WELCOME TO MY SITE AND HERE IS MY DISCLOSURE
SEE MY RELIABLE INFORMATION PAGE FIRST
MY INTENTION IS NOT TO PROVE ANYTHING BUT TO SAVE MY RESEARCH AND CREATE AWARENESS OF THE TOPIC. I WANTED TO PROVIDE A ONE STOP RESOURCE TO EXPLAIN MY POINT OF VIEW TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY INSTEAD OF CONSTANTLY RETYPING AND PROVING LINKS. ALL MY SOURCE LINKS ARE PROVIDE IN BUT VERIFY WITH OTHERS. DO NOT BELIEVE ME AND RESEARCH THE BELOW YOURSELF.
IF SOMETHING IS MY OPINION I WILL STATE IT OTHERWISE I ATTEMPT TO JUST LAY OUT THE INFORMATION FOUND AND LET YOU DECIDE.
USE DISCERNMENT WHEN READING ANY INFORMATION SOURCE.
WIKIPEDIA
Before reading the information below please see the "RELIABLE INFORMATION" page to see why I have included this page.
As I have pointed In my opinion we should consult as many information sources as possible and is up to us as an individual to use discernment.
I talked about an Enterprises Ethics. This is what I meant by that.
Despite all of its policies (list seen here) it has been known for having poor quality content , To quote Wikipedia's work in progress page
"Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.
and go on here (just a few highlights so read the entire text on their page)
"people have started to rely on it as a source of information, often as their only source of information"
"nobody said Wikipedia was ready to be used" , "No one ever said that Wikipedia was even good"
"In short, it doesn't matter how terrible and unreliable and inconsistent and trashy Wikipedia is, because we can always make it better"
"So, if you rely on Wikipedia so much in its current state, that's your problem"
Now I don't have a problem with some information being poor in some case because I understand their process they use do agree with the fact that we can all contribute to the quality and make it better.
What i do see an issue with is the principals (list seen here) displayed . If this is the approach Wiki have taken perhaps they should disclose, on the top of every article
"If You Rely On Wikipedia As Your Only Source Of Information Then That's Your Problem"
But Please
"Come Back In Another Six Or Seven Years And Take A Look Then. It'll Be Better. We Promise"
That would be good disclosure and provide every user with valuable information. While its not hidden its difficult to find.
You have to click link after link. from Policy and guidelines to Policy categories to lists of guidelines etc.
Unfortunately most people don't take the time to look into the information and policy pages.
Its also very important to look into the enterprise.
Its background, Its policies, Its members, Who funds it , Who owns it etc.
So I thought Id cover some of this below.
-Wiki is written by "you", Has around 70,000 active contributors working on more than 38,000,000 articles
-Pages without a lock icon on the top right of the page can be edited by any Joe Blow (known as a "Wikipedian")
-They are deleting information that is incorrect all the time, more than 1000 articles per day are being removed. (Chart here)
They say "people are getting themselves in a panic"
There many Essays written by editors that contribute to the articles. The Essay directory has over 800 listed cover a wind range of subjects but can be seen here "in a nutshell"
One essay "Is Wiki Failing" contained a few stats on the content accuracy.
Vital articles lists 988 articles considered essential that should be of very high quality like required to become a featured article. Of 988 only 81 were featured articles and 9 were A-class or to put it a better way 89% of the essential topics fall short of the standard, assuming that all vital articles that meet the FA criteria have been nominated for FA status. 65 are listed as good articles and the other 833 are B-class, C-class, stub-class or start-class on the assessment scale. On trends from how many articles are over time contributed to and become a featured article it was said it could take 225 years for all of the vital articles to reach expected standards.
What happened to "come back in 6 or 7 years and it will be better" ???
They even "promised".
