User:Ryan Norton/Wikitruth

Wikitruth is a non-publicly-editable, (the website is not publicly editable, and requires login. However, Wikitruth does not specify how to acquire login rights, although according to the website one can "contact them" by writing TELL THE WIKITRUTH on a Wikipedia page "Magic Incantation" page) wiki website whose purpose is to critique and lampoon Wikipedia. Although this is not neccesarily the concept of the website, rather the concept of the website is claimed to be to point out what the website claims are fundamental problems with Wikipedia's structure and execution.

The website focuses in part on actions and statements from prominent Wikipedians like Jimmy Wales (founder and President of the Wikimedia Foundation); the concept of vandalism; proported censorship; and aspects of the culture of wikipedia users and administrators. Wikitruth claims to be run by a "group of disenchanted Wikipedia administrators" who have spent "hundreds of hours" editing Wikipedia pages. However, in an article in Techweb News Jimmy Wales disputed this assertion, claiming the site was a "hoax," and that "It's almost certainly people who have been banned by Wikipedia." .

The Slashdot fallout
Wikitruth was relatively obscure and inactive in comparison to such sites as Wikipedia when it was first created. However, the website was brought out of its obscurity when Slashdot ran an article entitled Censored Wikipedia Articles Appear On Protest Site. The Slashdot article specifically mentioned the deletion of the articles on Brian Peppers, Justin Berry, and Paul Barresi by "Jimbo Wales or other higher-ups". Over 50,000 were claimed to have visited the website during the initial posting of the Slashdot article The website was later mentioned on Metafilter as well.

The core reference for the Slashdot article was an article in The Guardian by Andrew Orlowski, the San Francisco bureau chief for The Register and writer of several articles critical of Wikipedia. The Guardian article claims, among other things, that Wikipedia is "one example of a glut of hazy information"

The Register article
The following day, Andrew Orlowski published another article, this time in The Register, entitled "Wales and Sanger on Wikipedia." This article echoed several criticisms about Wikipedia from "Skip," a purported "Wikiedpia admin" from WikiTruth. Some of the critiques leveled by "Skip" in the article include comments about Wikipedia's lack of a captcha for securing registration or editing and claims of preference for inclusion of certain kinds of articles such as Pokemon.

Common criticisms of Wikipedia on Wikitruth
There are several criticisms against Wikipedia leveled on the website. One group of these centers around Jimmy Wales and WP:OFFICE, a meta page set up on Wikipedia to deal with certain legal and other issues. WikiTruth uses certain deletions carried out by Wales and the policy (actions from which it characterizes as "Office Does It, Shut Up" to argue the point that Wikipedia is "censoring" some of its articles. Wales even has his own page on the website, containing several claims including that Wales rules by fiat by inticing other "Wikipedians" to perform actions he wants, such as the insertion of certain website links into articles.

Another group of criticisms centers around specific Wikipedia processes. Wikitruth characterizes "RC Patrollers," a certain group of Wikipedia editors dedicated to removing recent vandalism from Wikipedia articles, as "a Junior Woodchuck Club" that prevents edits to Wikipedia articles that "infect people with knowledge". The website also claims that it is easy for Wikipedia editors to "game the system" when it comes to certain Wikipedia policies such as reverts.

Wikitruth also has self-references to the website itself. For example, when Jimmy Wales criticized the site as "hoax" and possible banned members of Wikipedia, the website subsequently set up a page to refute the claims, responding that there were indeed administrators that were part of Wikitruth, although the site did not refute the banned members claim, instead claiming itself that getting banned from Wikipedia was "not that overly difficult to do . Additionally, when the Wikipedia page on Wikitruth page was listed for deletion, a page entitled "Wikitruth on Wikipedia" was created encouraging people not engage in the debate over the article's deletion as "a lot of stung, hurt little administrators... want us gone," claiming that one or more Wikipedia administrators would delete the page within weeks and the Wikipedia process for doing so was "arbitrary."

Debate over the website's inclusion on Wikipedia
Soon after the site Wikitruth.info was created, a Wikipedia article on the website was created. However, the article was quickly put up for deletion. Some do not believe that the criticisms this website makes, or the fact that Jimbo Wales himself has already referenced and commented on the site, are worth considering in the determination of notability and do not believe that Wikipedia should hold all relevant, true material.

People who feel that this article should remain say that considering that the website is very relevant to Wikipedia as a whole, is a manifesto offering awareness of problems in Wikipedia, offers analysis of vandalism on Wikipedia, and has been featured in important press such as the Guardian, Slashdot and Techweb News, the definition of notability is satisfied. Since notability is a subjective concept, some argue that all material which isn't complete nonsense should not be deleted.

Criticisms
A chief criticism of the site is that it is not possible to register. Even though every page has a "create an account or log in" link, when one clicks on the link, there is no option to create an account Another criticism of the site is that they give information out of context to create a false impression. An example is accusing Woohookitty of "He does not know that names are written with capital letters". They fail to mention that Woohookitty's next edit corrected the name of the school. In addition, although the website contains criticisms of certain Wikipedia administrators, some of the criticisms may be construed as personal attacks, such as referring to an "ordinary Wikipedian" as "rude, stupid and almost entirely lacking in a sense of humour" and in general often offend some, especially the targets of said criticisms.