Wikipedia सम्पादन (अनुभाग)

== Reception ==
{{See also|Academic studies about Wikipedia|Criticism of Wikipedia|Racial bias on Wikipedia}}
Various [[Wikipedia community|Wikipedians]] have [[criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive regulation|criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation]], which includes more than fifty policies and nearly 150,000 words {{as of|2014|lc=y|post=.}}<ref name="bureaucracy">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/wikipedia_s_bureaucracy_problem_and_how_to_fix_it.html |title=The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia |last=Jemielniak |first=Dariusz|author-link=Dariusz Jemielniak |magazine=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=June 22, 2014|access-date = August 18, 2014|archive-date = August 13, 2014|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140813020720/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/wikipedia_s_bureaucracy_problem_and_how_to_fix_it.html|url-status = live}}</ref><ref name="Jemielniak">{{cite book |last=Jemielniak |first=Dariusz |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqsdrf9 |title=Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia |publisher=[[Stanford University Press]] |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-8047-9120-5 |location=Stanford, CA |doi=10.2307/j.ctvqsdrf9 |jstor=j.ctvqsdrf9 |via=[[JSTOR]]|access-date=January 29, 2023|archive-date=January 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230129174817/https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqsdrf9|url-status=live}}</ref> Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits [[systemic bias]]. In 2010, columnist and journalist [[Edwin Black]] described Wikipedia as being a mixture of "truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods".<ref name=EdwinBlack>{{cite news |first=Edwin |last=Black|author-link=Edwin Black |date=April 19, 2010 |work=[[History News Network]] |publisher=[[Columbian College of Arts and Sciences]] |title=Wikipedia – The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge |url=https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160909210831/https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437|archive-date=September 9, 2016|access-date=October 21, 2014}}</ref> Articles in ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'' and ''[[The Journal of Academic Librarianship]]'' have criticized Wikipedia's "[[Wikipedia:DUE|undue-weight policy]]", concluding that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather focus on all the major viewpoints on the subject, give less attention to minor ones, and creates omissions that can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Messer-Krusse |first1=Timothy |title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia |url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-undue-weight-of-truth-on-wikipedia/ |work=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |date=February 12, 2012|url-access=subscription|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161218162359/https://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|archive-date=December 18, 2016|access-date=March 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Colón Aguirre |first1=Mónica |last2=Fleming-May |first2=Rachel A. |date=November 2012 |title="You Just Type in What You Are Looking For": Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia |url=https://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf|url-status=live |journal=[[The Journal of Academic Librarianship]] |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |volume=38 |issue=6 |pages=391–399 |doi=10.1016/j.acalib.2012.09.013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160419031904/https://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf|archive-date=April 19, 2016|access-date=March 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Wikipedia experience sparks national debate |url=https://www.bgsu.edu/news/2012/02/wikipedia-experience-sparks-national-debate.html|access-date=March 27, 2014 |work=BGSU News |publisher=[[Bowling Green State University]] |date=February 27, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827120800/https://www.bgsu.edu/news/2012/02/wikipedia-experience-sparks-national-debate.html|archive-date=August 27, 2016}}</ref>

Journalists [[Oliver Kamm]] and [[Edwin Black]] alleged (in 2010 and 2011 respectively) that articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic.<ref name=EdwinBlack /><ref name=okw>{{cite news |last1=Kamm |first1=Oliver|author1-link=Oliver Kamm |title=Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds |url=https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece |work=[[The Times]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110814104256/https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece|archive-date=August 14, 2011 |date=August 16, 2007}}</ref> A 2008 article in ''[[Education Next]]'' journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is subject to manipulation and [[spin (propaganda)|spin]].<ref name=Petrilli>{{cite journal |last1=Petrilli |first1=Michael J. |title=Wikipedia or Wickedpedia? |journal=Education Next |date=Spring 2008 |volume=8 |issue=2 |url=https://www.educationnext.org/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/|access-date=October 22, 2014 |publisher=[[Hoover Institution]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161121024654/https://educationnext.org/wikipedia-or-wickedpedia/|archive-date=November 21, 2016 |department=What Next}}</ref> In 2020, [[Wikipedia:Omer Benjakob|Omer Benjakob]] and [[Wikipedia:Stephen Harrison|Stephen Harrison]] noted that "Media coverage of Wikipedia has radically shifted over the past two decades: once cast as an intellectual frivolity, it is now lauded as the 'last bastion of shared reality' online."<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Benjakob |first1=Omer |last2=Harrison |first2=Stephen |date=October 13, 2020 |chapter=From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades|chapter-url=https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4956/chapter/1879815/From-Anarchy-to-Wikiality-Glaring-Bias-to-Good-Cop |title=Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |doi=10.7551/mitpress/12366.003.0005 |isbn=978-0-262-36059-3|doi-access=free|access-date=September 11, 2021|archive-date=September 11, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210911145640/https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4956/chapter/1879815/From-Anarchy-to-Wikiality-Glaring-Bias-to-Good-Cop|url-status=live}}</ref>

