Is Wikipedia’s intention really good?

Although Wikipedia describes itself as an online encyclopedia, there is no authority to confirm the accuracy of the information contained in it, nor is it a commercial institution with a moderation system that is highly debated by structure.

I liken the current perception of Wikipedia to the view of the internet in Turkey in the early 2000s. At that time, especially politicians saw the internet as a monolithic structure and accepted the accuracy of the information in it. This would cause them to react harshly, especially when confronted with misinformation about themselves. They would perceive this as the internet being against them, as if they felt that everyone with content on the internet was part of the same hostility. The intervening time has made them realize that this is not actually the case, that the Internet is a multi-layered and grouped structure like life.
I think that there is no difference in vision between those who say” they dropped me on the internet ” at the time and those who give the statement, wikipedia is an encyclopedia at the moment. Wikipedia was an open system set up by Jimmy Wales in 2001 to provide accurate information. During these periods iPhones were the first wikipedia answer to a question on public search screens called spotlight. But after a while, the iPhone took out Wikipedia in this part. On the back of this, Jimmy Wales ‘ articles about the iPhone not being an open system therefore not selling were published.
On the other hand, because wikipedia is an open source structure, the system is built through moderators, and Jimmy Wales was proud of it. However, this structure, which is not different from dictionaries as the purpose of the establishment, fell into the situation where dictionaries fell. Moderators allowed the entry of their own subjects and immediately removed the posts on some topics. During these periods, I gave my team the job of making the entry of Demet Sabancı Çetindogan, who was on the list of the 50 Most Powerful Business Women in Turkey, to Wikipedia. Even though we tried it dozens of times, every time the entry was deleted. The last thing we were told was that the Demet lady was not well-known enough. The research I did on this issue at the time showed me that Wikipedia had such problems in every country. The moderator configuration showed that Wikipedia was based on the information of its “volunteer” employees, not the correct information.
Before writing this article, I spoke with Jimmy Wales to see if Wikipedia, which says that it misses Turkey, is at least communicating this problem to a lesser extent. A friend of mine sent an article to Wikipedia, I told him to enter. The post was deleted. So I brought it up to Wales. He researched it and communicated that the reason was that it was a pirated post. Actually, the writing was mine. Although this article was found on the internet, I had witnessed the deletion of articles that were not found at all. So I made Wales the following offer. Give me a post, a post you’re sure won’t be deleted, let me get into Wikipedia, I’m sure it will be deleted within 24 hours. Wales, however, sadly refused to do so.

Is Wikipedia freedom of opinion or expression?
Although Wikipedia describes itself as an online encyclopedia, it describes its blocking in Turkey as a restriction of freedom of expression. I find it disingenuous to define the blocking of an encyclopedia containing knowledge as a blow to freedom of expression. If the subject is information, it should not be open to interpretation. I don’t think it has any meaning in terms of opinion or expression. Moreover, it does not make any sense for Demet Sabancı Çetindogan to mention the freedom of opinion and expression of a moderation system that prevents the entry of the most accurate information obtained from him.
The situation of Turkish on Wikipedia is much worse than other languages. The number of moderators is not increasing, it is decreasing. As a person who is willing to increase Turkish content on the Internet, this makes me very sad. I have also done research on the deplorable condition of the moderators who are interested in Turkish and Turkish wikipedia. you can find it at.

Why might Wikipedia miss Turkey?
Wikipedia has filed a lawsuit against Turkey over the blocking incident via the ECHR. It made sense to me that the timing of the case, in which Turkey requested a 60-day leave at its last hearing, was so close to the launch date of Wikipedia’s newly created social media. Moreover, Turkey is in the top ten on all social platforms. So he’s a good social media user. People wonder if this is beneath Wikipedia’s longing for Turkey.

Leave a Comment

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir