipedia to express their opinion on federal policies and bitter political debates."[53]
In 2010,
However, while the second volume of the report issued by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election cites a 2016 study published by the NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence that found that entities supported by the Russian government have employed paid online trolls to post misleading information on Wikipedia in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the report did not identify Wikipedia as one of the Web 2.0 services used by the Russian government to influence voters in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[55] Instead, like the first volume of the report issued by the Special Counsel investigation into the interference,[56][57] the joint press statement issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in October 2016,[58] and the declassified assessment released in January 2017 by the U.S. Intelligence Community,[59] the second and fifth volumes of the Senate Intelligence Committee report released in October 2019 and August 2020 respectively concluded that the Russian interference occurred primarily by hacking-and-dumping operations targeting the internal communications of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton campaign officials (specifically John Podesta) and active measures social media campaigns primarily on Facebook and Twitter to influence the electorate to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the general election.[67][a][b][c]
Commandeering or sanitizing articles
Articles of particular interest to an editor or group of editors are sometimes modified based on these editors' respective points of views.
The
Quality of presentation
Quality of writing
In a 2006 mention of Jimmy Wales, Time magazine stated that the policy of allowing anyone to edit had made Wikipedia the "biggest (and perhaps best) encyclopedia in the world".[85]
In 2008, researchers at
Other critics have made similar charges that, even if Wikipedia articles are factually accurate, they are often written in a poor, almost unreadable style. Frequent Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski commented, "Even when a Wikipedia entry is 100 percent factually correct, and those facts have been carefully chosen, it all too often reads as if it has been translated from one language to another then into a third, passing an illiterate translator at each stage."[88] A comparative study of Wikipedia, Britannica and Simple Wikipedia in 2012 by Adam Jatowt and Katsumi Tanaka [89] using a range of readability metrics on a subset of 90k articles from Britannica and 25k articles from both Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia, revealed that Britannica tends to have articles that are 21% easier to read than Wikipedia, while Simple Wikipedia is on average 26% easier than Wikipedia. The authors attributed these differences to the fact that Wikipedia articles have multiple authors who may rarely collaborate towards a readable and coherent text unlike the case of Britannica. A study of Wikipedia articles on cancer was conducted in 2010 by Yaacov Lawrence of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University. The study was limited to those articles that could be found in the Physician Data Query and excluded those written at the "start" class or "stub" class level. Lawrence found the articles accurate but not very readable, and thought that "Wikipedia's lack of readability (to non-college readers) may reflect its varied origins and haphazard editing".[90] The Economist argued that better-written articles tend to be more reliable: "inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete information".[91]
The Wall Street Journal debate
In the September 12, 2006, edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jimmy Wales debated with Dale Hoiberg, editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica.[92] Hoiberg focused on a need for expertise and control in an encyclopedia and cited Lewis Mumford that overwhelming information could "bring about a state of intellectual enervation and depletion hardly to be distinguished from massive ignorance." Wales emphasized Wikipedia's differences and asserted that openness and transparency lead to quality. Hoiberg said he "had neither the time nor space to respond to [criticisms]" and "could corral any number of links to articles alleging errors in Wikipedia", to which Wales responded: "No problem! Wikipedia to the rescue with a fine article", and included a link to the Wikipedia article about criticism of Wikipedia.[92]
Systemic bias in coverage
Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices. Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels. In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine (London), philosopher Martin Cohen describes Wikipedia as having "become a monopoly" with "all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators," which he calls a "youthful cab-drivers" perspective.[93] Cohen concludes that "[t]o control the reference sources that people use is to control the way people comprehend the world. Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought."[93] That freedom is undermined by what he sees as what matters on Wikipedia, "not your sources but the 'support of the community."[93]
Researchers from Washington University in St. Louis developed a statistical model to measure systematic bias in the behavior of Wikipedia's users regarding controversial topics. The authors focused on behavioral changes of the encyclopedia's administrators after assuming the post, writing that systematic bias occurred after the fact.[94]
Critics also point to the tendency to cover topics in detail disproportionate to their importance. For example, Stephen Colbert once mockingly praised Wikipedia for having a longer entry on 'lightsabers' than it does on the 'printing press'.[95] Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, said "People write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered, and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."[13]
This approach of comparing two articles, one about a traditionally encyclopedic subject and the other about one more popular with the crowd, has been called "wikigroaning".[96][97][98] A defense of inclusion criteria is that the encyclopedia's longer coverage of pop culture does not deprive the more "worthy" or serious subjects of space.[99] That being said, 2023 research suggests that Wikipedia creates systematic biases against poorer countries.[100]
Notability of article topics
The
Novelist
Journalist
On a more generic level, a 2014 study found no correlation between the characteristics of a given Wikipedia page about an academic and the academic's notability as determined by citation counts. The metrics of each Wikipedia page examined included length, number of links to the page from other articles, and number of edits made to the page. This study also found that Wikipedia did not cover notable
In 2020, Wikipedia was criticized for the amount of time it took for an article about Theresa Greenfield, a candidate for the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa, to leave Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process and become published. Particularly, the criteria for notability were criticized, with The Washington Post reporting: "Greenfield is a uniquely tricky case for Wikipedia because she doesn't have the background that most candidates for major political office typically have (like prior government experience or prominence in business). Even if Wikipedia editors could recognize she was prominent, she had a hard time meeting the official criteria for notability."[108] Jimmy Wales also criticized the long process on his talk page.[109]
Partisanship
According to Haaretz, "Wikipedia has succeeded in being accused of being both too liberal and too conservative, and has critics from across the spectrum", while also noting that Wikipedia is "usually accused of being too liberal".[110] According to CNN, Wikipedia's ideological bias "may match the ideological bias of the news ecosystem."[111]
U.S. commentators, mostly
In 2006, Wikipedia co-founder
In February 2021,
Hindutvas have accused Wikipedia of being anti-Hindu and anti-Indian.[127][128]
National or corporate bias
In 2008,
Racial bias
Wikipedia has been charged with having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an underrepresentation of
In 2018, the
Gender bias and sexism
Wikipedia has a longstanding controversy concerning gender bias and sexism.