Multiple news networks and pundits have accused Wikipedia of being [[ideological bias|ideologically biased]]. In February 2021, [[Fox News]] accused Wikipedia of whitewashing [[communism]] and [[socialism]] and having too much "[[left-wing politics|leftist]] bias".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lott |first=Maxim |date=February 18, 2021 |title=Inside Wikipedia's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed|access-date=January 29, 2023 |website=[[Fox News]]|archive-date=February 18, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210218233800/https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed|url-status=live}}</ref> Wikipedia co-founder [[Larry Sanger|Sanger]] said that Wikipedia has become a "propaganda" for the left-leaning "establishment" and warned the site can no longer be trusted.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Brown |first1=Lee |title=Wikipedia co-founder says site is now 'propaganda' for left-leaning 'establishment' |url=https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/|access-date=May 31, 2023 |work=[[New York Post]] |date=July 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210716210154/https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/|archive-date=July 16, 2021}}</ref> In 2022, libertarian [[John Stossel]] opined that Wikipedia, a site he financially supported at one time, appeared to have gradually taken a significant turn in bias to the political left, specifically on political topics.<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 27, 2022 |title=Wikipedia Bias |url=https://www.johnstossel.com/wikipedia-bias/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221209214140/https://www.johnstossel.com/wikipedia-bias/|archive-date=December 9, 2022|access-date=January 29, 2023 |website=StosselTV}}</ref> Some studies suggest that Wikipedia (and in particular the English Wikipedia) has a "western [[cultural bias]]" (or "pro-western bias")<ref>{{cite conference |last=Hube |first=Christoph |title=Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion – WWW '17 Companion |chapter=Bias in Wikipedia |publisher=ACM Press|publication-place=New York, New York, US |year=2017 |pages=717–721 |doi=10.1145/3041021.3053375 |isbn=978-1-4503-4914-7}}</ref> or "Eurocentric bias",<ref>Samoilenko, Anna (June 2021) [https://kola.opus.hbz-nrw.de/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/2206/file/dissertation%20Anna%20Samoilenko.pdf Cultural Neighbourhoods, or approaches to quantifying cultural contextualisation in multilingual knowledge repository Wikipedia] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231114114652/https://kola.opus.hbz-nrw.de/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/2206/file/dissertation%20Anna%20Samoilenko.pdf |date=November 14, 2023 }}.</ref> reiterating, says Anna Samoilenko, "similar biases that are found in the 'ivory tower' of academic historiography". Carwil Bjork-James proposes that Wikipedia could follow the diversification pattern of contemporary scholarship<ref>{{cite journal |last=Bjork-James |first=Carwil |title=New maps for an inclusive Wikipedia: decolonial scholarship and strategies to counter systemic bias |journal=New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia |volume=27 |issue=3 |date=2021 |doi=10.1080/13614568.2020.1865463 |pages=207–228 |bibcode=2021NRvHM..27..207B |s2cid=234286415}}</ref> and Dangzhi Zhao calls for a "decolonization" of Wikipedia to reduce bias from opinionated White male editors.<ref>Morris-O'Connor, Danielle A., Andreas Strotmann, and Dangzhi Zhao. "The colonization of Wikipedia: evidence from characteristic editing behaviors of warring camps." Journal of Documentation 79.3 (2023): 784-810.</ref>

=== Accuracy of content ===
{{Main|Reliability of Wikipedia}}
{{External media|width = 230px|float = right|audio1 = [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-great-book-of-knowledge-part-1-1.2497560 The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1], ''Ideas with [[Paul Kennedy (host)|Paul Kennedy]]'', [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]], January 15, 2014}}
Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' are written by [[expert]]s, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy.<ref>{{cite news |date=December 15, 2005 |title=Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up |magazine=Wired |agency=Associated Press |url=https://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844|url-status=dead|access-date=August 8, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141214155447/https://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844|archive-date=December 14, 2014}}</ref> However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' by the science journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; ''Britannica'', about three."<ref name="GilesJ2005Internet" /> Joseph Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."<ref>{{cite conference |first=Joseph |last=Reagle |title=Do as I Do: Authorial Leadership in Wikipedia |work=WikiSym '07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis |publisher=ACM |location=Montreal |year=2007 |url=https://reagle.org/joseph/2007/10/Wikipedia-Authorial-Leadership.pdf |hdl=2047/d20002876|access-date = January 29, 2023|archive-date = February 10, 2023|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114540/https://reagle.org/joseph/2007/10/Wikipedia-Authorial-Leadership.pdf|url-status = live}}</ref>

Others raised similar critiques.<ref name="Orlowski2005">{{cite news |last1=Orlowski |first1=Andrew |date=December 16, 2005 |title=Wikipedia science 31% more cronky than Britannica's Excellent for Klingon science, though |work=[[The Register]] |url=https://www.theregister.com/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/|url-status=live|access-date=February 25, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220813024106/https://www.theregister.com/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/|archive-date=August 13, 2022}}</ref> The findings by ''Nature'' were disputed by ''Encyclopædia Britannica'',<ref name="corporate.britannica.com" /><ref name="nature.com britannica response 1">{{cite web |date=March 23, 2006 |title=Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response |url=https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060325124447/https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf|archive-date=March 25, 2006|access-date=July 13, 2010}}</ref> and in response, ''Nature'' gave a rebuttal of the points raised by ''Britannica''.<ref name="nature.com">{{cite web |website=Nature |url=https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html |title=''Nature''{{'}}s responses to ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'' |date=March 30, 2006|access-date = February 25, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515025717/https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html|archive-date=May 15, 2017}}</ref> In addition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others have examined the sample size and selection method used in the ''Nature'' effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in ''Nature''{{'}}s manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported [[confidence interval]]s), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small [[sample size determination|sample size]], 42 or 4&nbsp;×&nbsp;10<sup>1</sup> articles compared, vs >10<sup>5</sup> and >10<sup>6</sup> set sizes for ''Britannica'' and the English Wikipedia, respectively).<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Yasseri |first1=Taha |last2=Sumi |first2=Robert |last3=Rung |first3=András |last4=Kornai |first4=András |last5=Kertész |first5=János |date=June 20, 2012|editor-last=Szolnoki|editor-first=Attila |title=Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=7 |issue=6 |pages=e38869 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0038869 |pmc=3380063 |pmid=22745683 |arxiv=1202.3643 |bibcode=2012PLoSO...738869Y|doi-access=free}}</ref>

