Wikipedia sucks.
Why do I say this? Obviously I’ve just had yet another bad experience with the self-professed Gods who “manage” the encyclopaedia… but is this a case of sour grapes or evidence of a fundamental problem? One or even a few incidents and you get a little irritated, but a bizarre attitude seems to be endemic to Wiki’s mods. So let’s take a look at just why Wikipedia sucks quite so badly.
A Prerequisite to being a Wikipedia moderator is being a petty, trumped-up troll
Who wants to be a Wikipedia moderator? Why would you want to do it? How would you find the time? Why would you be bothered? Here are the reasons:
1) You want to contribute something of value to the human race: knowledge. A noble thought. But why not just contribute in the normal way? Because you are a prolific contributor and want to feel a little important.
2) You have a burning hatred of “spammers” and pranksters who leave their trail of junk contributions and links wherever they go. You fight the good fight and think of yourself as a crusader against spam. And you have the badges on your profile page to prove it.
3) You have acres of spare time and don’t know what to do with it. You may be old or unemployed and debating on forums does not carry the import or weight of helping to manage the most used encyclopeadia in the world.
4) You have a personal agenda to follow and you need the power to carry it through. Knowledge is power and you have the keys.
Now, let’s take a pinch of all these attributes and mix them together. What do we end up with? I’ll tell you what. A trumped-up & twisted little troll so filled with their own self-importance they are about to explode.
The two breeds of Wikipedia Moderators
In general, though, there are two types of wikipedia moderator.
Wikipedia Moderator #1: the instigator with a vested interest
This is maybe the most dangerous breed. They have established a small reputation and perhaps following on Wikipedia through their collection of at best pedestrian and at worst moronic contributions. For whatever reason they have staked out a claim on a small patch of Wikipedia and see it as “theirs”. They were there first. Their material should stay. They’ve seen off countless spammers and weak revisions and are invincible.
These moderators will pounce on any revisions you make and systematically delete them. They may even try and delete whole articles you’ve written.
Wikipedia Moderator #2: the spam-hater with the itchy mouse finger
Although the instigators are prettty depressing, I think it’s actually these people that are the worst. These moderators cycle through the whole of Wikipedia looking for things to delete. Because they spend their time cycling through all the articles nominated for deletion, they don’t really have any specialism (other than being a tenacious “crusader”, with “left-wing” views so potent they actually make Hitler look like a hobbyist)
Wikipedia moderators make Hitler look like a hobbyist
These jumped-up jobsworths who were misinformed about their lineage can’t comprehend what they’re reading 99% of the time and are happy to just keep clicking away. Delete-delete-delete. They’re doing everyone a service, after all. Where would Wikipedia be without them? It would be a seething link farm filled with “original research” and garbage. Every time something is deleted, the moderator has brought some good back to the world. The criterion for deletion is simple: if it’s been nominated, rip it out.
Why the two breeds are bad for anyone with anything to say
These two types of moderator work together. Step one: the instigator with the vested interest notices you and starts causing problems. Once the instigator has nominated something for deletion, or you’ve got into an argument with him about something that’s already been deleted, like some evil genie in a bottle, the spam-hater with the itchy trigger finger pops up. If something’s been nominated for deletion, “click” goes the spam-hater, and it’s gone. They don’t think twice. They are crusaders, after all.
You can’t Complain about Wikipedia Moderators
Wikipedia is “not a democracy” and there’s no higher order to complain to when things go wrong – just a seething collective of no-hopers who have formed alliances and like nothing more than slapping these laughable phallic symbols all over the place:
That’s right. You want to play by the rules and you’ve done your research. Your revisions are accurate and you have the links to prove it; your article was neutral and you want to argue your case; you’ve done your research and you actually followed Wikipedia policy. The trouble is, all of these policies are open to considerable interpretation, and there are so many rules and guidelines that there will always be something to throw at you. Remember, it’s not about debate. The decision has been made.
Wikipedia is essentially the biggest committee in the world.
Wikipedia is a big committee. And committees are crap. Everyone knows that. There are 1,614 admins on the English Wikipedia at the time of writing which is both a massive amount of people to be generating red tape and also a bizarrely miniscule number of people when you consider the millions of pages Wikipedia contains. So we’re really talking about the cream: the most mean-spririted, petty people on the planet.
Let’s hunt down and destroy wikipedia moderators
I would like to hear of anyone and everyone’s bad experiences of Wikipedia. Perhaps we should all band together and form our own collective of Anti-Wikipedians. Any Wikipedia moderators with an axe to grind can go elsewhere. I have a rigid set of rules and guidelines in place and what that boils down to is I don’t like Wikipedians and I will delete your comment and glue my own banners all over your smug, self-regarding faces.