In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation set a goal of increasing the proportion of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015.[145] In August 2013, Gardner conceded defeat: "I didn't solve it. We didn't solve it. The Wikimedia Foundation didn't solve it. The solution won't come from the Wikimedia Foundation."[146] In August 2014, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales acknowledged in a BBC interview the failure of Wikipedia to fix the gender gap and announced the Wikimedia Foundation's plans for "doubling down" on the issue. Wales said the Foundation would be open to more outreach and more software changes.[147]
Writing in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Marie Vitulli states that "mathematicians have had a difficult time when writing biographies of women mathematicians," and she describes the aggressiveness of editors and administrators in deleting such articles.[148]
Criticism was presented on this topic in
Institutional bias
Wikipedia has been criticized for reflecting the bias and influence of media that are seen as reliable due to their dominance, and for being a site of conflict between entrenched or special institutional interests. Public relations firms and interest lobbies, corporate, political and otherwise, have been accused of working systemically to distort Wikipedia's articles in their respective interests.[150]
Wikipedia has been criticized for issues related to bias in firearms-related articles. According to critics, systematic bias arises from the tendency of the editors most active in maintaining firearms-related articles to also be gun enthusiasts, and firearms-related articles are dominated by technical information while issues of the social impact and regulation of firearms are relegated to separate articles. Communications were facilitated by a "WikiProject," called "WikiProject Firearms", an on-wiki group of editors with a common interest. The alleged pro-gun bias drew increased attention after the
Skeptical bias
In 2014, supporters of holistic healing and
Wikipedia has been accused of being biased against views outside of the scientific mainstream due to influence from the
Sexual content
Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing graphic sexual content such as images and videos of masturbation and ejaculation as well as photos from hardcore pornographic films found on its articles. Child protection campaigners say graphic sexual content appears on many Wikipedia entries, displayed without any warning or age verification.[160]
The Wikipedia article
Exposure to vandals
As an online encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit, Wikipedia has had problems with vandalism of articles, which range from blanking articles to inserting profanities, hoaxes, or nonsense. Wikipedia has a range of tools available to users and administrators in order to fight against vandalism, including blocking and banning vandals and automated bots that detect and repair vandalism. Supporters of the project argue that the vast majority of vandalism on Wikipedia is reverted within a short time, and a study by Fernanda Viégas of the MIT Media Lab and Martin Wattenberg and Kushal Dave of IBM Research found that most vandal edits were reverted within around five minutes; however, they state that "it is essentially impossible to find a crisp definition of vandalism."[165] While most instances of page blanking or the addition of offensive material are soon reverted, less obvious vandalism, or vandalism to a little-viewed article, has remained for longer periods.
A 2007 conference paper estimated that 1 in 271 articles had some "damaged" content. Most of the damage involved nonsense; 20% involved actual misinformation. It reported that 42% of damage gets repaired before any reader clicked on the article, and 80% before 30 people did so.[166]
Privacy concerns
Most privacy concerns refer to cases of government or employer data gathering, computer or electronic monitoring; or trading data between organizations. According to James Donnelly and Jenifer Haeckel, "the Internet has created conflicts between personal privacy, commercial interests and the interests of society at large".[167] Balancing the rights of all concerned as technology alters the social landscape will not be easy. It "is not yet possible to anticipate the path of the common law or governmental regulation" regarding this problem.[167]
The concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain private; to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "
In 2005, Agence France-Presse quoted Daniel Brandt, the Wikipedia Watch owner, as saying that "the basic problem is that no one, neither the trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia, consider themselves responsible for the content."[169]
In January 2006, a German court ordered the
Criticism of the community
Role of Jimmy Wales
The community of Wikipedia editors has been criticized for placing an irrational emphasis on Jimmy Wales as a person. Wales's role in personally determining the content of some articles has also been criticized as contrary to the independent spirit that Wikipedia supposedly has gained.[171][172] In early 2007, Wales dismissed the criticism of the Wikipedia model: "I am unaware of any problems with the quality of discourse on the site. I don't know of any higher-quality discourse anywhere."[173][174][175][176][177]
Conflict of interest cases
A Business Insider article wrote about a controversy in September 2012 where two Wikimedia Foundation employees were found to have been "running a PR business on the side and editing Wikipedia on behalf of their clients."[178]
Unfair treatment of women
In 2015, The Atlantic published a story by Emma Paling about a contributor who was able to obtain no relief from the Arbitration Committee for off-site harassment. Paling quotes a then-sitting Arbitrator speaking about bias against women on the Arbitration Committee.[179]
In the online magazine Slate, David Auerbach criticized the Arbitration Committee's decision to block a woman indefinitely without simultaneously blocking her "chief antagonists" in the December 2014 Gender Gap Task Force case. He mentions his own experience with what he calls "the unblockable"—abrasive editors who can get away with complaints against them because there are enough supporters, and that he had observed a "general indifference or even hostility to an outside opinion" on the English Wikipedia. Auerbach considers the systematic defense of vulgar language use by insiders as a symptom of the toxicity he describes.[180]
In January 2015,
Croatian Wikipedia
On the Croatian Wikipedia, a group of administrators were criticized for blocking Wikipedians who were in favor of
In 2013, Croatia's
Jovanović has also commented on the Croatian Wikipedia editors – calling them a "minority group that has usurped the right to edit the Croatian-language Wikipedia".[191]
Lack of verifiable identities
Scandals involving administrators and arbitrators
Essjay controversy
In July 2006,
I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. I have been asked repeatedly to reveal the name of the institution, however, I decline to do so; I am unsure of the consequences of such an action, and believe it to be in my best interests to remain anonymous.[201]
Essjay also said he held four academic degrees: Bachelor of Arts in religious studies (B.A.), Master of Arts in religion (M.A.R.), Doctorate of Philosophy in theology (Ph.D.), and Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). Essjay specialized in editing articles about religion on Wikipedia, including subjects such as "the penitential rite, transubstantiation, the papal tiara";
In late February 2007, The New Yorker added an editorial note to its article on Wikipedia stating that it had learned that Essjay was Ryan Jordan, a 24-year-old college dropout from Kentucky with no advanced degrees and no teaching experience.[204] Initially Jimmy Wales commented on the issue of Essjay's identity: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it." Larry Sanger, co-founder[205][206][207] of Wikipedia, responded to Wales on his Citizendium blog by calling Wales' initial reaction "utterly breathtaking, and ultimately tragic". Sanger said the controversy "reflects directly on the judgment and values of the management of Wikipedia."[208]
Wales later issued a new statement saying he had not previously understood that "EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes." He added: "I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the Wikipedia community."[209] Sanger responded the next day: "It seems Jimmy finds nothing wrong, nothing trust-violating, with the act itself of openly and falsely touting many advanced degrees on Wikipedia. But there most obviously is something wrong with it, and it's just as disturbing for Wikipedia's head to fail to see anything wrong with it."[210]
On March 4, Essjay wrote on his user page that he was leaving Wikipedia, and he also resigned his position with Wikia.
