More Bad Wikipedia News

This article in the Toronto Star details continued credibility problems with Wikipedia and cites egos and people’s need to rewrite history to their liking as reasons the online encyclopedia is seriously flawed. Excerpt:

These questions reportedly prompted the business editor of the New York Times to write a memo to staff, warning them Wikipedia should not be used to verify the accuracy of information. The Toronto Star’s own library issued a similar warning to editorial staff, who were instructed to be cautious with Wikipedia information.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales still defends the accuracy of his pet project, calling the bogus entries small aberrations that don’t indicate a larger problem with his online model. But such a comment is entirely premature. Until this past month, when coverage of bogus entries first surfaced, Wikipedia was the equivalent of an untouched concrete wall on the side of a building.

Now that one or two have been found to spray-paint this canvas with graffiti, vandals are sure to turn their attention to the wall. The publicity alone will lure copycats and those who previously had no idea how easy it was to manipulate the world according to Wikipedia.

Like a denial-of-service attack is to websites, the volume of people tempted to abuse Wikipedia’s openness will either lead to the demise of this online resource, or force it to dramatically alter its open-source philosophy.

Looks like Encyclopedia Britannica may win this war after all.

    December 19, 2005 at 6:54 pm

    Open Source Vs. Proprietary Knowledge

    Recently, scientific journal, Nature, published a report which asked scientific experts to peer review entries from two distinct sources, Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica. Interestingly, the report found that Encyclopedia Britanica only had margi…

  • webwhiz
    August 24, 2006 at 11:26 pm

    Well, considering that the Wiki content is provided by a large colloboration of users from across the world who have the power to edit, change and even abuse the content. Can we honestly say that wikipedia is without flaw an accurate source of information for scholors and learners everywhere. Infact, many people are even mislead to beleive that the content is all verified and just. Isn’t it time we bring light to the misconception out there and hold wikipedia accountable for the accuracy of the content provided?
    Please feel free to read my article for further analysis of this revolutionary information portal:

  • David Hill
    July 29, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    Up to 12 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time – using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
    Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is totally at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
    For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails is now posted on our website within our scientific discovery newsletter – Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only on hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball homey and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time – the web link is
    Dr. David Hill
    Chief Executive
    World Innovation Foundation Charity
    Bern, Switzerland
    (reg. no. CH- – 11th July 2005)

  • Thomas Masucci
    October 15, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Wikipedia is unacceptable. It should not be used by students nor adults. The information is misleading and inaccurate. Therefore it should not be the favored hit on google. Email me for further discussion.

  • Jonathan Goldman
    August 6, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    Wikipedia is an experiment that has exhausted its usefulness, and quite frankly, the whole Wikipedia project is very irresponsible and should be majorly revamped. Every page of Wikipedia should have a banner across the top of it explaining that the information is not verified and prone to vandalism. It should also make clear that the pages within Wikipedia are policed by nothing more than high school and college kids, lacking in maturity, professionalism and credentials.
    Ultimately, Wikipedia proves one lasting fact: encyclopedias should be written by professionals with historical expertise and not governed by high school and college kids- who are guided by nothing more than ego-fueled power trips and blocking agendas based on their own insecurities and personal taste.
    In 2005, journalist John Seigenthaler was said to have been involved with the assassination of John F. Kennedy- little was done to correct that bogus statement even after the journalist complained about it, it remained for an extended period of time.
    Royal subject matter is typically a topic abused by administrative users, who seem to have some jealous agenda against this touchy topic of ‘social class’. For example, Lady Gabriella Windsor, Baroness Grace Talarico di Capace and her son Princely Count Vitus Sebastian Barbaro, the Baron dell’Albergo have all had extensive vandalism and bogus hoax accusations said about these topics.
    On July 29, 2009, one user by the name of “Edward 321” tagged 13 legitimate articles about Spanish nobility as hoaxes for removal- based on nothing more than his own uninformed opinion and prejudice against royal subject matter. Users like Edward 321 have an agenda- they screem “hoax” in a vain attempted to have articles that they don’t like removed- at the cost of loss of valid knowledge to the rest of us. Bogus hoax accusations are libelous, of which Wikipedia seems to do little to curb.
    The users that police Wikipedia articles are really a little “clique” of shall we say “computer nerds” who feel that they are entitled to block any user they feel like to in order to flex their power, or more accurately, abuse their blocking rights to suit their personal agendas. They will often create false hoax files that they use to justify blocking and /or removal of topics on Wikipedia- with all critics silenced by being blocked or said to be a “sockpuppet” (the same person using a differnt account). These are just a few of Wikipedia’s outrageous behaviors- that seem to go unchecked.
    In the July 31, 2006 edition of the New Yorker, an administrative user by the name of “Essjay” flaunted a bogus professorship, as it tuned out, he was only a 24 year-old by the name of Ryan Jordan who had no expertise what so ever on the countless articles he called hoaxes, and the numerous legitimate users he blocked- of course he was the farthest thing from a professor.
    In short, Wikipedia has outlived its usefulness- scholarship should be left to professionals with relevant credentials and experience- not kids with an ego trip and blocking addictions.

