Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Everybody associated with this scam, except for Elite Wiki Writers, comes out a loser. Wikipedians are victims because the encyclopedia's trademarks are used without permission. Volunteers' time, Wikipedia's most valuable resource, is wasted sorting out hundreds of poorly researched articles, looking for one just one or two notable subjects.
Legitimate reviewers at AfC are all volunteers and will never ask for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, it is a scam. To report it, send a copy of the email, including headers, to paid-en-wp wikipedia.org.
The Washington Post submitted a complaint against Coler's registration of the site with GoDaddy under the UDRP, and in 2015, an arbitral panel ruled that Coler's registration of the domain name was a form of bad-faith cybersquatting (specifically, typosquatting), "through a website that competes with Complainant through the use of fake news ...
John Seigenthaler, an American journalist, was the subject of a defamatory Wikipedia hoax article in May 2005. The hoax raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content. Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, the site has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, under which anyone can edit most articles, has led to concerns ...
New articles are reviewed by new pages patrollers, experienced editors who check whether they conform to Wikipedia's core content policies and identify material that is not suitable for inclusion. This includes articles created directly in mainspace (the encyclopedia proper), or moved there from draft or user space (including sandboxes ).
Wikipedia Review was an independent Internet forum and blog for the discussion of Wikimedia Foundation projects, in particular the content and conflicts of Wikipedia. [ 3 ] [ 4 ] Wikipedia Review sought to act as a watchdog website , scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws. [ 5 ]
A 2006 review of Wikipedia by Library Journal, using a panel of librarians, "the toughest critics of reference materials, whatever their format", asked "long standing reviewers" to evaluate three areas of Wikipedia (popular culture, current affairs, and science), and concluded: "While there are still reasons to proceed with caution when using a ...
The email help desk frequently receives complaints from users that start an autobiography, or a biography of a relative, or a description of their company, product or project, and who consequently get messages that their article does not explain well enough the importance the subject of the article, uses non-neutral expressions, contains ...