At the time there were 5,097,755 articles written. 4,682 featured articles, 23,561 good articles. So 99.39% of articles are not considered well-written, verifiable, broad, or comprehensive in their coverage
The largest assessment covering 18% of articles show that 0.7% were either FAs or A-class articles as seen at WP:1.0/I
Give this a try, the essay said
"One useful, informal exercise for a reader is to critically read ten random articles. The numbers above suggest that on average, you'd expect to find one FA or A-class article in every 143 articles you looked at (based on WP:1.0/I), or every 762 (based on total numbers of FAs and A-class articles)"
They had a section on possible gender bias because between 84 and 91 percent of Wikipedia editors are male which may lead to systemic bias
The essay provided you with "food for though"
"If Wikipedia just aimed to be a social website where people with similar interests could come together and write articles about anything they liked, it would certainly be succeeding. However, its stated aim is to be an encyclopedia, and not just that but an encyclopedia of the highest quality. Six years of work has resulted in 3,000 articles of good or excellent quality, at which rate it will take many decades to produce the quantity of good or excellent articles found in traditional encyclopedias. Over 1.6 million articles are mediocre to poor in quality"
There was a rebuttal to this essay called " Wikipedia:Wikipedia is succeeding" but the view of the editors writing this one were
"The sister essay contains a great deal of "rebuttals" and "responses" to this essay based upon a number of sources. This essay concludes that these alleged "rebuttals" in the sister essay are weak and its responses are inadequate. It relies on pseudoscientific statistical special pleading which seems to both stem from and play on the general public's misconception of appropriate statistical analysis and science. This is one the root causes of problems on Wikipedia to begin with. The poor quality of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is succeeding is itself a reflection of the systemic problems of pseudoscience and fringe theories on Wikipedia."
The essay wanted to Clarify any possible misconceptions and wrote
"A popular misconception among the public, which is also encouraged by the media, is the claim, "A scientist proved it in a study, so it must be true!" Science relies on proper methodology, objectivity, and replicability, among other things. The sister essay invokes a handful of studies without addressing criticism of their methodology or the fact that they arguably haven't been replicated. In particular, the single-study by Nature is held up as the holy grail proof that Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica, though its specific methodology is ignored, peer-reviews aren't cited, and so on.
In addition, it is important to clarify that correlation does not imply causation, another fallacy the essay seems to evoke by repeatedly evangelizing about Wikipedia's growth without narrowing in on where that growth has happened and how, that is, specifying the cause."
Do you agree with that?
I certainly do.....
Although I think this is not the fault of the media but the fault of society. I covered this on "Reliable Information"
BELOW TO BE SORTED
through Notability
Although perfection is not required in an article, any contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) in any article, that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (see the Wikipedia policy biographies of living persons for more on this issue). If contentious material about a living person (or a recently deceased person) is verified with one or more reliable sources, the material must be presented in a neutral manner without undue weight.
And "conspiracy circles" and other groups say it is government monitored and there are people paid to alter and remove things they don't like. This is possible but
Esperanza was a Wikipedia project founded on 12 August 2005
User Courcelles is also Courcelles is travelling which has a template which confirms he is familiar with the Wikipedia policy on using multiple accounts and that this account will not be used for sock puppetry.
Member of the Wiki Arbitration committee / audit subcommittee
The Audit Subcommittee was disbanded by motion of the Arbitration Committee on 14 January 2016. Any complaints related to misuse of the advanced permissions CheckUser or Oversight (suppression) will henceforth be investigated by the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit for details.
The Arbitration Committee established its Audit Subcommittee in 2009 to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, to scrutinise the use on the English Wikipedia of CheckUser and Oversight (suppression) functions, and to ensure the tools are used in accordance with the applicable policies. These complaints are now addressed by the Arbitration Committee.
CheckUser is a tool that allows certain trusted users to see the IP addresses used by registered users, which are normally hidden. Its use is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) privacy policy andcheckuser policy, and the English Wikipedia's own CheckUser policy. CheckUser is used primarily to fight vandalism, identify sockpuppets, and prevent disruption; the tool must not be used out of curiosity, for political control, to place editors under pressure, or as a threat in a content dispute. The committee's remit is restricted to the use of checkuser on this Wikipedia (see list of users with checkuser access).