  • Dale Tiller
    August 7, 2009 at 1:38 am

    It is nice to see a forum where the truth about Wikipedia is discussed.
    I think others should also be aware of a tactic that users partake in called ‘trolling’.
    ‘Trolling’ is a process where a user says some outrageous thing on a Wikipedia discussion page- the goal is to abuse an honest editor by ‘hooking’ him/her into arguing in vain about the truth- while the user tries to continue to keep them on a hook, arguing the case. Then the user will block the honest editor and use the information, or even alter the information once the person is blocked, to create a bogus case file that is used in the future to justify removing good articles or information that some biased user wants to see gone. So if anyone comes along in the future and honestly puts valid information back in, they will remove it again, by justification of some bogus case file- or they will block the honest user and say that they are a ‘sockpuppet’ (a previous blocked person using a differnt account) or a hoaxer. Of course, all of this is profoundly unscrupulous practices, but these users don’t care, they really get off on the manipulation to see information slanted to their own biases. This is how greatly unprofessional Wikipedia administrators are.
    But there is even a greater goal to these ‘trolling’ practices- these unscupulous users are tech savy- they know that the more they can get a person to keep talking about a topic, than it will show up in the future on google searches- so when a person will google a topic or person, they won’t just get a Wikipedia article about it, they will also get countless mindless discussion pages and other nonsense saying how a topic or a person is a hoax, or not important etc. Their alternative goal is to cause a distraction against legitimate topics that they are jealous of or have some irrational biased agenda against.
    It is a desperate attempt by a small-minded and jealous person trying in vain to create a distraction from the valid and significant person or topic that was googled. This is the mindset of these administrative users in Wikipedia- it the ‘Perez Hilton’ school of encyclopedic monitoring. These Wikipedia administrators are creating so much nonsense across the internet on purpose, controlled by their blocking abilities- just awful. This is the world that Wikipedia has created for us- I can do without it!

