2. The contributor with an agenda always prevails.

The idea behind Wikipedia’s group editing process is that, by general consensus, unreliable contributions and edits will be removed and/or corrected.

But usually the contributor who ‘wins’ is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda. The one who is more persistent and committed.

Irish student Shane Fitzgerald, who was conducting research on the Internet and globalization of information, posted a fake quotation on the Wikipedia article about the deceased French composer Maurice Jarre.

Due to the fact that the quote was not attributed to a reliable source, it was removed several times by editors, but Fitzgerald simply continued re-posting it until it was allowed to remain.

Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use websites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source.

Fitzgerald e-mailed the newspapers letting them know that the quote was fabricated; he believes that otherwise, they might never have found out.

Fitzgerald demonstrated that if he can ‘re-write’ history that easily then so can everybody else.

3. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.

Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve regardless of whether they are factually correct or not.

For example U.K. scientist William Connelly became a website administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming.

More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.

According to The Financial Post, when Connelly was through editing, ‘The Medieval Warm Period’ disappeared, as did criticism of the ‘global warming orthodoxy.’

Connelly has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but he can obviously continue to post, edit and lie. He simply needs to sign in with a new user name – that’s all it takes.

4. Accurate contributors can be silenced.

The small group of editors known as ‘deletionists’ often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an ‘unreliable source,’ with the competing editor deciding alone what is reliable or not.

For example, when the Taliban kidnapped New York Times reporter David Rohde in Afghanistan, the paper convinced 40 media organizations plus Wikipedia not to report on it out of concerns that it would compromise Rohde’s safety.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told the Times, once Rohde was free, that ‘We were really helped by the fact that it (postings on Rohde) hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source.’

In other words Wales and other senior Wikipedia editors demonstrated how willing they are to rely on unreliable sources to delete accurate information they had been given by perfectly reliable sources, regardless of what justified it.

Which leads directly to number 5

5. The number of active Wikipedia editors has fallen.

The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who can make at least five edits a month) has significantly fallen.

The reason given is that it is not worth bothering to continue in battle with ‘progressive editors’ with a political agenda. It is, after all, only a hobby for most people.

It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia with any accuracy or honesty.

6. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute.

According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago.

The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever.

The ‘deletionists’ are said to ‘edit first and ask questions later,’ making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it impossible for Wikipedia to provide ‘the sum of all human knowledge.’ – Their mission statement.

Furthermore, Wikipedia appears to have no intention of overcoming the problem of being controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic and with a clear political or social agenda of their own.

In many subjects Wikipedia has become a place of MISINFORMATION, SPIN and MANIPULATION and has no obvious desire to correct that.

In fact, that could well be where most of their funding comes from.

7. Vandalism

Vandalism is always fun, for some tiny-minded people. Wikipedia is no exception to that and often false entries are missed and can remain online for months, if they are ever spotted at all.



For example, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was falsely implicated in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge.

This is a common problem for Wikipedia.

And finally, the biggest reason of all to avoid Wikipedia as a source of reliable information