As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.<ref name="WP general disclaimer 1" group="W">[[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]]</ref> Concerns have been raised by ''[[PC World]]'' in 2009 regarding the lack of [[accountability]] that results from users' anonymity, the insertion of false information,<ref name="pcworld WP blunders 1">{{cite web |last=Raphael |first=JR |date=August 26, 2009 |title=The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221201033651/https://www.pcworld.com/article/525199/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html|archive-date=December 1, 2022|access-date=September 2, 2009 |website=[[PC World]]}}</ref> [[vandalism on Wikipedia|vandalism]], and similar problems. ''Legal Research in a Nutshell'' (2011), cites Wikipedia as a "general source" that "can be a real boon" in "coming up to speed in the law governing a situation" and, "while not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more in-depth resources".<ref name="Nutshell in-depth resources">{{cite book |last=Cohen |first=Morris |url=https://archive.org/details/legalre_coh_2010_00_0532 |title=Legal Research in a Nutshell |author2=Olson, Kent |publisher=Thomson Reuters |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-314-26408-4 |edition=10th |location=St. Paul, MN |pages=[https://archive.org/details/legalre_coh_2010_00_0532/page/32 32–34] |via=[[Internet Archive]]}}</ref>

Economist [[Tyler Cowen]] wrote: "If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the median refereed journal article on economics was more likely to be true after a not so long think I would opt for Wikipedia." He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases, and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal articles as well as relevant information being omitted from news reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found on Internet sites and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them.<ref name="tnr experts vigilant in correcting WP 1">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=82eb5d70-13bd-4086-9ec0-cb0e9e8411b3|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080318103017/https://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=82eb5d70-13bd-4086-9ec0-cb0e9e8411b3|archive-date = March 18, 2008 |title=Cooked Books |first=Tyler |last=Cowen |magazine=The New Republic |date=March 14, 2008|access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> [[Amy Bruckman]] has argued that, due to the number of reviewers, "the content of a popular Wikipedia page is actually the most reliable form of information ever created".<ref name="PC 2021">{{cite news |last1=Stuart |first1=S.C. |date=June 3, 2021 |title=Wikipedia: The Most Reliable Source on the Internet? |work=[[PCMag]] |url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-the-most-reliable-source-on-the-internet|url-status=live|access-date=June 27, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230116022311/https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-the-most-reliable-source-on-the-internet|archive-date=January 16, 2023}}</ref> In September 2022, ''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]'' journalist Liam Mannix noted that: "There's no reason to expect Wikipedia to be accurate&nbsp;... And yet it [is]." Mannix further discussed the multiple studies that have proved Wikipedia to be generally as reliable as ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', summarizing that "...turning our back on such an extraordinary resource is... well, a little petty."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mannix |first=Liam |date=September 13, 2022 |title=Evidence suggests Wikipedia is accurate and reliable. When are we going to start taking it seriously? |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/evidence-suggests-wikipedia-is-accurate-and-reliable-when-are-we-going-to-start-taking-it-seriously-20220913-p5bhl3.html|access-date=January 29, 2023 |website=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]|archive-date=March 6, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306223341/https://www.smh.com.au/national/evidence-suggests-wikipedia-is-accurate-and-reliable-when-are-we-going-to-start-taking-it-seriously-20220913-p5bhl3.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.<ref name="TNY reliability issues 1">{{cite news |last=Schiff |first=Stacy|author-link=Stacy Schiff |date=July 23, 2006 |title=Know It All |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/31/know-it-all|access-date=January 29, 2023|archive-date=November 22, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081122125817/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact|url-status=live}}</ref> Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.<ref name="AcademiaAndWikipedia" /> Editors of traditional [[reference work]]s such as the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' have questioned the project's [[utility]] and status as an encyclopedia.<ref name="McHenry_2004" /> Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] has claimed that Wikipedia has largely avoided the problem of "fake news" because the Wikipedia community regularly debates the quality of sources in articles.<ref>{{cite news |last=Shapiro |first=Ari |date=April 27, 2018 |title=Wikipedia Founder Says Internet Users Are Adrift In The 'Fake News' Era |work=[[NPR]] |url=https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606393983/wikipedia-founder-says-internet-users-are-adrift-in-the-fake-news-era|url-status=live|access-date=May 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625213220/https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606393983/wikipedia-founder-says-internet-users-are-adrift-in-the-fake-news-era|archive-date=June 25, 2018}}</ref>

{{External media|width = 210px|float = right|video1 = [https://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881 Inside Wikipedia&nbsp;– Attack of the PR Industry], [[Deutsche Welle]], 7:13 mins<ref name="dw">{{cite web |title=Inside Wikipedia&nbsp;– Attack of the PR Industry |publisher=[[Deutsche Welle]] |date=June 30, 2014 |url=https://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881|access-date = July 2, 2014|archive-date = July 1, 2014|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140701152647/http://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881|url-status = dead}}</ref>}}
Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for [[Internet troll]]s, [[spamming|spammer]]s, and various forms of paid advocacy seen as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable online encyclopedia.<ref name="Torsten_Kleinz" /><ref name="citizendium WP trolling issues 1" group="W">{{cite web |last=Sanger |first=Larry|author-link=Larry Sanger |title=Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version) |url=https://www.citizendium.org/essay.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061103062735/https://www.citizendium.org/essay.html|archive-date=November 3, 2006|access-date=October 10, 2006 |website=[[Citizendium]]}}</ref>
In response to [[conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia|paid advocacy editing]] and undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article in ''The Wall Street Journal'' to have strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite news |author=Elder |first=Jeff |date=June 16, 2014 |title=Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing |newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-35861|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=January 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124234455/https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-35861|archive-date=November 24, 2020}}</ref> The article stated that: "Beginning Monday [from the date of the article, June 16, 2014], changes in Wikipedia's terms of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement. [[Katherine Maher]], the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's chief communications officer, said the changes address a sentiment among volunteer editors that 'we're not an advertising service; we're an encyclopedia.{{'"}}<ref name="ReferenceA" /><ref name="DeathByWikipedia" /><ref name="cnet politicians and WP 1">{{cite web |author=Kane |first=Margaret |date=January 30, 2006 |title=Politicians notice Wikipedia |url=https://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6032713-7.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090730044856/https://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6032713-7.html|archive-date=July 30, 2009|access-date=January 28, 2007 |website=[[CNET]]}}</ref><ref name="msnbc MS cash for WP edits 1">{{cite web |author=Bergstein |first=Brian|author-link=Brian Bergstein |date=January 23, 2007 |title=Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16775981|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819143025/https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16775981|archive-date=August 19, 2022|access-date=January 29, 2023 |work=[[NBC News]]}}</ref><ref name="Seeing Corporate Fingerprints" /> These issues, among others, had been parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by [[Stephen Colbert]] on ''[[The Colbert Report]]''.<ref name="wikiality" />

