Nobody need to be convinced that Wikipedia is a great source of information. I was induced to ask the question from the title by the controversy around the biogram of a popular TV journalist Monika Olejnik (see. also the discussion of this entry), and especialy the judgement of Arbitration Committee in this case (werdykt Komitetu Arbitrażowego), which is in my opinion scandalous. The justification of my opinion I gave in the discussion. The archive of discussions in the wiki - cafeteria: see archiwum dyskusji w kawiarence wikipedii

The administrators of polish Wikipedia abuse their rights to block even such trivial issues as the first name of Monika Olejniks' father in her biography. They prevented Wojciech Jaruzelski - a communist general who started the Martial Law against Solidarity movement to be called a "communist activist" in his biography, even if he was the first secretary of a communist party in Poland, which is further properly stated in this article. Forgetting the controversy around Lech Walęsa - a Solidarity leader shown beeing a former secret collaborator of a communist security service and many others. In the case of Monika Olejniks' father - Tadeusz Olejnik, a major of communist Security Services the polish Wikipedia committee found the source of a main opposition newspaper untrustworthy : artykuł Doroty Kani i Macieja Marosza pt. "Perły w koronie Służby Bezpieczeństwa" devoted to Tadeusz Olejnik printed document scans proving this fact. One can guess from the discussion that the "Gazeta Polska" - tha main opposition newspaper is generally considered as "untrustworthy", no matter the facts are !

Censorship, which I speak about is justified by the administrators with canceling "nonecyclopedical" articles and avoiding junk. Event if there is a lot of issues not fulfilling the reqironmenta of a wikipedia article like adverts, s.c. "sponsored knowledge", but a serious discussion of young people rating if issues are suitable for other wikipedia users must end with buffoonery and ridicule just bye way this question is stated. What is a junk for one, might be an important information for the other. The cause of justifying some information as spam commes often enought from the limited vision of the world.

This is a general statement of the problem of rating the knowledge by some people if it is adequate for others. Yet in polish wikipedia one has to notice special biases: It regards the knowledge of recent history, kommunism, contemporary politics

The Wikipedia is edited selflessly and with full engagement by young people, which most probably have little own experince with a communism passed in Poland away some 30 years ago. How it is possible that their stance shows such vast biases expanded to quirks ? It's hard to suspect that the majority of democratically chosen Wikipedia administrators have their grandpas in former Secret Service. The proper conclusion is to speak about a mass psychosis spreaded over polish society which got out of communism and a russian occupation not so far ago. Rationally considering one could not expect that we polish came out of this without a trauma. Which ways out do we have now: the truth, courage, kindness and patience. Anger and resignation is an error. Surely I urge to take part and to use Wikipedia and not to resign of it. Facts and the truth are selfconsistent just from their nature and if somebody tries to hide it or fake after some time it'll simply became a fact about himself - in our case just facts about administrators of polish Wikipedia.

This article appeared at niezalezna.pl yet it is not seen there now. I'd like to direct people interested in discussion to my own forum at forum.evot.org. The fight against censorship in polish Wikipedia described 2010 Rybitzki and 2012 is denoted the case of removing the Szewczak biography.