  • Karen P.
    August 7, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Someone mentioned user ‘Edward 321’ above. This guy has a documented history for Wikipedia abuse that I discovered online, and he is profoundly unscrupulous- others who are part of his ego-driven clique of haters include: Corvus cornix, Deor, Andrew Lenahan- AKA ‘Starblind’, and Barneca. People should be on the lookout for these trouble makers who tag everything that they don’t like as ‘hoaxes’.
    However, Wikipedia isn’t the only wiki-formatted site that follows the same unethical practices, Freebase is another outrageous wiki-based encyclopedia that fosters the same bogus tactics of false hoax accusations, unjust blocking, playing favoritism to certain topics, and the ever present trolling tactics to dupe honest editors into being sucked into their trap. Jimbo isn’t the only person to be faulted- the ring-leader at Freebase, Kirrily Robert, is another. Freebase users humorously call themselves ‘Experts’.
    There is an excellent book written about Wikipedia abuse called ‘The Cult of the Amateur: How the Internet is Killing Our Culture’ by Andrew Keen (isbn 0385520808). It talks in great detail about the cliques of Wikipedia users who abuse blocking and hoax accusations to achieve their biased agendas.
    None of these users know much about anything, except jargon and blocking. More importantly, they think all of life’s answers are found on a google search. If a topic doesn’t quickly show up on a google search they will say the topic is ‘non-notable’ or a ‘hoax’ and then proceed to remove it-very amateurishly based on hunches, hersay, jealousy or gossip.
    These childish users don’t know much about sourcing either- they think popularity rather than importance makes something notable- that is why there are extensive pages about zero-consequence reality television stars, and genuine historical subjects have poorly written articles or nothing at all. They preceive Wikpedia to be a pop-culture blog rather than an encyclopedia- which would never have half of these ‘celebs’ in a real encyclopedia anyway.
    The ironic thing is that the majority of the online sourcing that they use would be deemed unexceptable by true professionals- while the genuine sourcing that scholars use- which are not posted on the internet are called “non-valid” sourcing. It is insanity!
    Instapedia and Nationmaster are much better online encylopedias since they can not be constantly changed by users- but Wikipedia and Freebase have increasingly become jokes.
    Wikipedia is also very undemocratic. Certain pages like President Obama have protection and can’t even be edited-yet countless other articles that have nonsense written into them, can’t even be corrected by the actual person the article is about- and if they even tried- they would be blocked as a ‘hoaxer’ or for ‘vandalism’- it’s all so stupid!

  • Anthony Ramandi
    August 7, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    Great topic, and about time that Wikipedia practices are brought to light.
    There are many problematic Wikipedia users out there, others include Thingg Wokiniki, Daniel J. Leivick, Giano, and Ohnoitsjamie- to name a few more.
    Freebase also has their trouble makers too such as Tom Morris and Iain Sproat, known as “Sprocketonline”. Sproat is especially a wise-ass, know-it-all who enjoys playing games with topics.
    But in all honesty, who would spend all of their time wasting their life being an administrator unless the person was a geeky nobody whose only power trip is manipulating Wikipedia content by blocking people and saying everthing that they are jealous about is a hoax.
    It’s not like these people are paid anything worthwhile to do this work. It’s obvious that what they can’t compete with- they feel a need to tear down.

  • Jessica
    August 7, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    In time Wikipedia will loose speed like the 8-track- and all other high-tech fads. We are in a new age of information, but over time, alot will change and the fads will go away too. Even Facebook has become a fad that is loosing ground and has long peaked.
    I like Instapedia, Nationmaster and Statemaster better because there is fact checking before posting content from Wikipedia- and it isn’t constantly changed- I can never go to a Wikipedia page and find it the same since the last time I was there.

  • Ross Girard
    August 7, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Wikipedia- not a big fan. Do you want amateurs to do surgery on you or represent you in a court of law? I prefer a real online encyclopedia- written by professionals.

  • JSG
    August 7, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    This would be funny, if it wasn’t reality and so sad- go to Wikipedia and look up Harry Potter- and find some huge page about it- but remove an international charity as a “hoax” and “non-notable”. Pathetic.
    I guess encyclopedias have now gone Hollywood- if your not an “it” topic, sorry you are out. What’s next???

  • HD
    August 8, 2009 at 1:02 am

    People should be aware of the pitfalls of all of these wiki-based encyclopedias. Especially unprofessionals calling themselves “experts” and other self-engrandisement.
    Wikipedia’s motto should be, “Home of the Not So Free and Land of the Stupid”. It is the blind leading the blind- with users having consensus meeting on what should stay in Wikipedia and what should be removed as a hoax- encyclopedias are not suppose to be compiled by “gut feelings”…
    Hey, let’s all vote if something should be called a hoax or not- I don’t like it- let’s all call it a hoax then- agreed. It’s like high school all over again.
    Too childish for real adults.

  • highlighter
    August 8, 2009 at 1:23 am

    Editors are too controlling.
    I don’t see the point.
    Even sourced info typically gets reversed.