=== Discouragement in education ===
Some university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in [[academia|academic work]], preferring [[primary source]]s;<ref name="WideWorldOfWikipedia" /> some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.<ref name="insidehighered against WP 1">{{cite journal |last1=Waters |first1=Neil L. |date=September 2007 |title=Why You Can't Cite Wikipedia in My Class |url=https://www.netlab.tkk.fi/opetus/s383133/no_Wikipedia.pdf|url-status=live |journal=[[Communications of the ACM]] |volume=50 |issue=9 |pages=15–17 |citeseerx=10.1.1.380.4996 |doi=10.1145/1284621.1284635|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028032733/https://www.netlab.tkk.fi/opetus/s383133/no_Wikipedia.pdf|archive-date=October 28, 2022|access-date=January 29, 2023 |s2cid=11757060}}</ref><ref name="insidehighered wiki no cite">{{cite web |last=Jaschik |first=Scott |date=January 26, 2007 |title=A Stand Against Wikipedia |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070708175741/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki|archive-date=July 8, 2007|access-date=January 27, 2007 |website=Inside Higher Ed}}</ref> Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.<ref name="AWorkInProgress" /> Wales once (2006 or earlier) said he receives about ten emails weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia; he told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia", he said.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Buis |first=Kyle |date=February 25, 2007 |title=Wikipedia sucks students in with reliable information |url=https://theorion.com/28752/archives/wikipedia-sucks-students-in-with-reliable-information-3/|access-date=January 29, 2023 |website=The Orion|archive-date=January 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230129174820/https://theorion.com/28752/archives/wikipedia-sucks-students-in-with-reliable-information-3/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In February 2007, an article in ''[[The Harvard Crimson]]'' newspaper reported that a few of the professors at [[Harvard University]] were including Wikipedia articles in their [[syllabus|syllabi]], although without realizing the articles might change.<ref name="thecrimson wiki debate">{{cite news |last1=Child |first1=Maxwell L. |title=Professors Split on Wiki Debate |url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517305 |work=[[The Harvard Crimson]] |date=February 26, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081220125910/https://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517305|archive-date=December 20, 2008 |location=Cambridge, MA}}</ref> In June 2007, [[Michael Gorman (librarian)|Michael Gorman]], former president of the [[American Library Association]], condemned Wikipedia, along with Google, stating that academics who endorse the use of Wikipedia are "the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything".<ref name="stothart" />

A 2020 research study published in ''[[Studies in Higher Education]]'' argued that Wikipedia could be applied in the higher education "[[flipped classroom]]", an educational model where students learn before coming to class and apply it in classroom activities. The experimental group was instructed to learn before class and get immediate feedback before going in (the flipped classroom model), while the control group was given direct instructions in class (the conventional classroom model). The groups were then instructed to collaboratively develop Wikipedia entries, which would be graded in quality after the study. The results showed that the experimental group yielded more Wikipedia entries and received higher grades in quality. The study concluded that learning with Wikipedia in flipped classrooms was more effective than in conventional classrooms, demonstrating Wikipedia could be used as an educational tool in higher education.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zou |first1=Di |last2=Xie |first2=Haoran |last3=Wang |first3=Fu Lee |last4=Kwan |first4=Reggie |date=April 10, 2020 |title=Flipped learning with Wikipedia in higher education |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03075079.2020.1750195 |journal=[[Studies in Higher Education]] |publisher=[[Routledge]] |volume=45 |issue=5 |pages=1026–1045 |doi=10.1080/03075079.2020.1750195 |s2cid=216534736|url-access=subscription|access-date=January 29, 2023|archive-date=January 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230129174817/https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03075079.2020.1750195|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Medical information ====
{{See also|Health information on Wikipedia}}
On March 5, 2014, Julie Beck writing for ''[[The Atlantic]]'' magazine in an article titled "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia", stated that "Fifty percent of physicians look up conditions on the (Wikipedia) site, and some are editing articles themselves to improve the quality of available information."<ref name=":10">{{Cite magazine |last=Beck |first=Julie |date=March 5, 2014 |title=Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/|url-status=live |magazine=[[The Atlantic]] |issn=2151-9463|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221024070757/https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/|archive-date=October 24, 2022|access-date=January 29, 2023}}</ref> Beck continued to detail in this article new programs of [[Amin Azzam]] at the [[University of San Francisco]] to offer medical school courses to medical students for learning to edit and improve [[health information on Wikipedia|Wikipedia articles on health-related issues]], as well as internal quality control programs within Wikipedia organized by [[James Heilman]] to improve a group of 200 health-related articles of central medical importance up to Wikipedia's highest standard of articles using its Featured Article and Good Article peer-review evaluation process.<ref name=":10" /> In a May 7, 2014, follow-up article in ''The Atlantic'' titled "Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?", Julie Beck quotes WikiProject Medicine's James Heilman as stating: "Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's a high-quality reference."<ref name="theatlantic.com">{{cite magazine |last=Beck |first=Julie |date=May 7, 2014 |title=Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text? |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/can-wikipedia-ever-be-a-definitive-medical-text/361822/|url-status=live |magazine=The Atlantic |issn=2151-9463|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221208113526/https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/can-wikipedia-ever-be-a-definitive-medical-text/361822/|archive-date=December 8, 2022|access-date=June 14, 2014}}</ref> Beck added that: "Wikipedia has its own peer review process before articles can be classified as 'good' or 'featured'. Heilman, who has participated in that process before, says 'less than one percent' of Wikipedia's medical articles have passed."<ref name="theatlantic.com" />