Discussing the incident, the New York Times noted that the Wikipedia community had responded to the affair with "the fury of the crowd", and observed:
The Essjay episode underlines some of the perils of collaborative efforts like Wikipedia that rely on many contributors acting in good faith, often anonymously and through self-designated user names. But it also shows how the transparency of the Wikipedia process—all editing of entries is marked and saved—allows readers to react to suspected fraud.[214]
The Essjay incident received extensive media coverage, including a national United States television broadcast on
Anonymity
Wikipedia has been criticised for allowing editors to contribute anonymously (without a registered account and using an auto-generated IP-labeled account) or pseudonymously (using a registered account), with critics saying that this leads to a lack of accountability.[177][219] This also sometimes leads to uncivil conduct in debates between Wikipedians.[177][219] For privacy reasons, Wikipedia forbids editors to reveal information about another editor on Wikipedia.[220]
Criticism of process
Level of debate, edit wars, and harassment
The standard of debate on Wikipedia has been called into question by people who have noted that contributors can make a long list of salient points and pull in a wide range of empirical observations to back up their arguments, only to have them ignored completely on the site.[221] An academic study of Wikipedia articles found that the level of debate among Wikipedia editors on controversial topics often degenerated into counterproductive squabbling:
For uncontroversial, "stable" topics self-selection also ensures that members of editorial groups are substantially well-aligned with each other in their interests, backgrounds, and overall understanding of the topics ... For controversial topics, on the other hand, self-selection may produce a strongly misaligned editorial group. It can lead to conflicts among the editorial group members, continuous edit wars, and may require the use of formal work coordination and control mechanisms. These may include intervention by administrators who enact dispute review and mediation processes, [or] completely disallow or limit and coordinate the types and sources of edits.[222]
In 2008, a team from the
Another complaint about Wikipedia focuses on the efforts of contributors with idiosyncratic beliefs, who push their point of view in an effort to dominate articles, especially controversial ones.[225][226] This sometimes results in revert wars and pages being locked down. In response, an Arbitration Committee has been formed on the English Wikipedia that deals with the worst alleged offenders—though a conflict resolution strategy is actively encouraged before going to this extent. Also, to stop the continuous reverting of pages, Jimmy Wales introduced a "three-revert rule", whereby those users who reverse the effect of others' contributions to one article more than three times in a 24-hour period may be blocked.[227]
In a 2008 article in The Brooklyn Rail, Wikipedia contributor David Shankbone contended that he had been harassed and stalked because of his work on Wikipedia, had received no support from the authorities or the Wikimedia Foundation, and only mixed support from the Wikipedia community. Shankbone wrote, "If you become a target on Wikipedia, do not expect a supportive community."[228]
David Auerbach, writing in Slate magazine, said:
I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka's The Trial I have ever witnessed, with editors and administrators giving conflicting and confusing advice, complaints getting "boomeranged" onto complainants who then face disciplinary action for complaining, and very little consistency in the standards applied. In my short time there, I repeatedly observed editors lawyering an issue with acronyms, only to turn around and declare "Ignore all rules!" when faced with the same rules used against them ... The problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them.[180]
Wikipedia has also been criticized for its weak enforcement against perceived toxicities among the editing community at various times. In one case, a longtime editor was nearly driven to suicide following online abuse from editors and a ban from the site before being rescued from the suicide attempt.[229]
In order to address this problem the Wikimedia Foundation planned to institute a new rule of conduct aimed at combating 'toxic behavior'. The development of the new rule of conduct would take place in two phases. The first will include setting policies for in-person and virtual events as well as policies for technical spaces including chat rooms and other Wikimedia projects. A second phase outlining enforcement when the rules are broken is planned to be approved by the end of 2020, according to the Wikimedia board's plan.[230][needs update]
A 2023 study of Wikipedia talk pages found that toxic comments were closely correlated with reduced editor activity. The study's authors estimated that toxic comments increase the probability of an editor leaving the website, which had ultimately resulted in 265 cumulative years of lost productivity.[231]
Consensus and the "hive mind"
Oliver Kamm, in an article for The Times, said Wikipedia's reliance on consensus in forming its content was dubious:[3]
Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting, the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices.
Wikimedia advisor Benjamin Mako Hill also talked about Wikipedia's disproportional representation of viewpoints, saying:
In Wikipedia, debates can be won by stamina. If you care more and argue longer, you will tend to get your way. The result, very often, is that individuals and organizations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tend to win out over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable. These less-committed editors simply have less at stake and their attention is more distributed.[232]
Wikimedia trustee Dariusz Jemielniak says:
Tiring out one's opponent is a common strategy among experienced Wikipedians ... I have resorted to it many times.[233]
In his article, "
The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online
collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force. This is different from representative democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods. The fact that it's now being re-introduced today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous.[234]
Lanier also says the current economic trend is to reward entities that aggregate information, rather than those that actually generate content. In the absence of "new business models", the popular demand for content will be sated by mediocrity, thus reducing or even eliminating any monetary incentives for the production of new knowledge.[234]
Lanier's opinions produced some strong disagreement. Internet consultant Clay Shirky noted that Wikipedia has many internal controls in place and is not a mere mass of unintelligent collective effort:
Neither proponents nor detractors of hive mind rhetoric have much interesting to say about Wikipedia itself, because both groups ignore the details ... Wikipedia is best viewed as an engaged community that uses a large and growing number of regulatory mechanisms to manage a huge set of proposed edits ... To take the specific case of Wikipedia, the Seigenthaler/Kennedy debacle catalyzed both soul-searching and new controls to address the problems exposed, and the controls included, inter alia, a greater focus on individual responsibility, the very factor "Digital Maoism" denies is at work.[235]
Excessive rule-making
Various figures involved with the Wikimedia Foundation have argued that
Social stratification
Despite the perception that the Wikipedia process is democratic, some assert that "a small number of people are running the show",[239] including administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers, mediators, arbitrators, and oversighters.[8] In an article on Wikipedia conflicts in 2007, The Guardian discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place", based on the experiences of one editor who became a vandal after his edits were reverted and he was blocked for edit warring.[240]
See also
- Censorship of Wikipedia – Censorship of Wikipedia by governments
- Ideological bias on Wikipedia
- Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia – Opposing philosophies within the Wikipedia community
- History of Wikipedia
- List of Wikipedia controversies – Timeline and brief descriptions of controversies involving Wikipedia
- Reliability of Wikipedia
- Predictions of the end of Wikipedia – Theories that Wikipedia will break down or become obsolete
- Wikipedia:Criticisms
- Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia
- Wikipedia:Press coverage
- Wikipedia:Replies to common objections
- Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source
Footnotes
- ^ Other platforms the reports identified as being used for Russian active measures on social media included Instagram, YouTube, Google+, Google Search, Gmail, Google Ads, Google Voice, Reddit, Tumblr, and LinkedIn, while other platforms were used as well.[68]
- ^ The second volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee report notes that the active measures social media campaign also attempted to influence voters to vote for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary elections, for Donald Trump over Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio in the Republican primary elections, Jill Stein as well as Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the general election, and targeted the consideration of Mitt Romney to serve as U.S. Secretary of State in the Trump administration with an opposition campaign during the Trump transition.[69]
- ^ Subsequent declassified Intelligence Community assessments and press statements released discussing Russian interference in the 2018 elections, the 2020 elections, and the 2022 elections have likewise concluded or stated that the interference occurred primarily by active measures social media influence campaigns and not by cyberattacks on U.S. elections infrastructure (including by spreading disinformation about the security of the elections infrastructure itself to undermine confidence in U.S. election processes and in democracy in the United States by the American public).[79]
References
- ^ "Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Klee Irwin (3rd nomination)". Wikipedia. January 15, 2014.
- ^ Black, Edwin (April 19, 2010). "Wikipedia—The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge". History News Network. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved October 21, 2014.
- ^ a b c Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Archived from the original on August 14, 2011. (Author's own copy Archived September 5, 2016, at the Wayback Machine)
- ^ Messer-Kruse, Timothy (February 12, 2012). "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on December 18, 2016. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ "Wikipedia Experience Sparks National Debate". The BG News. Bowling Green State University. February 27, 2012. Archived from the original on August 27, 2016. Retrieved March 27, 2014.
- ^ Colón-Aguirre, Monica; Fleming-May, Rachel A. (October 11, 2012). "'You Just Type in What You Are Looking For': Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia" (PDF). The Journal of Academic Librarianship. p. 392. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 19, 2016. Retrieved March 27, 2014. cited Fallis, Don. "Toward an Epistemology" (2008)
- ^ ISBN 9780804791205.
