Changes

==6. Wikipedia has too much power.==

==6. Wikipedia has too much power.==

Wikipedia smothers out more authoritative, but less-linked-to sites in Google and other search engine rankings.  Wikipedia has garnered an ability to set the 'truth' in mainstream media and blogs that consult it every day, without digging deeper to verify facts from independent sources.  Controversial Wikipedia pages suffer from "ownership" by content bullies who drive off independent editors, all supported by adminstrator cabals who follow one another around, supporting reverted edits and editor blocks and bans.

Wikipedia smothers out more authoritative, but less-linked-to sites in Google and other search engine rankings.  Wikipedia has garnered an ability to set the 'truth' in mainstream media and blogs that consult it every day, without digging deeper to verify facts from independent sources.  Controversial Wikipedia pages suffer from "ownership" by content bullies who drive off independent editors, all supported by adminstrator cabals who follow one another around, supporting reverted edits and editor blocks and bans.

<br><br>

<br><br>

<center>

<center>

</center>

</center>

<br>

<br>

==7. Wikipedia is in a legally precarious position.==

==7. Wikipedia is in a legally precarious position.==

[[Section 230]] was designed to protect Internet service providers from libelous content generated by customers and re-distributed by the ISP.  The Wikimedia Foundation has hidden behind this protection by claiming that it, too, is an "interactive computer service".  We all know it's not, and one day, libel published on Wikipedia is going to lead to a courtroom test.  Unaccountable administrators are given the "Oversight" capability to make problematic content literally "disappear", and the Foundation hopes that the warrant of these administrators is never traced back to their offices.  For more on the history of noteworthy libel against innocent parties on Wikipedia, please look up the cases of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigenthaler_incident John Seigenthaler], of [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-caught-in-the-deadly-web-of-the-internet-445561.html Taner Akcam], and of [http://www.itwire.com/content/view/9913/53/ Fuzzy Zoeller].

[[Section 230]] was designed to protect Internet service providers from libelous content generated by customers and re-distributed by the ISP.  The Wikimedia Foundation has hidden behind this protection by claiming that it, too, is an "interactive computer service".  We all know it's not, and one day, libel published on Wikipedia is going to lead to a courtroom test.  Unaccountable administrators are given the "Oversight" capability to make problematic content literally "disappear", and the Foundation hopes that the warrant of these administrators is never traced back to their offices.  For more on the history of noteworthy libel against innocent parties on Wikipedia, please look up the cases of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigenthaler_incident John Seigenthaler], of [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-caught-in-the-deadly-web-of-the-internet-445561.html Taner Akcam], and of [http://www.itwire.com/content/view/9913/53/ Fuzzy Zoeller].