Many years ago, when I first started my graduate degree, there were two things that started to take off the ground. First, we started seeing a fast development of the Internet, an area that was largely being utilized by the libraries. Second, Internet was taken on by a new type of entrepreneur. Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook. Jeff Bezos started Amazon. By the time, I was graduating from my master’s degree, Netflix was founded. Maybe it was during these times, or later, Wikipedia also started. Those were the days!

I would have never believed Wikipedia would be the pothole of defamation and lies that it is today. The greatest frustration I have with Wikipedia with many other people is that no one has any chance to change its contents. Among other unpleasant Internet developments, I regard Wikipedia’s transformation from a source of knowledge to the racist encyclopedia as, perhaps, the worst.

Then I met the racism and defamation and the indignation that comes with it. One of the sources of this indignation is Wikipedia. People read Wikipedia pages, such as Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide, Pontus Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, and believe. People don’t question. The public predominantly believes Wikipedia is neutral and devoid of prejudice. But it is not, it is the Racist Encyclopedia.

The term is not coined by me. This term is coined by a person of color, who was so offended that s/he wrote a blog about it, called, ‘Wikipedia, the Racist Encyclopedia.’ Before this blog is taken down, I strongly recommend you read it thoroughly and save a copy of it.

After reading it, I would like to borrow some of the conclusions of this blog.