Web 2.0, Cloud Computing & Web Services Blog 
October 31, 2008 at 2:16 pm
This is good stuff. You should add this to the Wikepedia entry on Wikepedia, and time how long it takes to get deleted.
September 2, 2009 at 5:25 pm
How long? That’s out of the question. They (admins) have tools to remove edits before they even happen, along with tools to stalk users, do mass-blockings, mass-deletions, evil etc.
November 28, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Mosly crap. And that’s apart from the blatant falsehoods contained.
June 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm
We’d expect that kind of comment coming from you. Having edited Wikipedia for over three years, I think this blogger is… well… right.
June 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Me, ahving edited. I don’t know about the blogger.
November 28, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“Mostly crap”…? “Blatant falsehoods”? Remember this is coming from “Indiana Jones”, from “HumptyDumpty.net”, folks!
I think it would take more than all the king’s horses and all the king’s men to put you together again. Frankly I’d put all the pieces in the bin and *start* again.
December 15, 2008 at 10:26 am
This is so true.. I’ve stuck this on Digg by the way.
I got involved in some Wikipedia editing over the weekend and ended up in a stupid battle with Hitler’s kids!!
December 17, 2008 at 9:54 am
You mention that Wikipedia admins have an axe to grind; so do you. This run-away-and-write-a-critical-blog-post behaviour is fairly typical when people like you don’t happen to get their own way on Wikipedia. YOUR extremely important and definitive contributions got deleted!!! OMG, HOW DARE THEY!!!
I noticed you didn’t post your diagrams and article so we can judge for ourselves why they were removed.
Please feel free to insult me like you did to the guy on comment 4. That way we can all see the level of your maturity and understand why you’ve rubbed some admins at Wikipedia up the wrong way and sulked off with your bat and ball.
June 12, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Who is the immature one? The one who posted -his- views on -his- blog, or the idiot who posted -his/her- views knowing full well -he/she- would get slapped.
June 12, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I would say anyone who uses Wikipedia is immature
December 17, 2008 at 10:10 am
Bong!
Round two.
1) I’m not denying I have an axe to grind. That’s pretty much a blog’s raison d’etre.
2) I don’t believe I engaged in any moronic OMGing.
3)
“I noticed you didn’t post your diagrams and article so we can judge for ourselves why they were removed.”
Now, put the hash-pipe aside and try to pay attention, or at least quit your verbal diarrhea dribblings for a second.
a)My diagrams are on this site and are still on Wikimedia Commons.
b) I fail to see the logic in saying, essentially, “I haven’t seen the evidence so I can judge for myself” – err, I hope you’re not a lawyer.
4) The guy who commented in reply 3 made no substantive argument, he just dribbled a little like you have and said ” “Mostly crap”. Give that man a medal! Award him the Nobel prize for literature! Has he won any debating awards recently? Maybe he should be elected to the Senate!
5) Thank you so much for permitting me to insult you. I will write your name down in my Special Book. I’m sure you’re quite used to insults anyway.
God, Wikipedians are self-regarding, effete, smug little wretches.
December 17, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I’M A STUPID DOUCHE DURP DURP DE DOODURP.
December 17, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Bit harsh.
December 17, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Sure, some wikipedia admins are assholes but so are a LOT of over sensitive people that get upset when their contributions are deleted, especially the type whose first point of discussion is to resort to insults. Post a link to the debate/discussion that went on when your images were “removed by someone who has staked out their turf on the area” and a link to the title of the (deleted) article(s) explaining data as a service and whatever the company article was – i.e. allow us to see the raw evidence of all this bad treatment and dealings with bad administrators for ourselves so we can see it’s not just sour grapes with no substance.
December 18, 2008 at 8:36 am
You can find some discussion on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SamJohnston&direction=prev&oldid=267739655
The diagram in its original home can be found here: http://thewebserviceblog.co.uk/2008/10/06/what-is-soa-service-oriented-architecture/
Frankly I’m bored by the whole lot of it now. While they weren’t perfect I fail to see why deletion is preferable to clean-up. I imagine in the case of the DaaS article it may have just been one of the lins that was deemed “spammy”, pretty easy to fix. If that were the best option in every case there would be no articles on Wikipedia.
And frankly I think Wikipedia’s criteria for article selection are laughable. Company profiles, no matter how large or important the company, are slammed, yet we have reams and reams of information on a single episode of Star Trek – and this despite there being a purpose-built Star Trek wiki site. I was looking for some information on Twelfth Night’s Sir Toby Belch the other day, and there was hardly a word (still near the top of the SERPs though, of course). Different story for Lt. Commander Data… All the mishmash of information on there is a conglomeration of what Wikipedia moderators (and they are a special breed) have a soft spot for, with what they don’t know about or don’t care for mercilessly eradicated.
(I did post the original articles on this comment, but I’m revising them now)
December 19, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Yea I’d agree with you there. That Data as a service article isn’t “blatant advertising” at all. He’s used a bureaucratic technique to get the article deleted quickly rather than letting a discussion take place. In the sense that that type of disingenuous activity is on the increase at Wikipedia and that the type of people that use those methods are gaining the upper hand over there; Wikipedia does indeed suck.
If I were you I’d go through a deletion review with the data as a service article or directly challenge him and whoever deleted it to demonstrate why it’s “exclusively promoting some entity and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic”
January 2, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I totally agree with you.. I actually found this post by Googling “Wikipedia Complaints” because I was so frustrated with their moderators. They don’t give you reasons for deleting your content until you complain to them, and then it’s usually some lame excuse, then if you do exactly what they say, THEY STILL DELETE YOUR CONTENT. I hate Wikipedia and I think it should burn.
January 16, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Same here — Found this site by googling “+complain +wikipedia” — I actually think Wikipedia often is extremely helpful as a source for some basic info but when I learned how knee-jerk they are about deleting valid information I just gave up on arguing with them. I’m on two nonprofit boards of directors and I simply cut and pasted some of our basic info into new pages to help people know about our organizations. They immediately deleted it, saying I was plagiarizing. I explained I’m on the board and had board approval and they just laughed at me.
Then, today, just searching for a 1960s band that came up on Pandora, from my home state, found the “deletion” page by googling and was astonished to see the page (which was very informative) was deleted because one editor who couldn’t spell believed that the band was too obscure to warrant the honor of a Wikipedia page. Absolutely amazing. Further googling revealed that this band has cult status and their one album was actually re-released in 1995 because of that. (Hey, Wiki eds, if you’re interested in re-opening the page, the band is Afterglow — but I’m not holding out much hope that you care).
January 18, 2009 at 8:07 am
The main problem with Wikipedia is it’s biased. And when you try to correct them or at least add some backlash that is well sourced, they still delete it, force you into a stupid 3 page long discussion where tons of idiots squabble over how your wrong, or illogical, or not citing the truth.
When I was at Wikipedia I never felt like they cared about my edits or cared about helping me at all. When I asked for help it was always deleted, even if it wasn’t in the FAQ.
They were always negative towards me and always said I was “under a falsification” or “deluded” or “irrelevant”.
It’s clear to me this especially takes place on more liberal articles, like Global Warming. I say liberal because the majority of those editors who edit that article are clearly biased towards global warming, they won’t let you cite any other source, such as a blog that states real scientists, they call it “false, POV”.
Most of their so called sources are freaking payed for their opinions or aren’t worth the time they spend on, and yet they are accepted because they agree with the majority of authors. That’s not how an encyclopedia should work.
Jimmy Wales may of had a good idea, but it’s been completely destroyed. And even then, he himself is biased against certain groups of people. I don’t understand why people continue to fund them.
January 21, 2009 at 9:29 pm
It’s an absolute pile of crap but it looks like we’re stuck with it!!
What I hate the most is that Wikipedia ranks in Google for just about everything, giving the self righteous bunch of cock knockers even more fuel!
January 31, 2009 at 9:31 am
Wikipedia sucks. It is revisionist history that corporations, government agencies, and assholes with too much free time control. It’s not populist. It’s not accurate. It’s not complete or neutral or honest.
Unfortunately, every moron links to Wikipedia because they think it makes them look knowledgeable. Until those morons realize that quoting or linking to Wikipedia makes you look like idiot, Wikipedia will continue to be the first Google result. I wish Google would just place a Wikipedia filter in their search engine. It’s nothing more than a link farm.
September 2, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Clarification: Wikipedia administrators suck, not the Wiki itself (unless there’s barely any cited sources and every second word is spelled wrong).
Yes, administrators have way too much time on their hands and they just waste in on Wikipedia
February 3, 2009 at 5:52 pm
So true, Wikipedia is full of Nazi’s that’s why I quit. Most of the vandalism is done by so called admins them selves, I post an article and they delete it (vandalism) saying we don’t feel we need that. So if I write an article about something video games related a person who doesn’t know anything about video games or the internet deletes it?
@ 16 yeah, I hate how no matter what you google mostly everytime you will get a Wikipeida result. Google has “SearchWiki” so I remove and Wikipeida results I see, we all should too.
Ya and WiKKKipedia is full of Nazi’s
September 2, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Try Satan’s advocates for size. Wikipedia administrators make Nazis seem like Obama. I’ve had the exact same problems as you.
February 12, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I agree. Wikipedia really sucks.
March 2, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Wikipedia = Nazi propaganda
March 8, 2009 at 10:16 am
I agree with the original post. Nicola seems not to get the point. This is a blog entry about why and how Wikipedia sucks, not a debate about whether it sucks. It does suck. Big time.
When a user contributes to a project, that contribution ought not to be immediately deleted, which is what just happened to me. Based on similar articles that didn’t get deleted, I thought I was being treated unfairly. And I was. But according to the rules, not just my article, but dozens of other articles also should be deleted. What kind of online resource has rules where most of its useful content actually shouldn’t even be there? Rather than press for the rest to be removed, I simply stopped using my account, and changed the password to random characters (because there’s no way to close an account … so typical of the planning that went into this project).
March 18, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Wikipedia is made up of a bunch of retards who beleive the notion of “It’s only true if the %50 of people believe it’s true, regardless if it makes any mathematical, logical, scientific sense what-so-ever” and because of that, it can gain nutrition be eating itself, because once something is on wikipedia almost everyone is going to believe, because people are stupid enough to beleive whatever is on Wikipedia.
Another thing, they always want “credible rescourses?” To tell the truth, ever since Wikipedia has been put online, I have seen less and less credible resource with interesting information, and more dumb websites where all they do is copy and paste everything from wikipedia word for word, and tell me stuff I ALREADY KNOW!!!!!!
In fact, there is such a lack of credible resources online that wikipedia had to redirect all there citations to the stupid plagerism sites. So now you get an endless loop of stupid sites, citing other sites that contain the exsact same dumb shit.
It’s too late too edit any wikipedia page anymore because if you want the dumb mods to beleive your not bullshitting, it has to be on the citated site, aka the site that originally plagerised from wikipedia in the first place. So the only way to get anything new information about anything on the internet is if you have 1000,000 people working for you, each on one of wikipedia’s plagerism sites, and have them all post down all the exact same information in unison, and click, “save page” all at the exact same time.
March 25, 2009 at 11:13 pm
As a former Wikipedia contributor with 2K+ edits and 50+ created articles, I couldn’t agree more with what you said! Looking back, the idea is fatally flawed.
April 16, 2009 at 1:12 am
I just think it’s fun to fuck with them. If you are surfing from a public wi-fi, they cannot do a damn thing. I do wonder how the hell they respond so quickly.
September 2, 2009 at 5:31 pm
They respond so quickly since they’re trying to test their “reflexes”. Exercise for them is how many mouse clicks they can get in 30 seconds.
April 18, 2009 at 10:05 am
Wikipedia actually does tell one bit of truth. To find it you have to go all the way to the bottom, and click the very last thing on the page. The Disclaimer.
–“WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY”–
Ahhh…Freedom from the wiki influence….
September 25, 2009 at 6:54 am
–”WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY”–??
No is “Wikipedia Guarantee of no validity”..
😛
April 19, 2009 at 8:16 pm
I couldn’t agree more. The people on wikipedia are all a bunch of fucking, bastard,arrogant twats who’ve got nothing better to do except to go through and see what to delete. I tried to put up a photo which i took myself and it was deleted using ‘copyrighted’ as a excuse. Copyrighted..? My own image..? That doesn’t make sense.
I even tried to edit one article by inserting only one sentenece using ‘credible’ sources and yet what happens: deleted. I was suprised by how quickly deletions take place. This one was only a matter of minutes. Those people must stay glued to their screens 24/7 looking to see if anyone has added anything so it can be deleted. GET A FUCKING LIFE LOSERS!!!
September 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Another story- I link to my own blog on my own user page and it gets deleted. Issues, admins!
April 20, 2009 at 11:46 pm
There’s an alternative to Wikipedia, called Bickerpedia, that allows opposing viewpoints on all controversial topics. It’s new so it could hardly be called comprehensive, but there’s no Wiktators to piss you off.
April 22, 2009 at 5:49 am
Plain and simple: The criteria for using Wikipedia totally sucks. You have to do this; you have to do that; and, when you comply – there is another rule to follow. The site is condescending to intellects. I am a seasoned writer. So, who would know my biography and information better than I?
