• Report: #433761

Complaint Review: Wikipedia

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Fri, March 13, 2009
  • Updated: Sun, September 16, 2012

  • Reported By:Rome Other
Wikipedia
wikipedia.com Internet U.S.A.

Wikipedia Censorship Internet

*Consumer Comment: Mossad & Wikipedia?

*UPDATE Employee: Wikipedia has been Infiltrated by MOSSAD BOYCOTT IT FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY

*Author of original report: Evidence?

*UPDATE Employee: Evidence?

*Author of original report: Response

*Consumer Comment: No ripoff here...

*Consumer Comment: So WHO is Marcus Evans and WHY should I care?

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Wikipedia is allegedly an open encyclopedia that allows anyone who joins or has knowledge on a subject to add that knowledge to the page in question. The problem is that this is not factual. In fact, there are many pages created by big corporations which are protected and cannot be altered. Marcus Evans is one such page.

Wikipedia allows agents of Marcus Evans, www.marcusevans.com to control the content of the site. As such, and this is just one example of many I am sure, they will allow agents to file protection blocks against individuals who write dissenting views, even if these are legally recorded. I personally altered the marcus evans wikipedia page repeatedly with factual information on its training courses, hiring practises and many legal issues including its illegal liquidation of offices, being raided by authorities in The Netherlands, leaving people to turn up for work with no job, and even changing its name (yes marcusevans changed its name many times) but most recently Marcus Evans himself had all his European offices unregistered and reregistered to evade a barrage of lawsuits for monies he owed employees who left on their own or were let go by him.

The loophole in the law allowed Marcus Evans to evade responsibility and accountability for his illegal behaviour and left many employees without monies owed and with large lawyers bills they had paid to try and get their monies owed. DO NOT do business with www.marcusevans.com or any of his subsidiaries, THG (The Hospitality Group) or Linguarama. Marcus Evans staff lie about everything and this is a well known fact. The fact marcusevans staff is able to control Wikipedia tells a lot about Wikipedias inability to be factually correct. Bias reviews are not honest reviews. NO encyclopedia has such bias but for Wikipedia.

Lex
Rome
Italy

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 03/13/2009 06:44 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Wikipedia/internet/Wikipedia-Censorship-Internet-433761. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Wikipedia

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
1Author 6Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

Mossad & Wikipedia?

AUTHOR: Tom - (U.S.A.)

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!

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 UPDATE Employee

Wikipedia has been Infiltrated by MOSSAD BOYCOTT IT FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY

AUTHOR: Russel - (U.S.A.)

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
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Author of original report

Evidence?

AUTHOR: Lex - (U.S.A.)

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. 

Go look up more on Marcus Evans, THG, The Hospitality Group etc and you will find plenty of complaints on this board alone. I simply attempted to modify the completely white-washed version that Wikipedia ONLY allows. They do not allow any dissent for certain people/companies, even with proof. My suspicion is that certain entities pay off Wikipedia for control of content. Do I have evidence of that? NO---how can I prove it but for to say that when I offered evidence supporting the area I amended and called "controversies" it was repeatedly removed and I was threatened to be banned if I tried to post again. 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 UPDATE Employee

Evidence?

AUTHOR: Bnefriends - (United States of America)

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.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Author of original report

Response

AUTHOR: Lex - (U.S.A.)

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!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

No ripoff here...

AUTHOR: Edgeman - (U.S.A.)

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.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

So WHO is Marcus Evans and WHY should I care?

AUTHOR: Joe - (U.S.A.)

WHO is this person and what does he do that would necessitate a RIP OFF REPORT about him?
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory