On 4 November 2005, our founding father, Igor Alexander (who may or may not have anything to do with Alex Linder or any other neo nazi) set up Wikipedia Review on its old host, ProBoards forum. He advertised it in various blogs and web sites. It was originally set up for all people that hated Wikipedia and wanted to destroy it. In its first week, it attracted 4 other genuine members, Lir, Qwerty, Blu Aardvark and Daniel Brandt.

Wikipedia Review was quickly noticed by the people at Wikipedia, who at first tried to label it as a joke, and then tried to destroy it as somewhere that tried to harm Wikipedia. Someone started an article on Wikipedia Review on Wikipedia, and through its Article for Deletion it attracted more members.

Wikipedia Review was originally under fire constantly, with non stop attacks from people who couldn't imagine anything wrong with Wikipedia. One thread remained - a thread created by Daniel Brandt to highlight that a person called John Seigenthaler Sr. had had a vandalism in his profile for a long period of time. Daniel Brandt was trying to find out the identity of the person behind it.

Amongst all of the other things that were going on, Wikipedia Review was able to get some integrity, in being the site that discovered the identity of the person who had vandalised John Seigenthaler Sr.'s page (Brian Chase) and in being able to highlight the danger of Wikipedia having Biographies of Living Persons.

The Wikipedia Review article on Wikipedia was quickly deleted, and then when Wikipedia Review's numbers continued to grow, people at Wikipedia sought other means to try to destroy the site.

A number of people joined Wikipedia Review in its 2nd week of existence, including myself, and not long after that the Poetlister case became prominent on Wikipedia Review, and with it a number of other people joined Wikipedia Review, including Jorge, Guy, Selina and ultimately Poetlister herself.

Blu Aardvark was appointed as Wikipedia Review's first ever administrator, and he decided to become the negotiator and as he wasn't anti-Wikipedia he tried to argue that Wikipedia Review should become a place that allowed and encouraged both pro and anti-Wikipedia points of view.

Blu Aardvark set up the Tar Pit and Feather Barrel, with assistance from myself, to allow free speech whilst at the same time focusing on actual criticism. He also set up the Wikipedia Review Review, in the aim to have a place to talk about what is wrong with Wikipedia Review and not to have that change the forum itself.

With these changes, Wikipedia Review soon created more sub forums, including Editors and Articles and (briefly) Software, and various other forums that no longer exist.

Still Wikipedia Review was under constant fire, and we determined that, while we remained on a free ProBoards forum, we could at any time be shut down for arbitrary reasons, and it would then be difficult to start back up again. With that in mind, we decided to get our own domain name.

In January 2006, I purchased a 1 year domain name "wikipediareview.com" from GoDaddy, hence if we ever got shut down, we would then start back and just redirect to wikipediareview.com. This was also to prevent impersonator forums. Selina offered to be the root administrator, to set up the technical side of things.

We then planned to create actual forums, and after much discussion I purchased the software for the site, and we began the process of setting it up, with primarily Selina doing the work.

While in the process of setting things up, SlimVirgin started a rumour that Igor Alexander, our founder, was Alex Linder, a holocaust denier. This was supported by Grace Note, amongst others. Many changes were made to try to set up the new site, and when Igor Alexander banned Selina from the original site, she returned fire by banning him from the new site.

Blu Aardvark again acted as negotiator in an ultimately doomed attempt to get everyone to get along.

Eventually Wikipedia Review stabilised, with an admittedly smaller group of users than we had originally, but with far less argument and a more stable environment for discussion, and in February 2006 our own forum opened its doors.

Wikipedia Review eventually was involved in many more major stories, including the Essjay scandal, and the user base grew many times over during the next 18 months or so.

The next big controversy occurred when a newly appointed administrator of Wikipedia Review, Donny, was demoted and decided to conspire with administrator Sgrayban to help to take back the site from Selina, who in actual fact was never agreed to be running the site (they wanted me to take it over). Unfortunately for all (or perhaps fortunately) I was without internet access so could not be involved in the dispute. Ultimately another administrator Hushthis, who had been about since very early on, agreed to join with the dispute, along with ex-administrator Blu Aardvark. The 4 of them created a new site that mirrored Wikipedia Review. After less than a week, Donny chose to pull the plug on the idea, and decided that there was no point in having 2 Wikipedia Reviews.

Other less notable controversies included when Orthagonal went to Wikipedia Review to complain about Snowspinner, highlighting a blog entry Snowspinner had made where he said he was a murderer. Whilst this was fiction, he actually didn't say it explicitly. Snowspinner ultimately blamed Lir for it, not Orthagonal, in an odd decision, and he publicly stated that he was the victim of stalking from Wikipedia Review.

Another less notable controversy involved Amorrow, a person who Wikipedia banned as a stalker, but neglected to tell anyone that that was why he was banned. Because Wikipedia Review allowed him as a member, and allowed him to talk about his web site, Essjay and Raul654 decided to add Wikipedia Review to the spam blacklist. Ultimately, once it was discovered that Amorrow may be stalking, he was banned from Wikipedia Review. At the same time, Linuxbeak was organising for Blu Aardvark and Selina to return to Wikipedia, and many people felt that it was a "deal", for us to ban Amorrow in exchange for this.

More recently Wikipedia Review was involved in the exposing of SlimVirgin as a person called Linda Mack, who was in some way involved in shady dealings to do with the Lockerbie bombing, something that created a major stir through Ludwig de Braekeleer's report on OhmyNews.

Through the past 2 years we have stood together, argued, fought, and sorted out what is really going on. Today marks our 2nd birthday.

So can we celebrate it somehow?

November 4, 1979 was the date that the Iranian Hostage Crisis began; and one year later, November 4, 1980, was the date that Ronald Reagan was elected president. (The Iranian hostages were released on Reagan's inauguration day in 1981, 444 days after the crisis began.)

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

-Mohandas K. Gandhi

Sorry, you've gone over my head on that one. Care to explain?

Badsites. Fred's mockery. JzG. The hastened day arrives.

"An eye for an eye, and pretty soon everyone is blind." --Mohandas K. Gandhi

I believe Mr. Cedric was attempting to point out how WR's history could be considered a form of non-violent resistance to oppression. (Aside from what Joseph100 seems to have in mind some days, I suppose...)

It's not entirely inaccurate, either - one of the things the British did in India at that time was to lump Gandhi's followers in with other groups that did use violence, all under general labels like "terrorists," "anarchists," and of course "thugs," since the latter word derived from the term used for various groups of semi-organized Indian thieves and highwaymen.

Great works!

Thank you for being here.

Indeed, Somey. GBG gets it also. Fred, JzG and the rest of the motley crew, with their wiki-blinkers on, are no less narrow of sight and mind than most of the bureaucrats that served the British Raj. One could also say that the end of the Raj had the same quality of inevitability as does the coming Wiki-untergang.

Hasten The Day.

Indeed, as with a number of other non-violent peaceful activists, Mahatma Ghandi was for many years regarded in some circles as a terrorist.

In much the same way, Wikipedia Review's criticism is described by Wikipedia as being stalking and harassment (and other negative terms, like holocaust denial etc).