Wikipediocracy contributors have investigated problems, conflicts, and controversies associated with Wikipedia, some being reported by mainstream media. The site's stated mission is "to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia" and related projects. In a
doctoral thesis, internet policy and law specialist
Heather Ford wrote that "as Wikipedia's authority grows, and more groups feel disenfranchised by its processes, the growth of watchdog groups like Wikipediocracy who act as translators of Wikipedia's complex structures, rules and norms for mainstream media and who begin to give voice to those who feel that they have been excluded from Wikipedia's representational structures will continue."
Revenge editing In 2013, Wikipediocracy members contacted
Salon.com reporter
Andrew Leonard to alert him about the "Qworty fiasco". Wikipedia user Qworty had attracted attention for his provocative comments in a debate on Wikipedia's treatment of female writers. It emerged that many of his past contributions affected the site's treatment of, and targeted rivals of, writer
Robert Clark Young. This background information led to Leonard's challenging Young in an article "Revenge, Ego, and the Corruption of Wikipedia", which identified Young as Qworty. Just before the publication of Leonard's article, Qworty had been banned from editing Wikipedia biographies of living persons due to this behaviour.
Discussion of governments Wikipediocracy contributors' criticisms of Wikipedia have been discussed in news stories covering
Jimmy Wales's relationship with the government of
Kazakhstan, the
Gibraltarpedia controversy, and
an anonymous edit made from a
U.S. Senate IP address that labelled whistle-blower
Edward Snowden a "traitor". In May 2014,
The Telegraph, working with Wikipediocracy, uncovered evidence identifying the
civil servant who had allegedly vandalized the Wikipedia articles on the
Hillsborough disaster and
Anfield.
Wikimedia Foundation A Wikipediocracy blog post said in 2013 that Wikipedia was being vandalized from
IP addresses assigned to the
Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Responding to the allegations, WMF spokesman Jay Walsh stated that the IP addresses belonged to WMF servers and were not used by the WMF offices. He stated that the addresses were assigned to some edits by IPs due to a misconfiguration, which was corrected.
Other issues A Wikipediocracy forum discussion identified the Wikipedia account responsible for a hoax article Wikipedia administrators had recently
deleted. The "
Bicholim conflict" article described a fictitious 1640–41
Indian civil war. It was awarded Wikipedia's "
Good article" status in 2007, and retained it until late 2012, when a Wikipedian checked the article's cited sources and found that none of them appeared to exist. A September 2013 story resulting from a Wikipediocracy tip-off concerned commercial plastic surgeons editing Wikipedia's
plastic surgery articles to promote their services. Concerns with violations of conflict of interest guidelines and the provision of misinformation in the relevant articles had also been raised by Wikipediocracy members on Wikipedia itself. In February 2015, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee banned a user after finding he had edited to promote the
Indian Institute of Planning and Management and added negative material to the article on another university. The user's edits had been noted in Wikipediocracy in December 2013. In late 2020, Wikipediocracy raised issues about the accuracy of the Wikipedia page of
Nicholas Alahverdian. A Wikipediocracy blog team member said that multiple Wikipedia accounts created by Alahverdian edited his Wikipedia page, and that one of these accounts had tried to remove Alahverdian's image, replacing it with an image of another person. ==See also==