  • T. Sanchez
    August 8, 2009 at 1:40 am

    I saw the notice board of responding to this topic that was posted over the last few days.
    I have been inspired to just have to say few words.
    I don’t have much experience with Wikipedia. I tried to make some edits a couple of times. It was reversed. When I tried to correct the reversal. I became blocked each time.
    I tried creating a new account so I could even reason with the blocker. Then I was called a sockpuppet and a hoaxer.

  • Diane
    August 8, 2009 at 10:26 am

    Most people will only learn the hard way how wildly unprofessonal Wikipedia is. Only after they tried to do a substantial edit or create a topic will they learn.
    Many people out there have some impression that Wikipedia validates information or are runned by professionals. It is not.
    But it is the tactics of their permanent editors/administrators who are the most despicable.
    Dr. David Hill’s experience above, is the typical treatment one receives. Teams of uninformed people will attack you, typically saying the topic is a hoax, or not notable, and then they will block you and do and say whatever they want to. They are liars who are out to manipulate both you and the public at large.
    This isn’t any kind of just behavior, and yes the more one tries to reason with them, the worst you are off. Because you are not the one who is wrong, they are, and are only trying to sustain their personal agendas. They will use the info in a trolling matter and say lies about you. The most common being that the editor is a hoaxer and that the topic you have tried to create is a hoax.
    Wikipedia is really a computer club that decides what, who and how information should be added. And only if it suits their particular taste or desires. It is very manipulated.
    Creating bogus case files and other tactics are commonly used. With their ability to block, no one can criticize them. They will often say see, look at this, here is the proof of a history of hoaxing to this topic, look at this case file, or such and such editor is a hoaxer. But what they say are all lies and the case files are all lies too, manipulated by them. The blocked person/people have no way of defending themselves. The files are always manipulated to suit the picture they want. They will say valid sourcing is a hoax or whatever have you. It is really like dealing with a communist government in the way that they behave.
    Their statements of hoaxes and the case files that they often create against topics and editors are also not valid. They are a manipulation of lies that they use to suit their own agendas. Wikipedia is a major turn off after one sees how it really works and how unprofessional it really is.
    We don’t need to have an illusion of an open encyclopedia that is nothing more than a computer club for a few with blocking overload and who are game players. The permanent editors will always come up with any number of excuses and justifications that are based on their lies. Dr. Hill is a prime example, even when he emailed Wikipedia info of proof, he was still ignored. His legitimate organization was just of no interest to the agenda of the ‘club’.
    Truths about how Wikipedia works need to be brought to light for those who are unaware of the organization’s tactics and unprofessionalism.

  • Samantha Miller
    August 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Wikipedia and Freebase are frauds.
    A democracy of information, right!!!!! (lol).
    While the founder, Jimmy Wales, page is nicely written to the image of his liking, and then protected so no one can edit it, all other topics are abused, vandalized or called hoaxes across the internet.
    Kirrily Robert, the 2-ton pink-haired wonder at Freebase, is nothing more than a coward, who hides behind her computer’s safety, while other topics are abused- but does nothing.
    One word to define both of them… HYPOCRITE!!!!!
    Jimmy Wales is such a coward that he used Wikipedia to break up with his former girlfriend, Rachel Marsden- he did not even have the spine or sensitivity to do it in person. These are the type of loosers that Wikipedia and Freebase are made up of.
    Here is even a link talking about it:
    The articles is called “Jimbo Wales Dumps Lover On Wikipedia” by The Register in UK.