Oversight (or suppression) is a procedure by which revisions and log entries are removed from view by all users except oversighters (including administrators). The oversight privilege is governed by the WMF'soversight policy and the English Wikipedia's own Oversight policy, and is typically used to remove: copyright violations by request of the Foundation's General Counsel; violations of the privacy of an editor or another person; self-disclosures by apparent minors; and material that is potentially libelous. Unlike simple deletion and revision deletion (performed by any administrator), suppression hides material from view by almost every user. The committee is only concerned with the use of suppression on the English Wikipedia (see list of oversighters).
Reports of investigations that were publicly reported, and anonymised summaries of all the subcommittee's cases from before the Audit Subcommittee was disbanded in 2016, are retained at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports.
Statistical reports on Checkuser and Oversight are maintained at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees maintains an Ombudsman Commission to investigate the misuse of checkuser and oversight on all its projects. The ombudsman is a separate body from the Arbitration Committee.
The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies. The term comes from sock puppet, an object shaped roughly like a sock and used on the hand to create a character to entertain or inform. In Internet terminology it is an online identity used for deception.
Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed.
Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. These accounts are not sockpuppets. If you use an alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy. Valid reasons include:
- Security: Since public computers can have password-stealing malware installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts. Such accounts should be publicly connected to the main account or use an easily identified name. For example, User:Mickey might use User:Mickey (alt) or User:Mouse, and redirect that account's user and talk pages to their main account.
- Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.
- Maintenance: An editor might use an alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks, or to segregate functions such as work with specific kinds of media files, so as to maintain a user talk page dedicated to the purpose. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account.
- Bots: A common special case of maintenance involves bots, or programs that edit automatically or semi-automatically. Editors who use bots are encouraged to create separate accounts, and ask that they be marked as bot accounts viaWikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, so that the automated edits can be filtered out of recent changes; see Wikipedia:Bot policy.
- Testing and training: Users who use a lot of scripts and other tools may wish to keep a second, "vanilla" account, for testing how things appear to others; or for demonstrating Wikipedia's default appearance when training new users. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account, except where doing so would interfere with testing or training, e.g. someone created an account with the user name "example" for the same reason that the domain names "example.com", "example.org" and "example.net" were created, to serve as a "dummy" account to be used in examples without indicating a real user's actual account.
- WP:DG
- WP:DOPPELGANGER
- WP:DOPPELGÄNGER
- Doppelgänger accounts: A doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation. Such accounts should not be used for editing. Doppelgänger accounts may be marked with the {{doppelganger}} or {{doppelganger-other}} tag (or simply redirected to the main account's userpage).
- Compromised accounts: If you have lost the password to an existing Wikipedia account, or you know or suspect that someone else has obtained or guessed the password, you may well want to create a new account with a clean password. In such a case, you should post a note on the user page of each account indicating that they are alternative accounts for the same person, and you may well wish to ask an admin to block the old compromised account. You may want to consider using WP:Committed identity in advance to help deal with this rare situation should it arise later.
- Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start, you can discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use; see Wikipedia:Clean start. Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas or disputes, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Discontinuing the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet. It isstrongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of previous accounts before standing for adminship or functionary positions. Failure to do so is likely to be considered deceptive.
- Humor accounts: The community has accepted some obviously humorous alternate accounts, for example User:Bishzilla, User:Bishapod, User:Darwinbish, User:Darwinfish, User:Floquenstein's monster, and sometimes Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late).
- Correcting username violations: If you are blocked for having an inappropriate username, and that is the sole reason for the block, you are permitted to create a new account with an appropriate username. In fact, the username block templateencourages this.
- Designated roles: Editors with specific roles, such as Wikipedian in residence or Wikimedia Foundation employees, may have specific accounts for those roles.
o Note the account still belongs to the individual, not the role itself, and should be named as such, e.g. User:Example (WIR for Foo Museum) rather than User:Wikipedian-in-residence for Foo Museum. It is not required that the names match, e.g.User:Example (personal) and User:JohnDoe (WMF) (role) are allowed.
o If the editor leaves the role, their role account must no longer be used. If a new editor assumes the role, they must create a new role account if they want or need an account specific to the role.
It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages; templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose.