Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia with the aim to allow anyone to edit articles. Wikipedia is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet and is ranked among the ten most popular websites. Criticism of Wikipedia —of its content, procedures, and operations, and of the Wikipedia community—covers many subjects, topics, and themes about the nature of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia of subject entries that almost anyone can edit. Wikipedia has been criticized for the uneven handling, acceptance, and retention of articles about controversial subjects. The principal concerns of its critics are the factual reliability of the content; the readability of the prose; and a clear article layout; the existence of systemic bias; of gender bias; and of racial bias among the editorial community that is Wikipedia. Further concerns are that the organization allows the participation of anonymous editors (leading to editorial vandalism); the existence of social stratification (allowing cliques); and over-complicated rules (allowing editorial quarrels), the conditions of which permit the misuse of Wikipedia.
- 1 List of wikipedia controversies and disputes
- 2 Quotes
- 3 Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
- 4 See also
- 5 External links
List of wikipedia controversies and disputes
- Dispute in 2017 over the addition of an image showing a halal slaughter in India. User:Fowler&Fowler complained that in "the current climate of anti-Muslim hysteria in India" such a picture "is nothing if not inflammatory". He said he has removed the image from three pages.  Previously, the article showed an image of a sacrificial slaughter at a Durga Puja (which apparently was not "controversial").
Disputes about banned or disruptive users
- Darkness Shines (aka The Last Angry Man, Marknutley)
-  "We are talking about a person who managed to rack up some thirty separate blocks for disruptive editing and personal attacks in the course of six years (not counting those for socking), and the only person I can remember who managed to get himself topic-banned for disruptive editing in three seperate arbcom-sanctioned areas (climate change, India/Pakistan, and Eastern Europe). We are talking about a person who managed to talk himself out of long-term blocks with promises of good behaviour a full 12 times, and ended up re-blocked or re-sanctioned within a month or two on ten out of those twelve occasions. "
- Huge, huge, huge ADMIN FAIL    
-       
- December 2017 [*https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Darkness%20Shines]
- Dispute over User NadirAli User Fowler&Fowler defends "edit warring by User NadirAli who removed text sourced to "impeccable sources", without a shred of evidence that it is "undue" per reliable source(s), and another user calls the same behaviour "disruption". For example, Fowler says the Hindu Kush article should not have a "slavery section" because editors from Pakistan or Afghanistan might "get irritated".
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tyler_Durden&offset=&limit=500&target=Tyler+Durden this shows that 'antihindu' editors will easily get their bans lifted
Controversial Deletion discussions
- Template:Violence against Hindus
- "Reason:Inflamatory content keeping in mind riots happening in West Bengal"
Controversial "Good Article" Reassessements
- It is clear that our deep state is obsessed with controlling information and moulding it to fit its narrative. On Wikipedia, a number of 'users' and 'editors' have been planted to ensure that only Pakistan's official stance or the Nazaria-e-Pakistan [ideology of Pakistan] is reflected in the pages on Pakistan. Consequently, the pages on Pakistan's history read like a secondary school Pakistan Studies textbook... All alternative views on Pakistan's constitution, role of religion and federalism are stifled by this group...If one were to venture a guess it would be that these manipulators of the Pakistani narrative on sites like Wikipedia and others are operating out of some nondescript building in Islamabad's G sectors [where Pakistani intelligence agencies are located].