  • Joel Shultz
    August 10, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    Internal examinations have proven Wikipedia to be corrupt from the top all the way down to its regular editors.
    The former COO, Carolyn Bothwell Doran of Wikipedia was convicted for passing bad checks, theft, petty larceny, DUI, and unlawfully wounding her boyfriend with a gun shot to the chest. All the people that are affiliated with Wikipdeia are very shady.
    I would not recommend giving funds to Wikipedia. It won’t honestly help support “democracy of information”. People should be aware of this.
    More more infomation on Doran…

  • Stanley Grusecki
    August 11, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    Thankfully someone is making it clear how outrageous Wikipedia’s practices are.
    I have enclosed a typical case file/watch list that unethical users create to control their agendas. This one is from a known problematic user by the name of Barneca, and Jimbo himself.
    You will quickly notice the childishness, unprofessional agendas and power trips. Not to mention the complete lack of credibility in all that they write.
    Link following:
    Hopefully they won’t go back into it and try to whitewash it after getting wind of it being posted, not that I would be supprised if they tried. But if they do, just back track the history of the page and see the way it was before they whitewashed it. Check the dates, to see if there was any editing of it after August 11, 2009.
    And if the link is completely gone- you can guess what happened there too.

  • truth gawker
    August 11, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    Wikipedia has long been controlled because Jimbo Wales has long been involved with a money-making scam with Wikipedia. Trading edits for donations.
    For example, Chief scientist at Novell, Jeff V. Merkey, had his checked past completely erased from Wikipedia by a $5,000 payout to Jimbo Wales.
    See links:

  • John
    October 19, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    Wikipedia is absolutely unethical. All subject matter related to nobility/royalty will always be attacked for sure with lies.
    For example, I am enclosing a case study that was created to destroy valid informatiion about Baron Francesco Gauci. The valid information was added by a user named “Tancarville”, who is actually Charles Said Vassallo, the historian of He is a leading expert on Maltese/Italian nobility.
    Anyone can see in the case study that is was all a facade filled with trolling to destroy the topic about the Baron. No matter how rational Tancarville is, Wikipedia will use any tactic and lies to avoid truth:
    They will say vaild sourcing is not valid. They will say a notable aristocrat is not note worthy, or they will even try to say that they are not legitimate nobility.
    As Tancarville easily sees and points out, it is based on nothing more that some inferiority complex filled with jealousy. Wikipedia is clearly being made up of “revenge of the nerds” who are trying desperately to find an outlet for their frustrations against anyone and anything that clearly outshines their small life of watching over Wikipedia articles.
    Real sources of information should have objective knowledge about any number of topics, not just the topics that some find appealing to their biased taste.

  • Lisa Bowden
    October 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    Wow, thanks for all who have brought this to light.
    On the surface, I never really thought Wikipedia was that valid since it can be edited by anyone.
    But these trolling tactics are absolutely outrageous! That is something that I wasn’t aware of. Only someone who has tried to edit substantially on Wikipedia would find that out. Thanks for telling the rest of us.
    Wikipedia is really just a computer club then for a select few. Not truly an open format, and totally manipulated… just sick!!!

  • Lisa Bowden
    October 20, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    Wow, thanks for all who have brought this to light.
    On the surface, I never really thought Wikipedia was that valid since it can be edited by anyone.
    But these trolling tactics are absolutely outrageous! That is something that I wasn’t aware of. Only someone who has tried to edit substantially on Wikipedia would find that out. Thanks for telling the rest of us.
    Wikipedia is really just a computer club then for a select few. Not truly an open format, and totally manipulated… just sick!!!

  • Lisa Bowden
    October 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    I just opened some of the links on this page…OMG. Jimmy and company… what creeps! breaking up online!!!
    As for the trolling guys, nothing more than punk loosers. They probably all live in their mother’s basement, collecting Star Wars action figures, and thinking up new ways to jerk people around on Wikipedia.
    What can I say…NERDS…in capital letters for sure!!!

  • Alex
    October 24, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    I can’t stand TROLLS!!!
    Wikipedia administrators are nothing more than a computer club of trollers.
    They were the dorks in high school that think they are so swift by pulling their stupid trolling games, hoping always that they can catch another fish unaware of their jargon filled with lies and misinformation.
    They have no life, and trolling day in and day out is the extent of it.
    The answer is not even to play their game. Just avoid Wikipedia editing like the plague and they are done with.
    Eveyone is now aware that Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia, and soon it won’t even be a favored hit on google. Google is in the process of changing the order in which information shows up.