- ^ a b c Jemielniak, Dariusz (June 22, 2014). "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia: the legalistic atmosphere is making it impossible to attract and keep the new editors the site needs". Slate. Archived from the original on September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 18, 2016.
- ^ Vergano, Dan (January 3, 2013). "Study: Wikipedia is driving away newcomers". USA Today. Archived from the original on September 21, 2015. Retrieved November 19, 2014.
- ^ S2CID 144208941.
- ^ Petrilli, Michael J. (February 29, 2008). "Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?". Education Next. Archived from the original on November 21, 2016. Retrieved October 22, 2014.
- ^ "Citing Electronic Sources". Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved October 21, 2014.
- ^ a b Waldman, Simon (October 26, 2004). "Who knows?". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on April 6, 2019. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
- ^ Vallely, Paul (October 10, 2006). "The Big Question: Do we Need a More Reliable Online Encyclopedia than Wikipedia?". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on October 24, 2006. Retrieved October 18, 2006.
- ^ Schwartz, Zach (November 11, 2015). "Wikipedia's Co-Founder Is Wikipedia's Most Outspoken Critic". Vice Media. Archived from the original on November 14, 2015. Retrieved August 26, 2017.
- ^ "Research:Wikimedia Summer of Research 2011/Newbie teaching strategy trends". Meta.wikimedia.org. June 3, 2011. Archived from the original on December 13, 2013. Retrieved December 6, 2013.
- ^ PMID 16355180.
- ^ "Wikipedia head to head with Britannica". ABC Science. Agence France-Presse. December 15, 2005. Archived from the original on February 16, 2015. Retrieved February 15, 2014.
- PMID 16355180.
- ^ a b "Fatally Flawed: Refuting the Recent Study on Encyclopaedic Accuracy by the journal Nature" (PDF). Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. March 2006. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 2, 2018. Retrieved June 30, 2009.
- PMID 16572128.
- ^ "Wikipedia study 'fatally flawed'". BBC. March 24, 2006. Archived from the original on August 5, 2017. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
- ^ "Encyclopædia Britannica and Nature: A Response" (PDF). Press release. March 23, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 6, 2016. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
- ^ John Seigenthaler (November 29, 2005). "A false Wikipedia 'biography'". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 6, 2012. Retrieved August 26, 2017.
- ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (December 3, 2005). "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2014. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
- ^ "Mistakes and hoaxes on-line". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. April 15, 2006. Archived from the original on November 13, 2012. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
- ^ Dedman, Bill (March 3, 2007). "Reading Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis". NBC News. Archived from the original on March 6, 2013. Retrieved March 17, 2007.
- ^ "Hillary Rodham Clinton [archived version]". Wikipedia.org. July 9, 2005. Archived from the original on February 16, 2016. Retrieved March 17, 2007.
- ^ "Hillary Rodham Clinton [archived version]". Wikipedia.org. March 2, 2007. Archived from the original on February 16, 2016. Retrieved March 17, 2007.
- ^ Paige, Cara (April 11, 2006). "Exclusive: Meet the Real Sir Walter Mitty". Daily Record. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007. Retrieved November 24, 2007.
- ^ Weingarten, Gene (March 16, 2007). "A wickedly fun test of Wikipedia". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on March 20, 2007. Retrieved April 8, 2006.
- ^ "Wikipedia:Vandalism [archived version]". Wikipedia.org. November 24, 2009.
- ^ Mark Glaser (April 17, 2006). "Wikipedia Bias: Is There a Neutral View on George W. Bush?". PBS. Archived from the original on October 2, 2015. Retrieved October 27, 2007.
The search for a 'neutral point of view' mirrors the efforts of journalists to be objective, to show both sides without taking sides and remaining unbiased. But maybe this is impossible and unattainable, and perhaps misguided. Because if you open it up for anyone to edit, you're asking for anything but neutrality.
- ISBN 978-1-4503-5940-5..
- ^ S2CID 234824157.
- ^ Verkaik, Robert (August 18, 2007). "Wikipedia and the art of censorship". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on December 1, 2010. Retrieved August 26, 2017.
- ^ Blakely, Rhys (August 15, 2007). "Exposed: guess who has been polishing their Wikipedia entries?". The Times. London. Archived from the original on May 17, 2009. Retrieved August 15, 2007.
- ^ Fildes, Jonathan (August 15, 2007). "Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'". BBC. Archived from the original on January 11, 2009. Retrieved August 15, 2007.
- ^ Metz, Cade (December 18, 2007). "Truth, anonymity and the Wikipedia Way: Why it's broke and how it can be fixed". The Register. Archived from the original on August 10, 2017. Retrieved August 10, 2017.
- ^ a b c d e Schiff, Stacy (July 31, 2006). "Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on November 22, 2008. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ Lehmann, Evan (January 27, 2006). "Rewriting history under the dome". Lowell Sun. Archived from the original on February 2, 2006. Retrieved February 2, 2014.
- ^ "Senator staffers spam Wikipedia". January 30, 2006. Archived from the original on March 29, 2006. Retrieved September 13, 2006.
- The Miami Herald. Archived from the original on October 6, 2015. Alt URL Archived September 23, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Delay, Larry (August 3, 2006). "A Pernicious Model for Control of the World Wide Web: The Cuba Case" (PDF). Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 10, 2008. Retrieved July 8, 2008.
- ^ a b McElroy, Damien (May 8, 2008). "Israeli battles rage on Wikipedia". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on May 9, 2008. Retrieved May 8, 2008.
- ^ "Letter in Harper's Magazine About Wikipedia Issues". CAMERA. August 14, 2008. Archived from the original on July 31, 2016. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
- ^ Liphshiz, Cnaan (December 25, 2007). "Your Wiki Entry Counts". Haaretz. Archived from the original on June 5, 2011. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- Rettig Gur, Haviv (May 16, 2010). "Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia". The Jerusalem Post. Archivedfrom the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved December 6, 2013.
- ^ Cohen, Noam (August 31, 2008). "Don't Like Palin's Wikipedia Story? Change It". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 28, 2018. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
- better source needed]
- ^ "Wikipédia en butte à une nouvelle affaire de calomnie". Vnunet.fr. November 28, 2007. Archived from the original on May 16, 2008.
- Sénat. February 14, 2008. Archived from the originalon July 21, 2011. Retrieved August 30, 2015. [A question from Senator Jean-Louis Masson to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister's response]
- ^ Woods, Allan (August 25, 2010). "Ottawa investigating Wikipedia edits". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on August 27, 2010. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- ^ Nabili, Teymoor (September 11, 2010). "The Cyrus Cylinder, Wikipedia and Iran conspiracies". blogs.alJazeera.net. Archived from the original on March 11, 2012. Retrieved November 19, 2013.
- ^ Senate Intelligence Committee 2019a, pp. 19, 43–62.
- ^ Desjardins, Lisa; Brangham, William (June 17, 2019). "All of the Mueller report's major findings in less than 30 minutes". PBS NewsHour. WETA. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II (PDF). CourtListener (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 19, 2020. pp. 14–65. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
- ^ "Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security" (Press release). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. October 7, 2016. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections (PDF) (Report). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. January 6, 2017. Retrieved June 21, 2023.
