Wikipedia spars with a splinter site for truth Village Voice, NY - 22 minutes ago Ah, Wikipedia: No true believer in the democratic promise of the Web can fail to gladden at the very mention of this grand experiment—the universal ...

This was a good article about the Wikitruth site and a blast at Wikipedia.

Interesting, I forgot to check Alexa rankings.. ha funny how we are not notable but Wikitruth is

Wikipedia is unlikely to want to make an article on Wikipedia Review purely because they hate to acknowledge criticism. In order to get an article made about us, we would have to get major media attention. Yes, we have an Alexa rank higher than Wikipedia Watch and Wikitruth, but we do not have as much media attention. We have now 1 story that has mentioned us - we probably need 10-15, and at least a few that are primarily focussed around us. We are a long way off getting that. Wikipedia's rules on Alexa rank are also a fair bit stricter than that. They also require 5,000 registered members - we have less than 200. Granted we had 250 on the old forum, but even if we added the two we are still under 500, 1/10th of the way there.

Yes, we are the first major interactive forum for criticism of Wikipedia (Lir's forum was before this, but nobody went there), and we are also by far the largest, and are influential on other projects, such as Wikitruth for sure. They get a lot of their information from here, that much they can't dispute. And whilst ordinarily that would be enough for a Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia hates us, its not.

I think that this forum is going well. What we need now is to get some more exposure. We need this to be a collaboration of all critics of Wikipedia, or as many as possible. Whilst we don't need to exclude non-critics, I think that critics need to be our focus. People who think that Wikipedia is perfect do not belong here, quite frankly. And people who come to bash this site or destroy it do not belong. Sometimes I think we are too tolerant of such people. Wikipedia certainly doesn't tolerate critics, no matter how constructive they are.

We also probably need to have a side project of some kind. A group blog was suggested, and I think is a good idea. I am totally bankrupt right now so I can't put up money for such a thing. Does the current software allow this? Everyone who is in the group "Wikipedia Review cabal" should be able to add entries. I think that this would help this site. Also perhaps some single page user pages for anyone in that same group might be good too. And if we have e-mail addresses, perhaps a selina@wikipediareview.com, lir@wikipediareview.com etc might be good too, at least for a few people.

Better have a look at the Alexa traffic comparison before jumping to conclusions - type in "wikitruth.info" to get the comparison graph. It looks like Wikitruth is lower down just because it's newer than this site.

I don't really understand how Alexa works, and its reputedly not very reliable. But just the same, if any place says that WR is more popular than WT, then that's something. If we believed Wikipedia, WT is ridiculously popular, while WR is a nobody. And I don't think that's right.

Great post by Hushthis, again.

Less than 2 weeks ago claimed Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales that WikiTruth.info is just a "Hoax". Since then were Votes to keep the Article about WikiTruth ignored and simply deleted and now was the whole site even banned from Wikipedia.

http://roy-sac.newsvine.com/_news/2006/05/...-from-wikipedia

Hey I never noticed this before... Pretty cool, looks like Wikitruth may be entering the news. Or maybe not though, that guy hasn't made any articles since this one

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...sm_of_Wikitruth

Also I don't see wikitruth on the spam blacklist at all. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

And it was removed per Jimbo http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...xt&oldid=339904

And SV censors WikiTruth's Criticism !! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53009192

"banned user"? Noosphere isn't banned at all from the looks of it...
~confused~

But yeah, it's a similar situation as Wikipedia Review, only Wikitruth has people that are Wikipedia admins in it so they get to keep an article

Yeah, that was the very accurate and relevant constructive editing that I added, that was why WCityMike got so upset. See, he was upset because it was not only wrong to delete stuff, but it was also very constructive editing. Slim Virgin said it was vandalism to add that. But she was wrong.

Diff
I'll give you two guesses as to who did this edit that added the section.

Why would they even censor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53688616 ?

It's pretty obvious the wikitruth people are either admin or have close friends that are. After all some of there screen shots have been admin only ones.