  • Chat odaları
    October 24, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Wikipedia administrators are nothing more than a computer club of trollers.

  • Jackson
    November 9, 2009 at 12:50 am

    Yes, to say that Wikipedia has a severe problem with administrative trollers would be an understatement.
    Here is another case file filled with trolling
    So let’s get real…
    Can we honestly say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit? ANSWER NO.
    Can we honestly say Wikipedia is an objective source of knowledge? ANSWER NO.
    Can we honestly say that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica or a professionally written encyclopedia? ANSWER NO.
    Is it fair that administrators have the right to block anyone and everyone- and then use their trolling abilities to pump out tons of misinformation and libelous accusations about people accross the internet: ANSWER NO.
    Do the greater majority of us benefit when vaild information is destroyed, knowledgeable users are blocked, and topics are manipulated or called hoaxes across the internet, just to please the tastes and whims of a childish few: ANSWER NO
    Wikipedia has alot of explaining to do…this is certainly not progress or freedom!

  • Jim
    November 11, 2009 at 12:47 am

    Wikipedia has another money-making scam going on right now, the WIKIPEDIA FOREVER campaign to drum up free cash for Jimmy Wales and his cronies.
    When you open it, it says, and I quote:
    “This is where we protect Wikipedia, the encyclopedia written by the people.”
    ” Wikipedia is a nonprofit project that exists for one reason: the free and open sharing of knowledge-
    your donations keep Wikipedia going.”
    Is this guy for real?… “free and open sharing of knowledge.” (lol)
    I guess we all missed the fine print where it says only for administrative trollers…
    and “your donations keep Wikipedia going”…to the bank that is!

  • Henry
    November 15, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    We have entered into a very problematic age, with very sophisticated trolling maneuvers across a number of formats.
    Within this blog, there has been several mentions of noble/royal subject matter being attacked with trolling. Let’s use that topic to illustrate something very important about what is happening with this growth of trolling culture internationally.
    There is a title within nobilty called ‘Baron dell’Albergo’, these were various magistrative barons and barons of industry attached to the Kingdom of Two Sicilies. For example, the Venetian family mentioned above has it as well as Ugo Francesco Maria Proto Barone dell’Albergo of the 1770’s
    Now, in order to TROLL this topic, not only will trollers use Wikipedia, but they will also cross-polinate to chat roooms and various forums in order to create greater distractions.
    In the Royal Forums, I have come across a trolling exercise to say that such a title does not exist, the troller posts a link to a home-made computer listing of the Maria-Proto family filled with misinformation, and to someone unaware, it seems convincing.
    However, when I did research on Google Books for any such “Ugo Francesco Maria Proto Barone dell’Albergo” of the 18th century, he did indeed exist and was a ‘Baron dell’Albergo’. You can do that experiment for yourself, and you will find it on p.155 in a 19th century Italian book by Domenico Scina titled “Prospetto della Storia Letteraria di Sicilia nel Secolo Decimottavo”.
    So what this illustrates for us is that that these trollers are really an interconnected network of closely linked kids who live in a virtual world, going to great efforts to attack any topic or person that they have designated on their radar- just for the fun of it. They are very sophisticated hackers and pranksters, and we all have to start to take greater notice of this epidemic. For these kids, trolling is a way of life, and unfortunately, they have taken over Wikipedia, forums and all sorts of other cyberspace venues.

  • Jay
    November 15, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    TROLLERS go to great lengths in order to perfect their trolling “art”. They will photoshop photographs and newspaper clippings, and create fake links too. They team up internationally as well.
    These kids idolize MIT, and they are all trying to replicate what are known as ‘HACKS’ or pranks done on that campus, to out do one another.
    such as:
    and many go way too far…
    Royalty are seen as big fishes to take down, and for that noble Venetian family connected to the Grand Principality of Transylvania, their a target. That’s way too tempting to their vampire fantasies and immaturity.
    But spreading more awarness of all of these trolling tactics on Wikipedia and other sites will be a good way to neutralize the problem.