- ^ Senate Intelligence Committee 2019a.
- ^ Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. August 18, 2020. pp. 170–258. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ Mak, Tim (October 8, 2019). "Senate Report: Russians Used Social Media Mostly To Target Race In 2016". NPR. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ Dilanian, Ken (October 8, 2019). "Bipartisan senators weigh new laws to block foreign interference in elections on social media". NBC News. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ Dilanian, Ken (August 18, 2020). "Six revelations in Senate intel report on 2016 Russian interference". NBC News. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ "Putin's Revenge". FRONTLINE. Season 36. Episode 5. PBS. WGBH. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ "The Facebook Dilemma". FRONTLINE. Season 37. Episode 4–5. PBS. WGBH. Retrieved November 10, 2022.
- ^ [60][61][62][63][64][65][66]
- ^ Senate Intelligence Committee 2019a, pp. 43–62.
- ^ Senate Intelligence Committee 2019a, pp. 32–37.
- ^ "Joint Statement from the ODNI, DOJ, FBI and DHS: Combating Foreign Influence in U.S. Elections" (Press release). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. October 19, 2018. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ "DNI Coats Statement on the Intelligence Community's Response to Executive Order 13848 on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election" (Press release). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. December 21, 2018. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ "Statement by NCSC Director William Evanina: 100 Days Until Election 2020" (Press release). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. July 24, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ "Statement by NCSC Director William Evanina: Election Threat Update for the American Public" (Press release). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. August 7, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections (PDF) (Report). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. March 10, 2021. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (PDF) (Report). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. February 6, 2023. p. 15. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- ^ Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. July 25, 2019. pp. 33–37. Retrieved June 21, 2023.
- ^ Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (PDF) (Report). U.S. Government Publishing Office. December 22, 2022. pp. 806–811. Retrieved July 7, 2023.
- ^ "Plot to Overturn the Election". FRONTLINE. Season 40. Episode 9. PBS. WGBH. Retrieved July 6, 2023.
- ^ [70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78]
- ^ Jackson, Ron (August 4, 2009). "Open Season on Domainers and Domaining — Overtly Biased L.A. Times Article Leads Latest Assault on Objectivity and Accuracy". Archived from the original on August 14, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- J.D. Power Web Intelligence. August 24, 2007.[permanent dead link] "Organizations like Sony, Diebold, Nintendo, Dell, the CIA, and the Church of Scientology were all shown to have sanitized pages about themselves."
- ^ MacDonald, Marc (February 1, 2008). "Wikipedia Continues To Sanitize Bush Content". Archived from the original on October 8, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- S2CID 211145754.
- ^ Miller, Carl (October 5, 2019). "China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits". BBC. Retrieved August 24, 2020.
- ^ Anderson, Chris (May 8, 2006). "Jimmy Wales – The 2006 Time 100". Time. Retrieved November 11, 2017.
- S2CID 1184433.
- ^ JSTOR 4486062. Archived from the original on April 25, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2006. (Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media)
- ^ Orlowski, Andrew (October 18, 2005). "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems". The Register. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
- ISBN 9781450311564. Retrieved June 20, 2023.
- ^ "Cancer information on Wikipedia is accurate, but not very readable, study finds". ScienceDaily. June 2, 2010. Retrieved December 31, 2010.
- ^ "Fact or fiction? Wikipedia's variety of contributors is not only a strength". The Economist. March 10, 2007. Retrieved December 31, 2010.
- ^ a b "Will Wikipedia Mean the End Of Traditional Encyclopedias?". The Wall Street Journal. September 12, 2006. Archived from the original on January 15, 2016. Retrieved September 13, 2006.
- ^ a b c Cohen, Martin (August 28, 2008). "Encyclopaedia Idiotica". Times Higher Education. Archived from the original on September 6, 2011. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ISBN 978-1-4503-2263-8. Archivedfrom the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved April 7, 2017.
- ^ Stephen Colbert. The Colbert Report episode 3109. August 21, 2007.
- ^ Brophy-Warren, Jamin. "Oh, that John Locke". The Wall Street Journal. No. 2007–06–16. p. 3. Archived from the original on September 4, 2017. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ Hendren, Johnny "DocEvil" (June 5, 2007). "The Art of Wikigroaning". Something Awful. Archived from the original on June 16, 2007. Retrieved June 17, 2007.
- ^ Brown, Andrew (June 14, 2007). "No amount of collaboration will make the sun orbit the Earth". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on June 23, 2007. Retrieved March 27, 2010.
- ^ Ivor Tossell (June 15, 2007). "Duality of Wikipedia". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on December 21, 2012. Retrieved December 25, 2019.
- PMID 37939022.
- ^ Kirby, J.P. (October 20, 2007). "The Problem with Wikipedia". J.P.'s Random Ramblings [blog]. Archived from the original on August 9, 2011.
- ^ Corinne Purtill; Zoë Schlanger (October 2, 2018). "Wikipedia had rejected Nobel Prize winner Donna Strickland because she wasn't famous enough". Quartz. Archived from the original on October 25, 2018. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
- ^ Resnick, Brian (October 3, 2018). "The 2018 Nobel Prize reminds us that women scientists too often go unrecognized". Vox. Archived from the original on October 25, 2018. Retrieved October 3, 2018.
- ^ Annalisa Merelli (August 18, 2018). "Seeking Disambiguation: Running for office is hard when you have a porn star's name. This makes it worse". Quartz. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
- ^ Baker, Nicholson (March 20, 2008). "The Charms of Wikipedia". The New York Review of Books. 55 (4). Archived from the original on March 3, 2008. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ Noah, Timothy (February 24, 2007). "Evicted from Wikipedia". Slate. Archived from the original on June 21, 2009. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
- S2CID 4971771.
- ^ Steinsson, Sverrir. "Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield finally got her Wikipedia page. Here's why it took so long". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 28, 2020.
- ^ Harrison, Stephen (October 27, 2020). "Why Did It Take So Long for the Democratic Senate Candidate in Iowa to Get a Wikipedia Page?". Slate. The Slate Group. Retrieved October 28, 2020.
- ^ Benjakob, Omer (May 27, 2018). "The Witch Hunt Against a 'pro-Israel' Wikipedia Editor". Haaretz. Retrieved March 16, 2022.
- ^ Kelly, Samantha Murphy (May 20, 2022). "Meet the Wikipedia editor who published the Buffalo shooting entry minutes after it started". CNN. Retrieved May 24, 2022.
- ^ Johnson, Bobbie (March 1, 2007). "Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia". The Guardian. London. Retrieved March 27, 2010.
- ^ Turner, Adam (March 5, 2007). "Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right". IT Wire. Archived from the original on March 31, 2012. Retrieved May 12, 2008.
- ^ Solomon, Lawrence (July 8, 2008). "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". National Review. CBS News. Archived from the original on August 28, 2008. Retrieved July 20, 2008.
- ^ Scarborough, Rowan (September 27, 2010). "Wikipedia Whacks the Right". Human Events. Archived from the original on December 7, 2010. Retrieved October 3, 2010.
- ^ Glaser, Mark (April 21, 2006). "Email Debate: Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia". PBS Mediashift. Archived from the original on October 5, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ISSN 0319-0781. Retrieved December 16, 2021.
- ^ Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng (March 1, 2016). Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia — Working Paper 15-023 (PDF). Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard Business School. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 8, 2016. Retrieved October 31, 2016.
- ^ Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng (December 1, 2012). "Is Wikipedia Biased? Verifying the "neutral point of view"". Archived from the original on October 31, 2016. Retrieved October 31, 2016.
- ^ Khimm, Suzy (June 18, 2012). "Study: Wikipedia perpetuates political bias". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on February 5, 2015. Retrieved May 29, 2013.
- ^ Matsakis, Louise (March 16, 2018). "Don't Ask Wikipedia to Cure the Internet". Wired. Archived from the original on March 16, 2018. Retrieved March 17, 2018.
- ^ Lott, Maxim (February 18, 2021). "Inside Wikipedia's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried". Fox News. Retrieved March 31, 2022.
- ^ from the original on November 28, 2021. Retrieved November 28, 2021.
- ^ Chasmar, Jessica (November 29, 2021). "Wikipedia page on 'Mass killings under communist regimes' considered for deletion, prompting bias accusations". Fox News. Archived from the original on November 30, 2021. Retrieved December 2, 2021.
- ^ a b c Rauwerda, Annie (December 31, 2021). "To delete or not to delete? The fate of the most contentious Wikipedia articles". Input Mag. Retrieved February 7, 2022.
- ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)", English Wikipedia, December 2, 2021, retrieved December 1, 2021
- ^ Kauntia, Nishant (November 30, 2020). "How Wikipedia earned the ire of the Hindu Right". The Caravan. Retrieved December 9, 2020.
- ^ Dasgupta, Sravasti (August 2, 2020). "'Biased, anti-Hindu' — campaign begins against Wikipedia after it urges Indians to donate". ThePrint. Retrieved January 20, 2023.
- ZDNet Australia. Archivedfrom the original on October 1, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ Melamed, Samantha (March 26, 2015). "Edit-athon aims to put left-out black artists into Wikipedia". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
- ^ Smith, Jada (February 20, 2015). "Howard University Fills in Wikipedia's Gaps in Black History". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 23, 2015. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
- ^ Goko, Colleen. "Drive launched to 'Africanise' Wikipedia". Business Day. South Africa. Archived from the original on July 6, 2015. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
- Fast Company. Archivedfrom the original on May 10, 2015. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
- ^ Reynosa, Peter (December 3, 2015). "Why Don't More Latinos Contribute To Wikipedia?". El Tecolote. Archived from the original on December 8, 2015. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
- ISSN 1441-2616.
- ^ a b c Justin Ward (March 12, 2018). "Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". Archived from the original on May 14, 2020. Retrieved March 1, 2020.
- ^ Standifer, Cid (October 13, 2022). "Racial Pseudoscience on the Faculty: A professor's research flew under the radar for years. What finally got him fired?". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
- ^ Gardner, Sue (February 19, 2011). "Nine Reasons Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia, In Their Own Words" (blog). suegardner.org. Archived from the original on July 18, 2015. Retrieved September 8, 2015.
- ^ a b Cassell, Justine (February 4, 2011). "Editing Wars Behind the Scenes". The New York Times. Retrieved December 15, 2023.
- Daily Dot. Retrieved December 15, 2023.
- ^ Zandt, Deanna (April 26, 2013). "Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist – That's Why It Needs You". Forbes. Retrieved December 15, 2023.
- ^ Andrew Lih (June 20, 2015). "Can Wikipedia Survive?". The New York Times. Washington. Archived from the original on June 21, 2015. Retrieved June 21, 2015.
... the considerable and often-noted gender gap among Wikipedia editors; in 2011, less than 15 percent were women.
- ^ Statistics based on Wikimedia Foundation Wikipedia editor surveys 2011 (Nov. 2010-April 2011) and November 2011 Archived June 5, 2016, at the Wayback Machine (April - October 2011)
- ^ Cohen, Noam (January 30, 2011). "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 3, 2011. Retrieved January 31, 2011.
- ^ a b Cohen, Noam (January 30, 2011). "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 21, 2012. Retrieved January 31, 2011.
- ^ Huang, Keira (August 11, 2013). "Wikipedia fails to bridge gender gap". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on January 15, 2016. Retrieved October 27, 2015.
- ^ Wikipedia 'completely failed' to fix gender imbalance Archived December 29, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, BBC interview with Jimmy Wales, August 8, 2014; starting at 45 seconds.
- doi:10.1090/noti1650.
- doi:10.7264/N3TH8JZS (inactive February 7, 2024). Archived from the original on February 12, 2020. Retrieved February 18, 2020.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of February 2024 (link - ^ "PR firms pledge 'ethical' use of Wikipedia". BBC. June 12, 2014. Retrieved November 9, 2021.
- ^ Parakilas, Jacob (March 18, 2014). "Wikipedia, neutrality, and guns". Action on Armed Violence. Archived from the original on September 14, 2017. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
But if a reader had started on the page for either of Breivik's guns, the Ruger or the Glock, they would not know this. That reader would find a great deal of technical information about the weapons in question – their weights, lengths, cartridges, rates of fire, magazine capacities, muzzle velocities – and detailed descriptions of their designs, all illustrated with abundant photographs and diagrams.
- ^ Walther, Matthew (November 7, 2017). "The adolescent cult of the AR-15". The Week. Archived from the original on March 24, 2018. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
What do the perpetrators of the massacres at Sandy Hook, at Aurora, at Orlando, and at Sutherland Springs have in common? They were all men under 30 and they all used versions of the same kind of firearm, the AR-15, the semi-automatic version of the military's M-16, and the bestselling gun in America. It might be difficult to make this connection because as I write this, the section on the use of AR-15s in mass killings has been deleted from Wikipedia ...
- ^ Brandom, Russell (March 6, 2018). "How gun buffs took over Wikipedia's AR-15 page; After Parkland, gun control information was strangely hard to find". The Verge. Vox Media. Archived from the original on March 9, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2018.
But on Wikipedia, as in the real world, the users with the deepest technical knowledge of firearms are also the most fervent gun owners and the most hostile to gun control. For critics, that's led to a persistent pro-gun bias on the web's leading source of neutral information at a time when the gun control debate is more heated than ever.
- ^ "Pro-gun Wikipedia users spark fierce editing war; Editors against tighter controls on firearms have been purging information that shows weapons such as AR-15s in a bad light". Sky News. March 7, 2018. Archived from the original on March 10, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2018.
The bias in the articles was not explicit, but structural. The project did not insert false information into the articles but instead purged information that showed the weapons in a bad light - dismissing it as "off-topic".
- ^ Brennan, David (March 7, 2018). "Pro-gun Group Edited AR-15 Wikipedia Page to Hide Mass Shootings". Newsweek. Archived from the original on March 8, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2018.
A group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors tried to hide the true number of mass shootings associated with the AR-15 rifle in the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida.
- ^ Einenkel, Walter (March 8, 2018). "A gun group has been editing Wikipedia's firearms pages to sanitize mass shootings, for months". Yahoo! News. Newsweek. Archived from the original on March 10, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2018.
The Wikimedia Foundation has defended itself and Wikipedia from allegations of being host to these kinds of influence campaigns, arguing that the encyclopaedia is constantly being updated and improved.
