Wikipedia: Gottkönig Jimmy Wales unter schwerem Beschuss

Die bekannte Verleumdungsplattform "Wikipedia" ist in Großbritannien dieser Tage in schwere See geraten:

From a PR perspective, Wikimania 2014 was remarkable for the fact that Wikipedia came in for adverse publicity from media heavyweights that have traditionally been its staunchest allies in the UK. In the run-up to the conference, The Guardian published a profile of Wales that made prominent reference to his past as an “internet pornographer”.

(...) The ebullient O’Brien told Wales mockingly that he spoke as if Wikipedia were a "sacrosanct institution, an inviolate portal" in which "everything posted is true".

"I could go on Wikipedia now and describe you as believing in fairies and a man whose – I don’t know – favourite drink is the blood of freshly slaughtered kittens. That’s neither history nor truth, but it could be on Wikipedia," O’Brien said.

"Not for more than a few seconds", Wales replied, laughing heartily. But O’Brien was not in a joking mood. He countered, "You say that. I have personal experience of …", and then changed tack when Wales would not stop laughing: "It’s not funny, if you’re sort of an ordinary person and you have a degree of public profile, and people have deliberately altered your Wikipedia page. I have spoken publicly about my children having been born as a result of fertility treatment. And my Wikipedia page, which I didn’t even know existed, contained a phrase along the lines of ‘he wasn’t man enough to impregnate his own wife’. That was there for weeks, months possibly, until my wife found it. Shouldn’t that be your priority?"

He added, "That’s neither truth nor history, and it’s on Wikipedia."

Reference to the edit history of James O’Brien’s Wikipedia biography shows that the sentence in question was indeed present on the site, remaining unchallenged for a period of more than three weeks, and was reinserted several times after that (along with numerous other violations of Wikipedia’s biographies of living persons policy) without being promptly reverted.

In response, Wales suggested that biography subjects should keep an eye on their own articles and notify Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation in case they were any problems.

Aber sicher doch. Selbstverständlich kann man die Crew von Wikimedia über derartige Entgleisungen informieren. Als Reaktion darauf – das haben die Erfahrungen von uns Männerrechtlern in den letzten Jahren gezeigt – werden sich die Wikipedianer in Zeitungsartikeln darüber empören, wie man es wagen könne, ihre Website zu kritisieren und, so wie es Nicole Ebber von der deutschen Wikimania tat, die Szene, aus der die Täter und nicht die Opfer stammen, zu einem gemeinsamen "Hangout" einladen.

Die Wikipedia ist mittlerweile durch und durch ideologisch korrupt. Von der vielbeschworenen "Neutralität" fehlt jede Spur. Es ist höchste Zeit geworden, dass ihr zumindest einige Journalisten genauso kritisch auf die Finger schauen, wie man es bei anderen Internetgiganten wie Google und Amazon seit Jahren tut. Aber natürlich würden viele Journalisten damit ihr wesentlichstes Arbeitswerkzeug kritisieren ...

Für neue Leser: Zentrale Einträge zur politischen Manipulation in der und durch die Wikipedia findet man auf der Blogroll von Genderama (dort nach unten scrollen).