=== Coverage of topics and systemic bias ===
{{See also|Notability in the English Wikipedia|Criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage}}
Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has [[byte#Multiple-byte units|terabyte]]s of [[disk space]], it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed encyclopedia.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia]]</ref> The exact degree and manner of coverage on Wikipedia is under constant review by its editors, and disagreements are not uncommon (see [[deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia|deletionism and inclusionism]]).<ref name="Economist disagreements not uncommon">{{cite news |date=March 6, 2008 |title=The battle for Wikipedia's soul |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=March 7, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221214004436/https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2008/03/08/the-battle-for-wikipedias-soul|archive-date=December 14, 2022 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref><ref name="telegraph WP torn apart 1">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart |first=Ian |last=Douglas |work=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |date=November 10, 2007 |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3354752/Wikipedia-an-online-encyclopedia-torn-apart.html|archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3354752/Wikipedia-an-online-encyclopedia-torn-apart.html|archive-date=January 10, 2022|url-access=subscription|url-status=live|access-date = November 23, 2010}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored]]</ref> The "Wikipedia is not censored" policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of [[online petition on Wikipedia Muhammad article|images of Muhammad]] in the [[English Wikipedia|English edition]] of its [[Muhammad]] article, citing this policy.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Noam|author-link=Noam Cohen |date=February 5, 2008 |title=Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/books/05wiki.html|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|access-date=January 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221126025338/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/books/05wiki.html|archive-date=November 26, 2022 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The presence of politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in Wikipedia has led to the [[censorship of Wikipedia]] by national authorities in China<ref name="Taylor" /> and Pakistan,<ref name="washington post state censorship 1">{{cite news |last=Bruilliard |first=Karin |date=May 21, 2010 |title=Pakistan blocks YouTube a day after shutdown of Facebook over Muhammad issue |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052005073.html|url-status=live|access-date=October 24, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200427091507/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052005073.html|archive-date=April 27, 2020}}</ref> among other countries.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Moon |first=Mariella |date=March 12, 2022 |title=Prominent editor of Russian Wikipedia pages detained in Belarus |url=https://www.yahoo.com/now/mark-bernstein-russian-wikipedia-pages-detained-in-belarus-104102452.html|access-date=January 30, 2023 |website=[[Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present)|Yahoo!]]|archive-date=March 13, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220313173559/https://www.yahoo.com/now/mark-bernstein-russian-wikipedia-pages-detained-in-belarus-104102452.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Mokhtar |first=Hassna'a |date=July 19, 2006 |title=What Is Wrong With Wikipedia? |work=[[Arab News]] |url=http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=85616&d=19&m=7&y=2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110807060237/http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=85616&d=19&m=7&y=2006|archive-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Arthur |first=Charles |date=December 8, 2008 |title=Wikipedia row escalates as internet watchdog considers censoring Amazon US over Scorpions image |url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/dec/08/amazon-internet-censorship-iwf|access-date=January 30, 2023 |website=[[The Guardian]]|archive-date=February 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114545/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/dec/08/amazon-internet-censorship-iwf|url-status=live}}</ref>

Through its "Wikipedia Loves Libraries" program, Wikipedia has partnered with major public libraries such as the [[New York Public Library for the Performing Arts]] to expand its coverage of underrepresented subjects and articles.<ref name="NYT subjects and articles">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/theater/editing-wikipedia-at-the-new-york-public-library-for-the-performing-arts.html |title=Wikipedia's Deep Dive Into a Library Collection |last=Petrusich |first=Amanda |work=The New York Times |date=October 20, 2011|access-date = October 28, 2011|archive-date = November 11, 2020|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201111213754/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/theater/editing-wikipedia-at-the-new-york-public-library-for-the-performing-arts.html|url-status = live}}</ref> A 2011 study conducted by researchers at the [[University of Minnesota]] indicated that male and female editors focus on different coverage topics. There was a greater concentration of females in the "people and arts" category, while males focus more on "geography and science".<ref>{{Cite conference |last1=Lam |first1=Shyong (Tony) K. |last2=Uduwage |first2=Anuradha |last3=Dong |first3=Zhenhua |last4=Sen |first4=Shilad |last5=Musicant |first5=David R. |last6=Terveen |first6=Loren |last7=Riedl |first7=John |date=October 3–5, 2011 |title=WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance |url=https://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf |conference=WikiSym'2011 |location=Mountain View, California |publisher=ACM|access-date=March 26, 2021|archive-date=March 9, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309064955/http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Coverage of topics and bias ====
Research conducted by Mark Graham of the [[Oxford Internet Institute]] in 2009 indicated that the geographic distribution of article topics is highly uneven, Africa being the most underrepresented.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Graham |first1=Mark |date=November 12, 2009 |title=Mapping the Geographies of Wikipedia Content |url=https://zerogeography.net/post/144973716228/mapping-the-geographies-of-wikipedia-content|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161002051150/https://zerogeography.net/post/144973716228/mapping-the-geographies-of-wikipedia-content|archive-date=October 2, 2016 |url-status=usurped |website=Zerogeography}}</ref> Across 30 language editions of Wikipedia, historical articles and sections are generally [[Eurocentric]] and focused on recent events.<ref>{{cite book |last=Strohmaier |first=Markus |url=https://search.gesis.org/research_data/SDN-10.7802-1411?doi=10.7802/1411 |title=Multilingual historical narratives on Wikipedia |date=March 6, 2017 |publisher=[[GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences]] |chapter=KAT50 Society, Culture |doi=10.7802/1411 |quote=Wikipedia narratives about national histories (i) are skewed towards more recent events (recency bias) and (ii) are distributed unevenly across the continents with significant focus on the history of European countries (Eurocentric bias).|access-date=January 31, 2023|archive-date=January 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230131023846/https://search.gesis.org/research_data/SDN-10.7802-1411?doi=10.7802/1411|url-status=live}}</ref>

