Who Controls Wikipedia? Who Sponsors Wikipedia?

There are 20 comments on the Free Republic story from Feb 15, 2010, titled Who Controls Wikipedia? Who Sponsors Wikipedia?. In it, Free Republic reports that:

Is Wikipedia/Wikimedia foundation funded by special interest groups? A list are major donors to Wikipedia below Financial Reports Wikimedia Foundation Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Omidyar Network Stanton Foundation Arcadia Richard Lounsbery Foundation Open Society Institute Read more at docs.google.com ... TOPICS: Extended News KEYWORDS: sorospedia ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
GORDON

River Grove, IL

#1 Mar 23, 2010
NEVER, EVER TRUST WIKIPEDIA FOLLOW ALL LINKS HERE
HTTP://WIKIPEDIA-WATCH.ORG NEVER SPONSOR WIKIPEDIA, OTHER COUNTRIES SHOULD NEVER SPONSOR AS WELL, WIKIMEDIA SOFTWARE IS GNU, PUBLIC DOMAIN, ANYBODY CAN USE IT TO CREATE THEIR ENCYCLOPEDIA! WIKIPEEDIA IS PURE EVIL!!!NEVER TRUST IT!
That's what ALL NEED TO KNOW!
MARK

Chicago, IL

#4 Aug 9, 2010
yo NEVER SPONSOR WIKIPEDIA IF U DO U R FOOL!SHAME!
IRA

Harwood Heights, IL

#5 Aug 9, 2010
hey ABOVE USERS ARE 1000% RIGHT
HTTP://WIKIPEDIA-WATCH.ORG BOOKMARK EVERY SITE!LET ALL SCHOOLS KNOW ON THOSE DIRTY WIKIPEDOS THEY ARE CORRUPT AS ENCYCLOPEDIADRAMATICA WHERE NOTHIN BUT CRAP RULES, BOTH ARE BREAKIN CHILD PORN LAWS!

“Anthony NYR”

Since: Jun 07

New York

#6 Aug 9, 2010
IRA wrote:
hey ABOVE USERS ARE 1000% RIGHT
HTTP://WIKIPEDIA-WATCH.ORG BOOKMARK EVERY SITE!LET ALL SCHOOLS KNOW ON THOSE DIRTY WIKIPEDOS THEY ARE CORRUPT AS ENCYCLOPEDIADRAMATICA WHERE NOTHIN BUT CRAP RULES, BOTH ARE BREAKIN CHILD PORN LAWS!
STOP WITH THE CAPS LOCK!!! And you are Gordon and Ira, too! Make your point once! Typing the same thing under 3 different names doesn't strengthen your argument. It makes people think you might be psychotic!
Rashan

River Grove, IL

#8 Aug 28, 2010
WASTING MONEY ON WIKIPEDIA IS HUGE SIN, IT'S LIKE GIVING IT TO DOGS AKA TO THE TOILET WASTED MONEY!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/2... SCHOOLS BAN THIS GARBAGE, JUSTLY!!!
ya know

Laurinburg, NC

#10 Sep 22, 2010
MARK wrote:
yo NEVER SPONSOR WIKIPEDIA IF U DO U R FOOL!SHAME!
i used to post in all caps just like you.

then i realized i did not want to mix cement for the rest of my days.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#11 Sep 24, 2010
Wikipedia certainly doesn't tell the truth about Obama. He is a traitor and a fraud!
Olive Oil

Chicago, IL

#12 Oct 1, 2010
ya know, yo know... So u mixed cement, how nice, keep up good work.
laity... obama is not traitor, fraud, all politicians most of them are hypocrites, obama is full of it!what change?in his pocket that is!
he needs to stop listening to aholes!

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#14 Oct 2, 2010
Olive Oil wrote:
ya know, yo know... So u mixed cement, how nice, keep up good work.
laity... obama is not traitor, fraud, all politicians most of them are hypocrites, obama is full of it!what change?in his pocket that is!
he needs to stop listening to aholes!
Obama IS a traitor and a fraud:
http://americangrandjury.org/public/
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/17/there-...
Georgia

River Grove, IL

#15 Oct 7, 2010
I found cool article how wikipdia drives people crazy, dig this, just like above linx, all based on 100%facts, print it:

Why Wiki can drive you wacky
Bernard Haisch . Los Angeles Times . Los Angeles,
Calif.:Jul 24, 2006. p. B.11

(Copyright (c) 2006 Los Angeles
Times)
'YOU DO NOT get to choose whether or not an article on you
appears in Wikipedia, and you have no veto power over its contents.
The article can cast you as a genius or an imbecile, a respected
scientist or a crackpot.... a vandal could replace a page, any
page, with total gibberish. The page on Einstein might have a
statement inserted to the effect that he was a Nazi collaborator,
or that his theories have been totally discredited, or that he was
a silicon- based life form from Proxima Centauri.... Wikipedia does
not operate by your rules but by its own conventions; I suggest you
learn to accept it.... I can assure you resistance is futile."