- If you cannot see the truth, my brother in Islam, then you need to. The unbelievers are lying, as they usually do. There is a group on wikipedia. A group of infidels who sully the name of al-Islam and the noble men who fight and die in the name of Allah and the Prophet (pbuh).But the beautiful words of Allah himself tell us to be the instruments of terror when the infidel tries to fight us, so where is the wrong in that? Yet, the true shaheeds, the martyrs who fight and die for al-Islam, for pakistan, are misrepresented, sullied, and are the victims of Zionist-Hindu lies. This must change now. Look at the edits of many editors, Jews and Hindus, and you will see them removing all the truth and replacing it with Zionist lies. The Hindu kafir has become the instrument of the evil Zionist Jew, and they are our enemy. They fear us. They fear Pakistan, and they fear the greatest army of the house of Islam, and they fear the Islamic bomb. They fear the great Jihad that we stand ready to unleash upon the world. We will bring peace to the world through Jihad. We will wipe out all falsehoods. We will bring Islam to al-Harb again. The infidel nation of India will be the start of the great Jihad. The unbelievers must be enlightened. All who call themselves Muslims here, all who call themselves sons of Pakistan, must wage this Jihad on their keyboards, and then on their homes, and their villages. But the soldiers of Allah must verily take the holy war to the homes of the infidel. That is the goal of all the proud here on this blessed place where we have met. Allah keep you all, my brothers.
- When I actually reviewed Wikipedia’s sensible guidelines, not only was I impressed with how forward thinking they were, I realized that their ‘neutrality’ policy is likely the best way to approach what some consider very controversial topics, especially topics that I discuss frequently, such as consciousness, wellness and lifestyle. I was relieved to see that Wikipedia was not meant to be the ideological ‘battleground’ that a large number of skeptics have made it into. That Wikipedia belongs to you and me just as much as it belongs to them. Those editors only have that much control because they have mastered the Wikipedia rules and learned how to use them to their advantage.
- If Wikipedia wants to live up to its promise of being a reliable encyclopedic source, it will strike this and all sentences resembling it from its article on me. At most, it can use me as an example of how it was fooled by some of its all-too-partisan collaborators. Speaking of whom: the history page accompanying my page proves forever that some Wikipedia collaborators wanted to inflict on me the maximum harm possible, an attitude incompatible with work for an encyclopedia. Shouldn’t Wikipedia fire them and wipe out everything they wrote? Of course they can still contribute blogs and columns, by preference under their own full names, but they have proven themselves not to be encyclopedic authorities.
- Being by definition the greatest expert in the world on this lemma’s subject, I know for fact that a lot of it is mendacious. It is either your own lie or the lie of a source that you have cited or reproduced in good faith, but either way, it is not truthful. It does not follow your self-imposed requirement of “objectivity”. It describes an imaginary strawman, not me..... Well, there you have it. The lemma on me has ended up taking this form because some militant among your contributors purposely wanted to “warn readers” against me. Please cite me an instruction for encyclopedists that names “warning” among the legitimate goals of an encyclopedia. ... Indeed it serves no purpose to take sides for or against me. But as is clear from your many readers that I have had to deal with, the lemma strongly takes sides, viz. against me. This is intentional, as illustrated by a contributor’s insistence to “warn readers”. Moreover, it is very naïve to think that “the readers of Wikipedia are mature enough to follow up on a controversy when it is pointed out to them, and come to their own opinion without the need of pointing them on their way”. That is too easy a way to deny an encyclopedia’s responsibility. My experience amply teaches that most readers don’t “follow up” on a controversy at all. ...At any rate, in a encyclopedia, I count on being judged for what I myself have said or done, and not for the gossip my declared enemies have come up with.
- Wikipedia with its free-for-all constitution and arbitrary, secretive contribution and editorial oversight system lacks all credibility. Every fact checked with this Internet reference has to be checked some place else if it is to be accepted as authoritative. Many of its articles on Christianity in India are propaganda projects set up to project a particular Christian world view. This is to be expected: the wiki editing system invites India’s cultural enemies, Christian missionaries and other western neo-colonialists, to propound their hostile, anti-Indian theories. Its administrators are not authorities on the subjects they oversee (Tinucherian is a Bangalore software engineer who knows nothing about St. Thomas and the history of Christianity in India except for what his pious mother may have told him) and their personal prejudices soon become evident and interfere with factual and cited contributions. Wikipedia is the perfect platform for Christian propaganda in India and is being used for that purpose with great effect in its Christianity in India project. This Wikipedia series even employs the symbol of a gold cross superimposed on a light blue map of India, a symbol that is highly offensive to the majority Hindu population who identify India as their mother and civilisational homeland. The fabulous and false “facts” about St. Thomas and India found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and its Internet sister Wikipedia make the ancient Greek historian and geographer Strabo into a prophet (he was a contemporary of Jesus and Thomas). He said, “Generally speaking the men who have written on India were a set of liars.” And so it is with the contributors to the mainstream encyclopaedias and dictionaries that reference Indian history today. And closer to home, Sri Aurobindo, in The Foundations of Indian Culture, referred to “the intemperate … vomit of false witness, hatred, [and] uncharitableness … that are the mark of a certain type of Christian literature….”
Examples of anti-Hindu bias by wikipedia editors
- "Why are you giving so importance to a Third World Contry person like Talageri? These religious beggers and low class people don't deserve this much attention." ("User:Truthlover")
- "what's happening? Are summer holidays over at American high schools, and all the ABCD trolls flocking back to give Wikipedia grief? (ABCD is a slur, ABCD=American Born Confused Desi)" ("User:Dbachmann")
- "the only people that care about [ [ Indian mathematics ] ] are Indians with a collective inferiority complex... Our problem is not with real kooks so much as with second-generation expatriate youths who are shedding their testosterone properly intended for tribal warfare in front of the screen." ("Dbachmann")
- "imdiversity.com is at least not a Hindu forum, but it seems still to be a lobby organization you'd expect to automatically take the side of an ethnic minority, never mind if their cause makes sense or not." ("Dbachmann")
- "The articles Hindu-Arabic numeral system, Arabic numerals and Indian numerals have been kept separate in order to appease the angry young Hindu editors." ("Dbachmann")
- "There is a group on wikipedia. A group of infidels(...) The infidel nation of India will be the start of the great Jihad. The unbelievers must be enlightened. All who call themselves Muslims here (...) must wage this Jihad on their keyboards, and then on their homes, and their villages. But the soldiers of Allah must verily take the holy war to the homes of the infidel." ("Nishan")
- "These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, they do not pretend to be clueless brutes, it is difficult to believe, but I think they are fully serious. It is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them." ("Dbachmann")
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
Anti-dharmic and anti-hindu bias on wikipedia is found in many areas, among them are:
- Ignoring or censoring the persecution of Hindus
- Ignoring or censoring cases of anti-hinduism
- Deletion of articles on topics of Hindu interest is sometimes motivated by anti-hindu bias
- Pro-Hindu people are labelled as Hindu nationalist, but for example Marxist historians like Romila Thapar are not labelled as Marxist
- Examples of Bias and Errors
- Pakistan: While the article is silent about issues like forced conversion, temple destructions, slavery and religious persecution during the Muslim invasions of India, it claims that "Sufi missionaries played a pivotal role in converting a majority of the regional Buddhist and Hindu population to Islam".
- Wikipedia at Google Groups Wikipedia Leaks
- A Compendium of Wikipedia Criticism – Wikipediocracy
- The Geographically Uneven Coverage of Wikipedia – Oxford Internet Institute – University of Oxford
- Encyclopaedias Britannica & Wikipedia: Their Counterfeit St. Thomas Entries Exposed – Ishwar Sharan – Ishwar Sharan
- The Closed, Unfriendly World Of Wikipedia
- Wikipediocracy https://wikipediocracy.com/
- Speedy Deletion
- Is wikipedia independent
- Is it really independent
- Manipulation of Pakistani articles
- Meera Nanda against Hinduism and its friends: Koenraad Elst's real identity
- The Wikipedia lemma on "Koenraad Elst": a textbook example of defamation
- Deepak Chopra on wikipedia
- Wikipedia, A New Perspective on an Old Problem | Deepak Chopra
- How to catch a skeptic   
- Reddit thread
- [] 
- Wikipedia and Robert Spencer
Controversies on wikipedia
Links to Wikipedia pages
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship