anonymous
United States of America#2REBUTTAL Owner of company
Mon, April 24, 2017
Thank you for providing the information. You have proven my worst fears that Wikipedia IS a very biased website owned, run, and controlled by Special Interest Groups.
I encourage everybody to:
BOYCOTT WIKIPEDIA.
DO NOT GIVE WIKIPEDIA ANY MORE ARTICLES.
DO NOT GIVE WIKIPEDIA UPDATED INFORMATION.
AND ESPCIALLY:
DO NOT GIVE WIKIPEDIA ANY MONEY!
Tom
Boston,#3Consumer Comment
Mon, September 17, 2012
Just because Jimmy Whales, the owner of Wikipedia, is a conservative Jew, just because the company is run out of Haifa, Israel, and just because nearly all of the senior administrators are activbist orthodox Jews does not mean they are biased!
And just because any article which critisizes Jewish activists (such as Gerry Gable) are completely devoid of any criticsim of him, or articles about Jewish "enemise" (such as David Irving) are fulmintions of vitriol DOES NOT MEAN WIKIPEDIA IS PRO-JEWISH!
Get it together, please!
Russel
Fairfield,#4UPDATE Employee
Thu, September 29, 2011
I hate to say it but Wikipedia has been stolen and it has no ability to recover itself as it has been taken over by certain individuals with a certain agenda at all levels. It is unfortunate as Wikipedia, up to now, was one of only a handful of on-line references that wasn't under the influence of certain people that control the rest of the media, but here you have it.
I was attacked with slurs multiple times for editing a ridiculous article created by a couple of thugs with Wikipedia Administrator access with interesting names MJROOTS and BJWEEKS (who also operates as sockpuppet admin BRANDON among others). BJWEEKS (persumably Brandon J. Weeks) is also using Wikipedia to DATA MINE AND STALK WIKIPEDIA EDITORS USING THEIR IP ADDRESSES FOR MONTHS AT A TIME FOR WHO-KNOWS-WHAT.
Their "sock-puppets" and "meat-puppets" followed up with attacks and verbal assaults kind of like you see by hooligans at a soccer match.
I'm not going to raise the fact that all these hooligans are Jews trying to push a Jewish point of view controlling articles and blocking people from editing them and humiliating people by banning them and their IP addresses at WORK under absolutely false made-up accusations and LIES (which no one in Wikipedia wants to investigate or even look at because, as I said Wikipedia has been infiltrated).
DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME EDITING FOR WIKIPEDIA - BOYCOTT IT. WIKIPEDIA WAS a great idea. SOONER OR LATER A LEGITIMATE ALTERNATIVE WILL COME ALONG WHERE THERE WILL BE CHECKS FOR HOOLIGANS AND STALKERS TAKING OVER YET ANOTHER GREAT SOURCE OF UNCENSORED KNOWLEDGE AND REFERENCE.
Keywords: Brandon J Weeks. M J Roots. Wikipedia. Tnxman307, George Herbert, Toddst1, Atama
Lex
Miami,#5Author of original report
Sat, February 27, 2010
That was what was cited in my modifications that were repeatedly removed. Articles printed in Denmark, a letter from Companies House in UK showing change of name for the company at the time they had 37 lawsuits pending against them, articles printed in Poland, change of company name in The Netherlands as registered with the authorities after a documented police raid and investigation, numerous employees, including my own, documented lawsuit.
Bnefriends
Port Charlotte,#6UPDATE Employee
Sat, February 27, 2010
Do you have a shred of evidence to back this up, such as a link to where the company is able to do this? If an article is locked, IPs cannot edit, so it would have to be a registered user responsible. Links would be nice.
Lex
Miami,#7Author of original report
Sun, March 15, 2009
Ok Firstly---This was not for everyone to care about, only those who know of marcus evans the company and feel the truth is important. This is to the poster who wrote "who is he and why should I care" You should not, but you should care about wikipedia allowing censorship. To the long-winded rant that wikipedia is about neutral content blah blah--THAT is my point, it is NOT about neutrality. Despite my personal grudge against the company I cited actual events in a neutral manner which are directly pertinent to this company. They mention only ONE conflict which they prevailed in court over on this said page. That said, they have numerous conflicts, which can be cited and verified, which they refuse to allow on the same page. These facts are just that, facts of this company. Case in point, this company shut down offices without letting the governments of the countries nor the employees know they were doing this on at least two occassions. These were cited in Newspapers and can be substantiated by government documents. This company unregistered itself across Europe and re-registered as slightly altered entities (in name only not in actual business) and thus evaded multiple lawsuits from former employees. These lawsuits can be cited, and the registration and unregistration and re-registration dates can be cited from public record. This company was raided by Dutch authorities in Amsterdam, again this can be cited. NONE of these things disparage the company but rather are factual and should be part of a synopsis on controversies. They have made it so the only controversy allowed on this wikipedia page is actually one in which they prevailed. That is biased and it is allowing censorship by claiming "edit warring". The fact is if I did take my "beef" with the company out on the site I would understand it, but I made no frivolous or unreferenced accusations. I could easily talk about the fact the owner, Marcus Evans, and his eponymous company made deals with hundreds of employees, myself included, throughout Europe to evade European taxation and pay us offshore. Or that he is a tax exile in theory but in practise spends most of his year in his UK based home. These issues were not part of my edit rather only factual, controversies which I could cite were! I do not see how you think this to be a free and unbiased way of doing business. Therefore my point is that apparently certain companies or entities have considerable control over content of wikipedia entries on them and thus it is NOT neutral and unbiased!
Edgeman
Chico,#8Consumer Comment
Sat, March 14, 2009
Private entities have the ability to censor unwanted material. Nobody is obligated to provide you with a platform for your views. I'm not going to get into this problem you have with this guy. I have no way of knowing if your statement is true and I really don't care. My response is about Wikipedia and how your post probably did not meet their guidelines. For the record, here are a few guidelines that probably applied to your post: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles. And: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: * Neutral point of view (NPOV) * Verifiability * No original research We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living personswhether the material is negative, positive, or just questionableshould be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Joe
Austin,#9Consumer Comment
Fri, March 13, 2009
WHO is this person and what does he do that would necessitate a RIP OFF REPORT about him?