  • Sara G.
    November 17, 2009 at 12:03 am

    All of these guys connected to these various forums and Wikipedia also want to be the master of their little universe. Nothing gets their goat more than a newbe coming along and knowing more than they do. They’ll loose face then! So even before someone can post a link with evidence to prove them wrong, they will block you. Why else would they need to block. They have to be know it-alls, otherwise their nothing. If they can’t be the ring leaders in these virtual words, what else do they have. It’s their whole life.

  • Catherine
    November 20, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    As a Brit, I have noticed a growth of royal bashing on Wikipedia, and within blogs and forums too. Of those whom are the greatest targets would be aristocrats born or living within the United States. A foreign noble culture of transference from a family’s courtesy titled name into a family’s substantive titled name, and those with lengthy appendages to surnames, are simply traditions, by enlarge, out of place within American culture.
    Most aristocrats attached to the United States have all had the standard ‘hoax’ accusation said about them on Wikipedia at one time or another, and we see it too on the various forums and within blogs where individuals such Baron Cody Franchetti and Carlo von Zeitschel are unfairly tagged ‘royal imposters’. Of the ones who throw themselves into the limelight, like Lorenzo Borghese, they will even get full press about them not being a prince.
    For some royal watchers in Europe, they strangely feel that these American aristocrats are in some way taking Europe’s thunder away. After all, Europe was ‘better’ because of its ancient ‘breeding’. Well, to their dismay, America has their genuine royals too- and are steeling Europe’s thunder away. American-born royals are not especially welcome in the Royal Forums, Wikipedia and other similar venues for that reason.
    Ultimately, a culture of bashing and trolling on Wikipedia and other venues, no matter what the topic is, has resulted in a substantial drop in Wikipedia participation, and a drop of new topics being added to Wikipedia. Internationally, Wikipedia is increasing being viewed as an insular club- with less people interested in participating. The touted ‘open policy’ of Wikipedia is generally viewed as not being the case. Quality editing on Wikipedia is typically reverted by the powers of a select few.

  • Kloe
    November 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    What goes hand-in-hand with trolling on Wikipedia, forums, or whatever have you, is what is know as “FLAMEBAIT”.
    Flamebait is when a troll provokes an angry response or argument over a topic.
    The motive is for cheap entertainment at the expense of others.
    So, for an example, if we are talking about royalty, a troll will say so and so is a “hoax” or a “royal imposter”.
    That loaded speech is flamebait. It’s intention is to not only hook an editor in, but with the added hope that the editor will get really pissed off within his/her response.
    If the editor does get really pissed off, then the troll will often say that they got some really good “flaming” off of that editor.
    Trolls found on Wikipedia and within forums are a subculture of jackasses, who just get off on this sort of thing. It makes them feel good about their sad, pathetic lives when they are able to see all of their trolling and flamebaiting show up on google searches.
    And all of these trolls within these circles play favortism to certain people even within the topics that they frequently edit or have forums about. After they successfully achieved their goal of removing the exposure of certain people from pages on Wikipedia or within forums, they will then often go back in to those pages to sway the definitions or history of the topic differently from what is accurate, and sometimes with a few good edits as cover ups to give the impression that they are legitimate administraors and not actually trolls trying to manipulate topics found within Wikipedia or various forums.

  • Jamie
    November 23, 2009 at 10:48 am

    Wikipedia is loaded with administrative trollers and flamebaiters.
    The articles are all swayed to the agendas of these trollers and flamebaiters.
    It is not a real encyclopedia and it is not an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It is all false advertising.

  • Chad
    November 23, 2009 at 11:43 am

    Drop in Wikipedia editing is all because of trolling and all of the abuse that people get from administrative trolls. People don’t want to invest anymore time into something that is just not what it proclaims to be. It is a waste of good time and effort. Hard work just ends up all reverted in the end. Wikipedia is really a failure. An open encyclopedia that anyone can edit is just a mirage.
    We all also see Wikipedia as a money making scam for Jimmy Wales and his inner circle. There is only a few paid enployees that all of this money goes to. These campaigns that he is running is just to feed his own bank account. It is all a major scam.

  • Jenny
    December 2, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    Many of the same trolling administrators who participate in Wikipedia are also the same ones who troll and flame bate on The Royal Forums. That is why there is some huge page about The Royal Forums on Wikipedia proclaiming how “great” it is. They both work hand-in-hand to support agendas they are after.
    Also, The Royal Forums is essentially a Euro-centric club. It is for the most part Anti-American and it likes to bash American aristocrats. They don’t like to see extended talk about Americans who may outshine all of their favored gabbering about their own European aristocrats. They just want to prop up Europe, that’s all. So, the standard Wikipedian trolling, bash and block is evident there too to maintain the agenda of the club.

  • Jane Wellington
    December 6, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    OH YES, the administrators at Wikipedia and The Royal Forums are one and the same. They both are nothing more than a club of TROLLS.
    If a topic that they are jealous of starts to get too much attention, then they both will resort to trolling and blocking in order to downplay or discredit a topic/person to keep the club’s agenda going. Wikipedia is anti-royal of contemporary aristocrats and The Royal Forums is anti-American, so the two make for a nice tag-team of administrative trolling across both formats.
    When both groups block, they will always manipulate statements by changing them in order to give the appearence that a contributor was wrong. Several administrators will join together to control all discussions unfairly. Once they block, they will also quickly follow with a redirecting statement/topic as a means to stop another contributor from coming along and questioning them. And if such a contributor did, then they would block them too and call them a sockpuppet or a hoaxer. Both WIKIPEDIA and THE ROYAL FORUMS are bogus outfits. Neither group are comprised of experts, and they are both just made up administrative trollers.
    Also, both formats have rules that clearly say that discussions should be civil and respectful, yet both administrators have no problems to FLAME BAIT, TROLL or to call legitimate people hoaxes, royal imposters, etc. Such talk is nothing short of slander, and they should all be held accountable for what they say.

  • jps
    February 5, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    Edward 321 and Starblind are two of the most unethical administrators on Wikipedia that I have delt with today. Be on the look out for any articles manipulated by them. You just need to check the history of a topic before you take the information at face value. They manipulate articles away from accuracy, with empty links that don’t actually show the info of the referencing, but if you actually check the sources in person, they will often say different things from what they put into Wikipedia.
    If you point out the mistakes on a talk page or try to correct the article, they’ll just reverse it. They also seem to like to spend alot of time expanding articles in a very lengthy way to give them a look of legitimacy, or with some good info mixed in with a whole lot of bad.

  • Eric
    February 18, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    Wikipedia should really be marketed as an “information exchange site” rather than a proper encyclopedia. It is too flawed to be accepted as a proper encyclopedia. For example, Wikipedia has often reported deaths before it happens, as they did with the latest Kennedy passing.

  • Thomas
    February 27, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Just loaded with administrative trollers who talk with a lot of jargon in order to manipulate a topic in the direction that only they want. Tons of hypocracy. One set of rules for administrators and another set for the average user. It just boils down to what the administrators want to see in a specific article, and if you are putting something correct and sourced, but not to their taste, they will remove it with any excuse possible.

  • Sara
    March 1, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    The “hoax” accusation is the whole thing over there at Wikipedia. Administrators want to rope people into arguing on a talk page by flamebating, that’s where they get their entertainment from. Policing Wikipedia for free, day in and day out, is boring and unprofitable, so they are in it just for the trolling, and nothing else. It’s how administrators get off.

  • GL
    March 11, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    Many administrators at Wikipedia are very emotionally sick. They are computer stalkers who will stalk people and topics about certain people accross the internet in a very disturbing manner.
    Link is inclosed-

  • Richard
    September 7, 2010 at 8:37 am

    The abuse of administrators is very blatant.
    Also this is a very PC group, you can offer information showing terrorism and hman right violations by Hugo chavez and you get blocked.
    Put up criticsm of Michael Moore you get blocked
    They won’t even allow you to call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist orginizations

Leave Your Comment


Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap