Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 11 January 2025. Controversy surrounding the online encyclopedia Wikipedia This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Criticism of Wikipedia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR ...
Government censorship of Wikipedia (may come with demands of changes to Wikipedia / Wikipedia content) (See also: Help:Censorship) . Proposed countermeasures or solutions: political engagement, improving anonymous / censorship-resistant access-methods (such as creating a Tor.onion-site or an I2P eepsite and allowing VPN write access), meshnet, actively distributing Wikipedia, categorically ...
Not least in articles about Why Wikipedia is not so great which by no means reflect all the Wikipedia:Criticisms that qualified people have levied on it. Similarly, fanatical or ignorant users adhering to generally good rules to Wikipedia:avoid self-references and Wikipedia:Redirects have failed to recognize the few places where these are in ...
John Seigenthaler, an American journalist, was the subject of a defamatory Wikipedia hoax article in May 2005. The hoax raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content. Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001,has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, no can edit the page, has led to concerns such as the quality of writing ...
Wikipedia can be a fun place, a stimulating forum, and an addictive hobby. It can also be a threat vector for safety, security, and privacy. While most editors will not encounter any more than minor annoyances from people they disagree with, some people will become targets of harassment, or in extreme cases, violence or imprisonment.
Sometimes you have to be extra careful when saving a page, remember to check if it contains personal information and whatnot to identify you. If you do realize that you've added personal information to a page, contact an oversight and have it hidden from the public view.
The Britannica tells you what dead white men agreed upon, Wikipedia tells you what live Internet users are fighting over. So Wikipedia gets it wrong. Britannica gets it wrong, too. The important thing about systems isn't how they work, it's how they fail. Fixing a Wikipedia article is simple.
Information Today (March 2006) cites librarian Nancy O'Neill (principal librarian for Reference Services at the Santa Monica Public Library System) as saying that "there is a good deal of skepticism about Wikipedia in the library community" but that "she also admits cheerfully that Wikipedia makes a good starting place for a search. You get ...