This was the lecture I received from anonymous Wikipedia
"editor" KSmrq while I was in the midst of trying to bring some
semblance of accuracy and neutrality to the "Bernard Haisch"
article that another "editor" had posted a few days previously. I
put "editor" in quotes because anyone can be a self-appointed
editor. KSmrq's user page says: "Although I do have personal
history, interests, education and professional experience, I feel
no compulsion to share them with the world on this page." Now that
inspires trust and confidence!

All it takes is a click of the mouse on the "edit this page" box
and you too can add or subtract anything you want from virtually
any article (a handful are blocked, e.g. George W. Bush), identity
and relevant knowledge optional. Congratulations. You are now a
Wikipedian.

But wait. If the article happens to be about you or your work,
you are supposed to refrain from clicking on "edit this page."
Instead, if there are problems, you should click on the discussion
page and politely argue your case there, in the hope that some
other self-appointed editor will consider the merits of your case
and fix things for you.

The belief among Wikipedians is that somehow, through a process
of group trial and error, something credible will emerge by and
by.

This is not always so, as a widely reported 2005 case showed.
John Seigenthaler Sr., founder of the First Amendment Center at
Vanderbilt University and a former assistant to Robert F. Kennedy,
discovered in September 2005, via a tip from a friend, that for the
previous four months his Wikipedia entry had included this
statement, inserted by an anonymous editor: "John Seigenthaler Sr.
was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early
1960s. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly
involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his
brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."

An Op-Ed article that Seigenthaler published in USA Today
detailed his frustrating and failed attempts to track down the
source of this statement. The perpetrator eventually came forward
with an apology and an explanation that it had been a joke gone
bad.

Some might view this as an example of the worst that could
happen and proof that the system did eventually root out the
misinformation.

I disagree. Something as blatantly wrong as this will be fixed
sooner or later. What is more insidious are the negative slants and
biased cherry picking of facts that can paint a quite inaccurate
portrait of something or someone. This is as hard to fix as a flat
tire in a blizzard. And if it does get fixed, it could change again
five minutes hence.

Unfortunately, telling yourself that it really doesn't matter
what Wikipedia says is not a realistic option anymore. Wikipedia is
growing rapidly in its number of articles and users, and for many
people Wikipedia will be the first and only source they'll see.
Blueboy

River Grove, IL

#16 Oct 7, 2010
Here I found really cool story, no longer available but if u find it keep it, print it!

Why Wiki can drive you
wacky:[HOME EDITION]
Bernard Haisch . Los Angeles Times . Los Angeles,
Calif.:Jul 24, 2006. p. B.11

'YOU DO NOT get to choose whether or not an article on you
appears in Wikipedia, and you have no veto power over its contents.
The article can cast you as a genius or an imbecile, a respected
scientist or a crackpot.... a vandal could replace a page, any
page, with total gibberish. The page on Einstein might have a
statement inserted to the effect that he was a Nazi collaborator,
or that his theories have been totally discredited, or that he was
a silicon- based life form from Proxima Centauri.... Wikipedia does
not operate by your rules but by its own conventions; I suggest you
learn to accept it.... I can assure you resistance is futile."

This was the lecture I received from anonymous Wikipedia
"editor" KSmrq while I was in the midst of trying to bring some
semblance of accuracy and neutrality to the "Bernard Haisch"
article that another "editor" had posted a few days previously. I
put "editor" in quotes because anyone can be a self-appointed
editor. KSmrq's user page says: "Although I do have personal
history, interests, education and professional experience, I feel
no compulsion to share them with the world on this page." Now that
inspires trust and confidence!

All it takes is a click of the mouse on the "edit this page" box
and you too can add or subtract anything you want from virtually
any article (a handful are blocked, e.g. George W. Bush), identity
and relevant knowledge optional. Congratulations. You are now a
Wikipedian.

But wait. If the article happens to be about you or your work,
you are supposed to refrain from clicking on "edit this page."
Instead, if there are problems, you should click on the discussion
page and politely argue your case there, in the hope that some
other self-appointed editor will consider the merits of your case
and fix things for you.

The belief among Wikipedians is that somehow, through a process
of group trial and error, something credible will emerge by and
by.

This is not always so, as a widely reported 2005 case showed.
John Seigenthaler Sr., founder of the First Amendment Center at
Vanderbilt University and a former assistant to Robert F. Kennedy,
discovered in September 2005, via a tip from a friend, that for the
previous four months his Wikipedia entry had included this
statement, inserted by an anonymous editor: "John Seigenthaler Sr.
was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early
1960s. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly
involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his
brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."

An Op-Ed article that Seigenthaler published in USA Today
detailed his frustrating and failed attempts to track down the
source of this statement. The perpetrator eventually came forward
with an apology and an explanation that it had been a joke gone
bad.

Some might view this as an example of the worst that could
happen and proof that the system did eventually root out the
misinformation.

I disagree. Something as blatantly wrong as this will be fixed
sooner or later. What is more insidious are the negative slants and
biased cherry picking of facts that can paint a quite inaccurate
portrait of something or someone. This is as hard to fix as a flat
tire in a blizzard. And if it does get fixed, it could change again
five minutes hence.


Blueboy

River Grove, IL

#17 Oct 7, 2010
if u can find this story, print it, keep it, it's great!factual!

Why Wiki can drive you
wacky:[HOME EDITION]
Bernard Haisch . Los Angeles Times . Los Angeles,
Calif.:Jul 24, 2006. p. B.11



http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb...
Blueboy

River Grove, IL

#18 Oct 7, 2010
NOTHIN GOOD ON WIKIPEDIA, EXCEPT IT CREATES CRAZINES!
Document Summary

'YOU DO NOT get to choose whether or not an article on you
appears in Wikipedia, and you have no veto power over its contents.
The article can cast you as a genius or an imbecile, a respected
scientist or a crackpot.... a vandal could replace a page, any
page, with total gibberish. The page on Einstein might have a
statement inserted to the effect that he was a Nazi collaborator,
or that his theories have been totally discredited, or that he was
a silicon- based life form from Proxima Centauri.... Wikipedia does
not operate by your rules but by its own conventions; I suggest you
learn to accept it.... I can assure you resistance is futile."

Unfortunately, telling yourself that it really doesn't matter
what Wikipedia says is not a realistic option anymore. Wikipedia is
growing rapidly in its number of articles and users, and for many
people Wikipedia will be the first and only source they'll see.

I discovered in June that a Wikipedia editor had written an
article on me that concentrated almost solely on the latter topics
while virtually ignoring the 100-plus scientific papers I had
published. It was a draining editing battle to try to coax the
article into something halfway reasonable, which was helped by the
decision of the "editor" to drop out of Wikipedia. But the article
could again be rewritten by another anonymous editor. Of course,
you too might decide to edit my article. Please refrain.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#19 Oct 8, 2010
Wikipedia...PTUI!

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#20 Oct 8, 2010
Robert Laity wrote:
Hit the Road Barack:
Joy

Chicago, IL

#21 Oct 13, 2010
yea wikipedia writes shit but has too much lies, not enough info on war criminal bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice, feith!
Joy

River Grove, IL

#22 Oct 23, 2010
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/is... fukd up wikipedia shit bustin loose!

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#23 Oct 25, 2010
Joy wrote:
yea wikipedia writes shit but has too much lies, not enough info on war criminal bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice, feith!
...Obama,Carter,Pelosi,McCain, Palin...

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#24 Oct 25, 2010
GORDON wrote:
NEVER, EVER TRUST WIKIPEDIA FOLLOW ALL LINKS HERE
HTTP://WIKIPEDIA-WATCH.ORG NEVER SPONSOR WIKIPEDIA, OTHER COUNTRIES SHOULD NEVER SPONSOR AS WELL, WIKIMEDIA SOFTWARE IS GNU, PUBLIC DOMAIN, ANYBODY CAN USE IT TO CREATE THEIR ENCYCLOPEDIA! WIKIPEEDIA IS PURE EVIL!!!NEVER TRUST IT!
That's what ALL NEED TO KNOW!
Are you knew to the internet or something? Of course anybody can use wikipedia that's what makes it wikipedia. The software probably has something to do with checking the citations needed to post on there and they will also take down incorrect information and spam. Wikipedia is a correlation of multiple sites or documents relating to just about every topic, that is why they give you a works cited section at the bottom of every web page. It's an online encyclopedia and as far as I've seen usually objective and unbiased. Like taking every google search on the subject and putting it concisely into one webpage.

Welcome to the world wide web. You're late.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#25 Oct 25, 2010
Nomos Soter wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you knew to the internet or something? Of course anybody can use wikipedia that's what makes it wikipedia. The software probably has something to do with checking the citations needed to post on there and they will also take down incorrect information and spam. Wikipedia is a correlation of multiple sites or documents relating to just about every topic, that is why they give you a works cited section at the bottom of every web page. It's an online encyclopedia and as far as I've seen usually objective and unbiased. Like taking every google search on the subject and putting it concisely into one webpage.
Welcome to the world wide web. You're late.
"Objective and unbiased". Don't make me laugh.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 8 Shocking Statements Opponents Of Marriage Equ... 35 min lides 33
News Panel to hear appeal on Obama immigration actions 38 min Who Guessed it 208
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 38 min Coffee Party 326,061
News It's Sheryl Crow vs. Duggars in Mo. (Oct '12) 42 min Bill Clinton 31
News Republicans are not compassionate 45 min Earl 78
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 46 min ParasiteZach 1,223,662
News Poll: Hillary Clinton most admired woman 57 min Le Jimbo 847
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 1 hr neveratfault 445
News 5 Reasons The American Dream Is Eluding Black P... 1 hr someone else 1,062
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Chimney1 161,765
More from around the web