An editorial in ''[[The Guardian]]'' in 2014 claimed that more effort went into providing references for [[list of pornographic performers by decade|a list of female porn actors]] than a [[list of women writers]].<ref name="GuardianAugust2014">{{cite news |date=August 7, 2018 |title=The Guardian view on Wikipedia: evolving truth |work=[[The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/07/guardian-view-wikipedia-evolving-truth|url-status=live|access-date=January 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161112212758/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/07/guardian-view-wikipedia-evolving-truth|archive-date=November 12, 2016}}</ref> Data has also shown that Africa-related material often faces omission; a knowledge gap that a July 2018 Wikimedia conference in [[Cape Town]] sought to address.<ref name="memeb" />

==== Systemic biases ====
[[Academic studies about Wikipedia|Academic studies of Wikipedia]] have consistently shown that Wikipedia systematically over-represents a point of view (POV) belonging to a particular demographic described as the "average Wikipedian", who is an educated, technically inclined, English-speaking white male, aged 15–49, from a developed Christian country{{example needed|date=March 2025}} in the northern hemisphere.<ref name="Livingstone2010">{{Cite journal |last=Livingstone |first=Randall M. |date=November 23, 2010 |title=Let's Leave the Bias to the Mainstream Media: A Wikipedia Community Fighting for Information Neutrality |url=https://www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/315|url-status=live |journal=M/C Journal |volume=13 |issue=6 |doi=10.5204/mcj.315 |issn=1441-2616|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221121135911/https://www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/315|archive-date=November 21, 2022|access-date=November 23, 2022|doi-access=free}}</ref> This POV is over-represented in relation to all existing POVs.<ref name="Hube2017">{{Cite book |last=Hube |first=Christoph |title=Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion – WWW '17 Companion |chapter=Bias in Wikipedia |date=April 3, 2017|chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1145/3041021.3053375 |location=Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE |publisher=International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee |pages=717–721 |doi=10.1145/3041021.3053375 |isbn=978-1-4503-4914-7 |s2cid=10472970}}</ref><ref name=":132">{{Cite journal |last=Bjork-James |first=Carwil |date=July 3, 2021 |title=New maps for an inclusive Wikipedia: decolonial scholarship and strategies to counter systemic bias |journal=New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=207–228 |bibcode=2021NRvHM..27..207B |doi=10.1080/13614568.2020.1865463 |s2cid=234286415}}</ref> This systemic bias in editor demographic results in [[cultural bias]], [[gender bias on Wikipedia|gender bias]], and [[geographical bias on Wikipedia]].<ref name=":32">{{Cite journal |last1=Ackerly |first1=Brooke A. |last2=Michelitch |first2=Kristin |date=2022 |title=Wikipedia and Political Science: Addressing Systematic Biases with Student Initiatives |journal=PS: Political Science & Politics |volume=55 |issue=2 |pages=429–433 |doi=10.1017/S1049096521001463 |s2cid=247795102 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Beytía |first=Pablo |title=Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020 |chapter=The Positioning Matters |date=April 20, 2020|chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1145/3366424.3383569 |series=WWW '20 |location=New York |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |pages=806–810 |doi=10.1145/3366424.3383569 |isbn=978-1-4503-7024-0 |s2cid=218523099|access-date=May 8, 2023|archive-date=April 28, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240428132221/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3366424.3383569|url-status=live}}</ref> There are two broad types of bias, which are ''implicit'' (when a topic is omitted) and ''explicit'' (when a certain POV is over-represented in an article or by references).<ref name="Hube2017" />

Interdisciplinary scholarly assessments of Wikipedia articles have found that while articles are typically accurate and free of misinformation, they are also typically incomplete and fail to present all perspectives with a [[Neutrality (philosophy)|neutral point of view]].<ref name=":32" /> In 2011, Wales claimed that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, citing for example "biographies of famous women through history and issues surrounding early childcare".<ref name="wiki-women" /> The October 22, 2013, essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's ''Technology Review'' titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and [[criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive regulation|policy creep]] on the [[#English Wikipedia editor numbers|downward trend in the number of editors]].<ref name="Simonite-2013" />

=== Explicit content ===
{{See also|Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia|Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons}}
{{for|the government censorship of Wikipedia|Censorship of Wikipedia}}
{{self-reference|For Wikipedia's policy concerning censorship, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored]]}}
Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information about graphic content.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Maxton |first=Richard |date=September 9, 2008 |title=Wikipedia attacked over porn pages |work=Macquarie Network |url=http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/09/Wikipedia_attacked_over_porn_pages|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080917145158/http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/09/Wikipedia_attacked_over_porn_pages|archive-date=September 17, 2008}}</ref> Articles depicting what some critics have called objectionable content (such as [[feces]], [[cadaver]], [[human penis]], [[vulva]], and nudity) contain graphic pictures and detailed information easily available to anyone with access to the internet, including children.<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Sexual content/FAQ]]</ref> The site also includes [[sexual content]] such as images and videos of [[masturbation]] and [[ejaculation]], illustrations of [[zoophilia]], and photos from [[hardcore pornography|hardcore pornographic]] films in its articles. It also has non-sexual [[child nudity|photographs of nude children]].<ref group="W">[[Wikipedia:Sexual content]]</ref>

The Wikipedia article about ''[[Virgin Killer]]''—a 1976 album from the German rock band [[Scorpions (band)|Scorpions]]—features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked [[preadolescence#Prepubescence, puberty, and age range|prepubescent]] girl. The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia article ''Virgin Killer'' was blocked for four days by most [[Internet service provider]]s in the United Kingdom after the [[Internet Watch Foundation]] (IWF) decided the album cover was a potentially illegal indecent image and added the article's URL to a "blacklist" it supplies to British internet service providers.<ref name="Register ISP censorship">{{cite news |title=Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover |first=Cade |last=Metz |work=[[The Register]] |date=December 7, 2008 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia|access-date = May 10, 2009|archive-date = May 13, 2020|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200513233758/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/|url-status = live}}</ref>

In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on [[Wikimedia Commons]] contained child pornography, and were in violation of [[United States obscenity law|US federal obscenity law]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh |title=Wikipedia rejects child porn accusation |date=April 29, 2010 |work=The Sydney Morning Herald|access-date = May 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170902180523/https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh|archive-date = September 2, 2017|url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Inquirer child abuse allegations">{{cite news |last=Farrell |first=Nick |date=April 29, 2010 |title=Wikipedia denies child abuse allegations: Co-founder grassed the outfit to the FBI |newspaper=The Inquirer |url=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1603521/wikipedia-denies-child-abuse-allegations|url-status=dead|access-date=October 9, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100501174521/https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1603521/wikipedia-denies-child-abuse-allegations|archive-date=May 1, 2010}}</ref> Sanger later clarified that the images, which were related to [[pedophilia]] and one about [[lolicon]], were not of real children, but said that they constituted "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", under the [[child pornography laws in the United States#1466A – Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children|PROTECT Act of 2003]].<ref name="The Register-April" /> That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are [[obscenity#United States obscenity law|obscene under American law]].<ref name="The Register-April" /> Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.<ref name="TET child porn accusations">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia blasts co-founder's accusations of child porn on website |date=April 29, 2010 |work=The Economic Times |location=India |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/internet/Wikipedia-blasts-co-founders-accusations-of-child-porn-on-website/articleshow/5871943.cms|access-date = April 29, 2010|archive-date = May 13, 2010|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100513213147/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/internet/Wikipedia-blasts-co-founders-accusations-of-child-porn-on-website/articleshow/5871943.cms|url-status = live}}</ref>

[[Wikimedia Foundation]] spokesman Jay Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation,<ref name="AFP" /> saying that Wikipedia did not have "material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it."<ref name="AFP" /> Following the complaint by Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteered to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete had been made hastily, Wales voluntarily gave up some of the powers he had held up to that time as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing-list that this action was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted".<ref name="BBC News Wales cedes rights">{{cite news |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm |title=Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights |work=BBC News |date=May 10, 2010|access-date = May 19, 2010|archive-date = May 13, 2010|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100513075509/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm|url-status = live}}</ref> Critics, including [[Wikipediocracy]], noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.<ref name="XBIZ">{{cite news |last=Gray |first=Lila |date=September 17, 2013 |title=Wikipedia Gives Porn a Break |work=XBIZ.com |url=https://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017|url-status=dead|access-date=November 10, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021064635/https://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017|archive-date=October 21, 2013}}</ref>

=== Privacy ===
One [[privacy]] concern in the case of Wikipedia is the right of a private citizen to remain a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure" in the eyes of the law.<ref>{{cite book |last1=McStay |first1=Andrew |title=Privacy and Philosophy: New Media and Affective Protocol |date=2014 |publisher=[[Peter Lang (publisher)|Peter Lang]] |isbn=978-1-4541-9163-6 |doi=10.3726/978-1-4539-1336-9 |series=Digital Formation |volume=86}}</ref>{{efn|See [https://web.archive.org/web/20101130081035/https://texaspress.com/index.php/publications/law-media/731-law-a-the-media-in-texas--libel-cases "Libel"] by David McHam for the legal distinction.}} It is a battle between the right to be anonymous in [[cyberspace]] and the right to be anonymous in [[real life]]. The Wikimedia Foundation's [[privacy policy]] states, "we believe that you shouldn't have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement", and states that "personal information" may be shared "For legal reasons", "To Protect You, Ourselves & Others", or "To Understand & Experiment".<ref group="W">{{Cite web |title=Privacy policy |url=https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy|access-date=February 1, 2023 |website=Wikimedia Foundation|archive-date=January 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230131204008/https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy|url-status=live}}</ref>

In January 2006, a German court ordered the [[German Wikipedia]] shut down within Germany because it stated the full name of [[Tron (hacker)|Boris Floricic]], aka "Tron", a deceased hacker. On February 9, 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned, with the court rejecting the notion that Tron's [[right to privacy]] or that of his parents was being violated.<ref name="heise Tron public issue 1">{{cite news |last1=Kleinz |first1=Torsten |title=Gericht weist einstweilige Verfügung gegen Wikimedia Deutschland ab [Update] |url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Gericht-weist-einstweilige-Verfuegung-gegen-Wikimedia-Deutschland-ab-Update-173587.html |work=Heise Online |publisher=[[Heinz Heise]] |date=September 2, 2006 |language=de|trans-title=Court rejects preliminary injunction against Wikimedia Germany [Update]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120913054949/https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Gericht-weist-einstweilige-Verfuegung-gegen-Wikimedia-Deutschland-ab-Update-173587.html|archive-date=September 13, 2012}}</ref>

Wikipedia has a "{{visible anchor|Volunteer Response Team}}" that uses Znuny, a [[free and open-source software]] fork of [[OTRS]]<ref group="W">{{Cite web |title=Volunteer Response Team |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Response_Team|access-date=February 1, 2023 |website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|archive-date=February 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230202072211/https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_response_team|url-status=live}}</ref> to handle queries without having to reveal the identities of the involved parties. This is used, for example, in confirming the permission for using individual images and other media in the project.<ref group="W">{{cite web |title=OTRS – A flexible Help Desk and IT-Service Management Software |url=https://www.otrs.com/en/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131030215341/https://www.otrs.com/en/|archive-date=October 30, 2013|access-date=June 9, 2012 |website=Open Technology Real Services |publisher=OTRS.com}}</ref>

In late April 2023, Wikimedia Foundation announced that Wikipedia will not submit to any age verifications that may be required by the UK's [[Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Bill]] legislation. Rebecca MacKinnon of the Wikimedia Foundation said that such checks would run counter to the website's commitment to minimal data collection on its contributors and readers.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65388255 |title=Wikipedia will not perform Online Safety Bill age checks |work=BBC|date=April 28, 2023|access-date=May 1, 2023|archive-date=May 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230501203750/https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65388255|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Sexism ===
{{Main|Gender bias on Wikipedia}}
Wikipedia was described in 2015 as harboring a battleground culture of [[sexism]] and [[harassment]].<ref name="Paling">{{cite web |last=Paling |first=Emma |date=October 21, 2015 |title=Wikipedia's Hostility to Women |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221231105811/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/|archive-date=December 31, 2022|access-date=October 24, 2015 |website=[[The Atlantic]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Auerbach |first1=David |title=Encyclopedia Frown |url=https://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html |journal=Slate|access-date = October 24, 2015 |date=December 11, 2014|archive-date = October 23, 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151023233133/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html|url-status = live}}</ref> The perceived tolerance of abusive language was a reason put forth in 2013 for the gender gap in Wikipedia editorship.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Murphy |first=Dan |date=August 1, 2013 |title=In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny |work=[[The Christian Science Monitor]] |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2013/0801/In-UK-rising-chorus-of-outrage-over-online-misogyny|access-date=February 1, 2023|archive-date=December 1, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211201014632/https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2013/0801/In-UK-rising-chorus-of-outrage-over-online-misogyny|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Edit-a-thon]]s have been held to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kueppers |first1=Courtney |date=March 23, 2020 |title=High Museum to host virtual Wikipedia edit-a-thon to boost entries about women |newspaper=The Atlanta Journal-Constitution |url=https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/high-museum-host-virtual-wikipedia-edit-thon-boost-entries-about-women/TxxMEMGWHqFfaNMpV8y9DN/|access-date=October 24, 2020|archive-date=October 27, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027101959/https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/high-museum-host-virtual-wikipedia-edit-thon-boost-entries-about-women/TxxMEMGWHqFfaNMpV8y9DN/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 2018, a Wikipedia editor rejected a submitted article about [[Donna Strickland]] due to lack of coverage in the media.<ref group="W">{{Cite web |title=Draft:Donna Strickland |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Strickland&oldid=842614385|access-date=February 1, 2023 |website=Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|archive-date=February 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114656/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Strickland&oldid=842614385|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite web |last1=Schlanger |first1=Zoë |last2=Purtill |first2=Corinne |date=October 2, 2018 |title=Wikipedia rejected an entry on a Nobel Prize winner because she wasn't famous enough |url=https://qz.com/1410909/wikipedia-had-rejected-nobel-prize-winner-donna-strickland-because-she-wasnt-famous-enough/|access-date=February 1, 2023 |website=[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]|archive-date=October 25, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181025085329/https://qz.com/1410909/wikipedia-had-rejected-nobel-prize-winner-donna-strickland-because-she-wasnt-famous-enough/|url-status=live}}</ref> Five months later, Strickland won a [[Nobel Prize in Physics]] "for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics", becoming the third woman to ever receive the award.<ref name=":11" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=October 2, 2018 |title=The Nobel Prize in Physics 2018 |url=https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2018/press-release/|access-date=February 1, 2023 |website=The Nobel Prize|archive-date=October 2, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002141926/https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2018/press-release/|url-status=live}}</ref> Prior to winning the award, Strickland's only mention on Wikipedia was in the article about her collaborator and co-winner of the award [[Gérard Mourou]].<ref name=":11" /> Her exclusion from Wikipedia led to accusations of sexism, but Corinne Purtill writing for ''[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]'' argued that "it's also a pointed lesson in the hazards of gender bias in media, and of the broader consequences of underrepresentation."<ref name=":12">{{Cite web |last=Purtill |first=Corinne |date=October 3, 2018 |title=Sexism at Wikipedia feeds off the sexism in the media |url=https://qz.com/1412718/wikipedia-has-a-problem-with-sexism-so-does-the-media/|access-date=February 1, 2023 |website=[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]|archive-date=February 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230201022552/https://qz.com/1412718/wikipedia-has-a-problem-with-sexism-so-does-the-media|url-status=live}}</ref> Purtill attributes the issue to the gender bias in media coverage.<ref name=":12" />

A comprehensive 2008 survey, published in 2016, by Julia B. Bear of [[Stony Brook University]]'s College of Business and Benjamin Collier of [[Carnegie Mellon University]] found significant gender differences in confidence in expertise, discomfort with editing, and response to critical feedback. "Women reported less confidence in their expertise, expressed greater discomfort with editing (which typically involves conflict), and reported more negative responses to critical feedback compared to men."<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Julia B. Bear & Benjamin Collier |title=Where are the Women in Wikipedia ? – Understanding the Different Psychological Experiences of Men and Women in Wikipedia |journal=Sex Roles |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer Science]] |date=January 4, 2016 |volume=74 |issue=5–6 |pages=254–265 |doi=10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y |s2cid=146452625|url-access=subscription|access-date=June 27, 2021|archive-date=October 27, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027122538/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y|url-status=live}}</ref>