  1. It’s not an accident that we use Wikipedia for almost anything. That is because of the unfair practices of several links that carries Wikipedia to the top of a search, even above and before the real subject matter of that search. For example, you can search, ‘Pubmed’, to reach the site of the National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, or in a search engine like google, and you would reach PubMed. But if you are searching for, let’s say, ‘turkey’ on google, the first thing that pops is a Wikipedia page, not a site by Turkish people on Turkey. Not because Wikipedia’s page on Turkey is the most reliable or the best information, but the algorithms used make it located on top.
  2. If something is wrong on information in your opinion or missing from Wikipedia, then anyone can fix it because it is uncensored, right? Wrong! For example, the entire page, called Armenian Genocide, and its sister pages, the Greek Genocide, the Assyrian Genocide, and the Pontus Genocide, are complete and utter fabrication but they are there. The reason they are there is because these pages are locked. No one can change them! In fact, there is no need to change these pages. These pages cite completely prejudiced references. Without any exception, there is not a counter-argument or any critique. There is not any citation to any dissenting reference. In fact, almost all the references are entirely Western (or Armenian on the Armenian Genocide page, which passes a prejudicial judgment on Turks with prejudice, antagonism, and unfairness not displayed anywhere.
  3. Wikipedia considers the western mass media to be the best reliable source. In other words, Wikipedia’s Fascist Elites want you to find a reliable source that they deem ‘reliable’ as long as it is Western. For example, for the page, Armenian Genocide, none of the sources is from Turkish historians. You can’t find Omer Lutfi Tascioglu, Adem Gunaydin, Sina Aksin or Bilal N. Simsir on these pages. Heck, you can’t even find the Memoirs of Talat Pasa on these pages. In fact, not even one source is a dissident American voice on these pages. You can’t see Justin McCarthy, Edmond J. Erickson or Guenter Lewy. You can’t read their opinions or research. For example, you can’t even cross-examine the sources by Professor Justin McCarthy, who wrote many well-evidenced books, like The Ottoman Turks, Sasun, Death and Exile: the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, Turk in America. Why? Because Wikipdedia’s editors deem these books are not reliable. Why not? Becuase these books demonstrate not only there is no Armenian Genocide, but the Armenians committed violent crimes en masse against Turks, and that the Imperial Powers’ representatives inhumanely ignored atrocities when committed against Turks. The hard core and irrefutable evidence demonstrating the opposite of the Armenian Genocide makes it excluded from the list of ‘reliable’ sources according to Wikipedia! For example, even Guenter Lewy and his book, i.e., the Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, is not a reliable source. Why? Guenter Lewy is surely not a Turcophile, but he provides a well-searched, cited, and documented narrative of what he thinks and states his conclusions. His narrative concludes that there was no genocidal intent! But this is, yet, not a reliable source according to Wikipedia for the obvious reason that the finding states clearly and irrefutably, ‘Armenian Genocide is a lie.’ Another example is Adem Gunaydin’s Back to Anatolia, a brief but well-researched book about the Armenians returning to Anatolia. The book is full of hard evidence and documents that show 300,000 Armenians returned back to Anatolia after the First World War (between 1918 and 1920). This work showed abandoned properties of the returnees were mostly restituted or compensated by the Ottoman government at great expense and effort. Again, not a reliable source according to Wikipedia. Why? It would be completely impossible for Armeninan researchers to explain how hundreds of Armenians were allowed to return when they were arguing that the Armenian genocide continued from 1915 until 1923?  But of course, this book is also not reliable according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s editors have an absolute monopoly and abject power over what is considered a reliable source. The Western media is considered ‘the reliable source’ and anything else is not. But we know from the example of Washington Post that Western Media is not reliable at all!
  4. Wikipedia is not neutral although it has the ‘Neutral Point of View Policy.’ According to this policy, articles should be written without bias. This principle appears quite simple and clear as it stands but what is bias and what is neutral? Have the Wikipedia’s editors seen the Armenian Genocide page? Have they checked its references, which is a long list of copycats of the same ideas, again and again, with not even a single counter-reference cited? No. No difference of opinion is allowed. How is the Neutral Point of View Policy then honored? Well, it is not if you take the definition of the word ‘neutral’ and ‘bias’ and apply them in this contex. The definition of ‘neutral’ is ‘not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial’. After reading the Wikipedia pages on Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Pontus Genocide, can you argue that any of these pages is neutral? The definition of ‘bias’ is ‘prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair’. If someone reads these Wikipedia pages, and thinks that they don’t harbor ‘prejudice in favor of Armenians [or Greeks, Assyrians, or Pontus] against Turks, usually in a way considered to be unfair’, that is what we describe as racist.
  5. When Wikipedia says, ‘Don’t be biased’ it means, don’t write anything that the editors will not agree with. So you are ‘neutral’ as long as your neutrality doesn’t challenge the Wikipedia editors. In other words, you are ‘neutral’ if you agree entirely with the notion that Armenian Genocide occurred and did not correct the page at all with your entries, but you are ‘biased’ if you are anyone challenging the bias.
  6. Wikipedia is censored. This is, in fact, against their policy ‘Wikipedia is not censored.’ But we know it is censored because no Turkish reference, no Turkish historian, no dissident academician can be cited on the page ‘Armenian Genocide’. For example, if the page were one that would have laid out both sides of the argument, with pro- and contra-arguments, then it would have been able to suggest it is not censored.
  7. Wikipedia needs constant financial support to keep its bureaucracy up and running. That is why the pages succumb to those with deep pockets. Keeping and maintaining Wikipedia while constantly expanding it requires constant financial support. As long as the financial support arrives, it doesn’t matter who provides it.
  8. Wikipedia Editors hold the ultimate power. One editor quits after stating, ‘If I could just summarize it in one section: Editing this encyclopedia is not worth the effort at all because it is, among other reasons, controlled by a small group of people who have been editing for many, many years. Despite what Wikipedia’s policy may or may not say, this group of editors are the ones who make pretty much every major decision on the site.’ In other words, don’t bother to try and edit anything. If you are trying to change anything on Wikipedia, your effort, regardless how impeccably true and academically sound references you cite, will be in complete vain if your entries are found against what the editors believe. Because Wikipedia is not a private enterprise but one that is actually doing a public service, this act is non-compliant. .
  9. Wikipedia can’t be fixed.  Wikipedia is operated under an open-source management style, governed by a non-profit Wikipedia Foundation. Just because it is ‘non-profit’, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t own assets. In fact, Wikipedia owns assets and resides on servers that constantly grow and need the support of the editors and its financial supporters. In other words, if Wikipedia’s editors realize the wrong of their ways, there is nothing they can do about it. Since we can’t change Wikipedia from the outside, it can’t be fixed. You can, though, understand the bigotry, racism, and evil behind Wikipedia. If you must read it, you may want to use Wikipedia as a great example of what a good and public informing site shouldn’t be. Just like the Washington Post Standard Desk, which doesn’t do anything when confronted because of its double-standard and lack of journalistic ethic, Wikipedia is also not going to change its bias because of its racism and bigotry.