- ^ Benjakob, Omer (March 18, 2018). "Gun Enthusiasts Are Waging a War of Attrition on Wikipedia, and It Looks Like They're Winning". Haaretz. Archived from the original on March 24, 2018. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
According to The Verge report and an independent follow-up by Haaretz, the top editors of the Colt page are pro-gun enthusiasts who skewed the information presented on it and are also involved in editing other articles on Wikipedia – for example, the much more general article, titled AR 15 – to push their worldview ... Through countless exhausting debates, this small group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors – linked together through Wikipedia's Firearms project (or "WikiProject:Firearms," mentioned below) – has managed to control almost completely the discourse around the rifle, predominantly by making sure any potentially negative details about it be excluded from the original Colt AR-15 article.
- ^ Sifferlin, Alexandra (March 25, 2014). "Wikipedia Founder Sticks It To 'Lunatic' Holistic Healers". Time. Archived from the original on October 14, 2014. Retrieved October 22, 2014.
- ^ Newman, Lily Hay (March 27, 2014). "Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic Healing Coverage". Slate. Archived from the original on June 25, 2018. Retrieved October 22, 2014.
- ^ "Wikipedia attacked over porn pages". Livenews.com.au. Archived from the original on September 17, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
- ^ Raphael, JR (December 10, 2008). "Wikipedia Censorship Sparks Free Speech Debate". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved May 10, 2009.
- ^ a b Seth Finkelstein (December 18, 2008), "Sting in the Scorpions tale is the exposure of Wiki's weakness", The Guardian, archived from the original on December 7, 2013, retrieved May 23, 2018
- ^ Dorothy Howard; Patrick W. Galbraith (November 20, 2015), Meet the manga avatars of your favorite tech platforms, Hopes&Fears, archived from the original on May 23, 2018, retrieved May 23, 2018
- ^ Morris, Kevin (June 25, 2013). "How Wikimedia Commons became a massive amateur porn hub". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2023.
- ISBN 1-58113-702-8. Archived from the original(PDF) on November 11, 2018. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
- ISBN 978-1-59593-845-9. Archived(PDF) from the original on November 22, 2019.
- ^ a b Donnelly, James; Haeckl, Jenifer (April 12, 2001). "Privacy, and Security on the Internet: What Rights, What Remedies?". Archived from the original on December 1, 2008.
- ^ See "Public and Private Figures" Archived May 19, 2016, at the Wayback Machine by the Digital Media Law Project for the legal distinction.
- ^ Lever, Rob (December 11, 2005). "Wikipedia Becomes Internet Force, Faces Crisis". Agence France-Presse. Archived from the original on October 6, 2007. Retrieved December 26, 2007.
- Heinz Heise. February 9, 2006. Archived from the originalon February 8, 2007. Retrieved January 31, 2014.
- ^ Arthur, Charles (February 9, 2009). "Jimmy Wales in drive-by shooting of Wikipedia". The Guardian. Archived from the original on October 6, 2015. Retrieved August 31, 2015.
- ^ Mitchell, Dan (December 24, 2005). "Insider Editing at Wikipedia". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 29, 2015. Retrieved August 31, 2015.
- ^ "Wikipedia Co-Founder Creates Competing Site". Infopackets.com. April 4, 2007. Archived from the original on November 5, 2013. Retrieved November 19, 2013.
- ^ Bergstein, Brian (March 26, 2007). "Building an alternative to Wikipedia". NBC News. Archived from the original on November 5, 2013. Retrieved November 19, 2013.
- ^ "Wikipedia Vs Citizendium.org: The Art of Competing with Oneself". Yahoo! Voices. April 17, 2007. Archived from the original on July 28, 2014. Retrieved November 19, 2013.
- Fox News Channel. Associated Press. March 28, 2007. Archivedfrom the original on July 15, 2014. Retrieved November 19, 2013.
- ^ a b c Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia". USA Today. Archived from the original on October 16, 2012. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ Wood, Mike (January 9, 2013). "I Get Paid To Edit Wikipedia For Leading Companies". Business Insider. Archived from the original on November 23, 2013. Retrieved November 19, 2013.
- ^ Paling, Emma (October 21, 2015). "How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on October 21, 2015. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
- ^ a b Auerbach, David (December 11, 2014). "Encyclopedia Frown: Wikipedia is amazing. But it's become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess". Slate. Archived from the original on December 16, 2014. Retrieved December 17, 2014.
- ^ Hern, Alex (January 23, 2015). "Wikipedia votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 26, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ a b c d Auerbach, David (February 5, 2015). "The Wikipedia Ouroboros". Slate. Archived from the original on February 5, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
- ^ Louise, Maryam (January 25, 2015). "GamerGate Wikipedia Ruling Bans Harassed Feminist Editors, Outrage Ensues". Inquisitr. Archived from the original on September 4, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- Think Progress. Archived from the originalon March 10, 2016. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- The Mary Sue. Archivedfrom the original on August 12, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ Cush, Andy (January 23, 2015). "Wikipedia Purged a Group of Feminist Editors Because of Gamergate". Gawker. Archived from the original on September 13, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ a b Dewey, Caitlin (January 29, 2015). "Gamergate, Wikipedia and the limits of 'human knowledge'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 29, 2015. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
- ^ a b Mandiberg, Michael (February 1, 2015). "The Affective Labor of Wikipedia: GamerGate, Harassment, and Peer Production". Social Text. Archived from the original on February 22, 2015. Retrieved February 21, 2015.
- ^ Cush, Andy (January 30, 2015). "The Gamergate Decision Shows Exactly What's Broken About Wikipedia". Gawker. Archived from the original on February 17, 2015. Retrieved February 17, 2015.
- ^ Beaudette, Philippe (January 27, 2015). "Civility, Wikipedia, and the conversation on Gamergate". Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on January 31, 2015. Retrieved January 28, 2015.
- ^ a b c d "Jovanović: Djeco, ne baratajte hrvatskom Wikipedijom jer su sadržaji falsificirani" [Jovanović: "Children, do not use the Croatian Wikipedia because its contents are forgeries"] (in Croatian). Novi list. Archived from the original on September 1, 2019. Retrieved September 13, 2013.
- ^ "Trolls hijack Wikipedia to turn articles against gays". Archived from the original on July 8, 2018. Retrieved June 9, 2021.
- ^ How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history
- ^ a b c "Jovanovićeva poruka učenicima i studentima: Ne koristite hrvatsku Wikipediju!" [Jovanović's message to the pupils and students: Don't use Croatian Wikipedia!] (in Croatian). Index.hr. Retrieved September 13, 2013.
- ^ "User Rights Log". Wikipedia.
- ^ "Arbitration Series". Wikipedia. Archived from the original on October 12, 2017.
- ^ Metz, Cade (May 26, 2009). "Sockpuppeting British politico resigns from Wikisupremecourt". The Register. Archived from the original on May 29, 2009. Retrieved May 27, 2009.
- ^ "Meta: Steward requests/Permissions". Meta-Wiki. Archived from the original on January 15, 2016. Retrieved August 15, 2014.
- ^ Welham, Jamie; Lakhani, Nina (June 7, 2009). "Wikipedia 'sentinel' quits after using alias to alter entries". The Independent. Archived from the original on March 18, 2010. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
- ^ Finkelstein, Seth (March 8, 2007). "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive". The Guardian. Archived from the original on March 29, 2007. Retrieved August 1, 2007. At some point, Essjay said he had sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials, vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy. In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia."
- ^ "User: Essjay". Wikipedia. Archived from the original on February 25, 2006.
- ^ "Talk:Five solas [archived version]". Wikipedia.org. June 11, 2005. Archived from the original on February 16, 2016. Retrieved June 18, 2007.
- ^ Orlowski, Andrew (March 2, 2007). "Bogus Wikipedia Prof. was blessed then promoted: The Counterfactual History Man". The Register. Archived from the original on March 4, 2007. Retrieved March 18, 2007.
- ^ "Fake professor in Wikipedia storm". BBC. March 6, 2007. Archived from the original on March 8, 2007. Retrieved March 8, 2007.
- ^ Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". The Washington Post. Associated Press. Archived from the original on November 12, 2012. Retrieved March 26, 2007.
The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial—Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it.
- ^ Meyers, Peter (September 20, 2001). "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 15, 2009. Retrieved August 30, 2015. "I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph", said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales.
- Boston Globe. Archivedfrom the original on May 12, 2006. Retrieved July 30, 2007.
- ^ Sanger, Larry (March 1, 2007). "Wikipedia firmly supports your right to identity fraud". Citizendium Blog. Archived from the original on March 4, 2007. Retrieved March 2, 2007.
- ^ "User talk:Jimbo Wales [archived version]". Wikipedia.org. Archived from the original on February 16, 2016. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
- ^ Sanger, Larry (March 3, 2007). "Jimmy Wales' latest response on the Essjay situation". Citizendium Blog. Archived from the original on March 6, 2007. Retrieved March 3, 2007.
- ^ "Essjay's Wikia user page". Wikia.com. Archived from the original on November 6, 2007. Retrieved September 19, 2007.
- Louisville Courier-Journal. Retrieved March 7, 2007. Alt URL Archived September 30, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Wales, Jimmy (March 19, 2007). "Making amends". The New Yorker. p. 24.
- ^ Cohen, Noam (March 5, 2007). "A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 13, 2007. Retrieved March 5, 2007.
- ^ "[ABC News broadcast on Essjay]". ABC News. Archived from the original on March 10, 2007. Retrieved March 8, 2007.
- ^ Bergstein, Brian (March 7, 2007). "After flap over phony professor, Wikipedia wants some writers to share real names". USA Today. Associated Press. Archived from the original on May 16, 2009. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ Williams, Martyn (March 9, 2007). "Wikipedia Founder Addresses User Credentials". PC World. IDG News Service. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved August 31, 2015.
- ^ "Wikipedia's credentials policy [archived version]". Wikipedia.org. January 5, 2008. Archived from the original on January 15, 2016. Retrieved August 31, 2015.
- ^ a b Spicuzza, Mary (February 13, 2008). "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco". SF Weekly. p. 2. Archived from the original on September 11, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
- ^ "Privacy". Wikipedia.
- ^ Arthur, Charles (December 14, 2005). "Log on and join in, but beware the web cults". The Guardian. Archived from the original on May 3, 2006. Retrieved July 14, 2006.
- ^ Stvilla, Besiki; Twidale, Michael; Smith, Linda; Gasser, Les (February 21, 2008). "Information Quality Work Organization in Wikipedia" (PDF). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 20, 2007. ["Information Quality Work Organization in Wikipedia" at Wiley Online Library](subscription required)
- ^ Johnson, Bobbie (August 12, 2009). "Wikipedia approaches its limits". The Guardian. Archived from the original on March 1, 2014. Retrieved May 25, 2014.
- ^ "The battle for Wikipedia's soul". The Economist. March 6, 2008. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved August 31, 2015.
- Mohammed with angry denunciations of suicide bombing and claims of hypocrisy. Prime Minister Tony Blair's entry is a favourite for distortion with new statements casting aspersions on his integrity.
- ^ Kleinz, Torsten (February 2005). "World of Knowledge" (PDF). Linux Magazine. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 2, 2015. Retrieved May 12, 2007.
The Wikipedia's open structure makes it a target for trolls and vandals who malevolently add incorrect information to articles, get other people tied up in endless discussions, and generally do everything to draw attention to themselves.
- ^ "Wiki page on Three-revert-rule". Wikipedia. Archived from the original on July 13, 2017.
- ^ Shankbone, David (June 7, 2008). "Nobody's Safe in Cyberspace". The Brooklyn Rail. Archived from the original on August 28, 2008. Retrieved July 10, 2008.
- ^ Koebler, Jason (May 17, 2016). "Wikipedia Editor Says Site's Toxic Community Has Him Contemplating Suicide". Vice Media. Archived from the original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
- ^ "Wikipedia sets new rules to combat 'toxicity'". BBC. May 23, 2020. Archived from the original on June 5, 2020. Retrieved June 11, 2020.
- PMID 38059265.
- ^ Hill, Benjamin Mako (March 27, 2013). "The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and Wikipedia". mako.cc. eous. Archived from the original on September 5, 2015. Retrieved August 31, 2015.
- ^ Postril, Virginia (November 17, 2014). "Who Killed Wikipedia?". Pacific Standard. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 31, 2015.
- ^ a b Lanier, Jaron (May 30, 2006). "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism". Edge. Archived from the original on April 29, 2007. Retrieved April 30, 2007.
- ^ Shirky, Clay (June 7, 2006). "Reactions to Digital Maoism". Corante.com. Archived from the original on June 13, 2006. Retrieved May 1, 2007.
- ^ Angwin, Julia; Fowler, Geoffrey A. (November 27, 2009). "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 25, 2017. Retrieved July 28, 2013.(subscription required)
- ^ Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on June 19, 2015. Retrieved March 26, 2015.
- ^ a b Jemielniak, Dariusz (June 22, 2014). "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia". Slate. Archived from the original on July 1, 2014. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
- ^ Wilson, Chris (February 22, 2008). "The Wisdom of the Chaperones: Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy". Slate. Archived from the original on March 20, 2013. Retrieved January 14, 2013.
- ^ Kleeman, Jenny (March 25, 2007). "Wiki wars". The Guardian. Archived from the original on October 31, 2013. Retrieved October 4, 2007.
Further reading
- Jacobs, Julia (April 8, 2019). "Wikipedia Isn't Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly". The New York Times.
- ISBN 978-0-385-52080-5(substantial criticisms of Wikipedia and another web 2.0 projects).
- Keen, Andrew (June 16, 2007). "Does the Internet Undermine Culture?". NPR. Retrieved March 31, 2010. (Audio version (with transcript) of the NPR interview with Andrew Keen on June 16, 2007).
- Rafaeli, Sheizaf & Ariel, Yaron (2008). "Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia." In A. Barak (ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications (pp. 243–267). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- "Cyberpsych.Yeda.info". Archived from the original on November 27, 2012. Retrieved November 19, 2013.
- Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia: Even As More People Than Ever Rely on It, Fewer People Create It". MIT Technology Review. 116 (6). Archived from the original on June 19, 2015. Retrieved August 9, 2014.
Works cited
- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 2: Russia's Use of Social Media with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. October 8, 2019. Retrieved June 23, 2023.