WIKI wants somebody else to do me. They have to do at least 10 edits before they can download a picture. And, by then they will find out that JS is really me anyway. And, then they will delete my biography.
At least 40% of the information on Wikipedia is wrong. The reason could be that the person who knows the information the best (Can’t Place it on the site accordingly). What a bunch of creeps!
September 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm
You can’t write a biography of yourself, it’s in the stupid “policy”.
April 25, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I just found this site by doing a web search using “Wikipedia Sucks” as a search term. Imagine my surprise. Many of the people who have the time and energy to ‘rule the world’ over at Wikipedia seem to be clones of “Comic Book Guy” from “The Simpsons”.
If one of their people writes an article about YOU or your business, THEY get exclusive right to control the content. They also have a ‘blocking’ policy that prevents you from contributing if you threaten them with legal action. So, basically, they can totally misrepresent your source of income, possibly causing a loss of business, and then lock you out from complaining about it.
Apparently, being able to prove your case in the real world is completely irrelevant, as they delete the information as “original research”. So in their world, first-hand knowledge is impugned, and repeating what someone else says without knowing whether or not it’s true is taken as fact.
The only thing that disappoints me more is the number of people who think Wiki content is irrefutable.
April 29, 2009 at 8:35 am
You’re right. We need to band together and start a cull of Wikipedia moderators and managers. They only moderate what they want to hear and they love to hear the sound of their own keyboards tapping away with Wili rubbish! If you run a company that they dont like they wont print it. Therefore I have decided to attack Wiki rubbush at every possible opportunity! Go forth and destroy!
PS: Nothing more funny than deleting whole pages of these pompous indiots!
September 2, 2009 at 5:33 pm
If you’re forming a band, I’m in.
May 7, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Funny, the one Wikipedia admin whose real-life identity I know and who apparently pissed off a lot of people on there much for the same reasons as you cite, is now serving time for child molestation.
May 8, 2009 at 7:37 am
Best comment yet.
Keep ’em coming.
May 8, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“serving time for child molestation.”
lol, as far as I am concerned they all should be locked up!
May 8, 2009 at 5:11 pm
[…] Funny, the one Wikipedia admin whose real-life identity I know … is now serving time for child molestation. http://thewebserviceblog.co.uk/2008/10/31/wikipedia-sucks/#comment-141 […]
May 18, 2009 at 11:32 am
Good day to you sir!
I must say this, most wikipedia admins are morons.
i had a run in with some today, it seems that they don’t have to follow rules or guidelines, can make up their own rules on the spot and ban people who are trying to stop vandals (or for any other reason they like). i have been trying to stop vandals and have been banned for a day because of it.
I have only EVER met ONE wikipedia admin that has never once overstepped his bounds, which really says a lot for wikipedia!
the way the admins act completely defeats the point of having rules and guidelines to follow. it appears to be an encyclopedia full of corruption, bullshit, un cited references and vandalism run by biased assholes who follow no rules or guidelines and love utter chaos.
September 2, 2009 at 5:34 pm
You’re absolutely right. Wikipedia administrators don’t have to follow rules just because they think they’re always right and always know the right thing to do. Well in their distorted minds, “‘right'” = rampant blocking, deleting, reverting, pissing users off, wasting time, etc.
September 3, 2009 at 4:40 am
Actually, according to Wikipedia:Five Pillars of Evil, there are no set rules for administrators. Unlike the united states where no one is above the law, the rule of law is something that admins just can’t understand so they flushed that down the toilet. Yet all us regular users have to follow rules, and the admins don’t because they think they’re above everyone else just because they have special buttons to delete and protect pages. Ass holes they are indeed.
May 21, 2009 at 8:45 pm
WIKI is entertainment for losers without a job. It’s not an open community, in fact, anything you add gets deleted or reverted by some looser admin who thinks it only goes his way. Wikipedia should not be used as reliable.
September 2, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Wikipedia is not an open community as I’ve found out. “Anyone can edit” is only a phrase used to lure regular users into using Wikipedia so that admins can frame and block the user. So I ask Wikipedia to remove that bullshit.
September 11, 2009 at 3:36 am
http://deathgleaner.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/why-other-people-really-hate-wikipedia-administrators-as-well/#comment-110
Exactly, as I said there the “Anyone can edit” thing is a lie.
May 30, 2009 at 6:36 am
I agree. These Wiki Admins are on sad power trips behind their computers. It’s not an encyclopedia for everyone, its an encyclopedia for the losers who run the site as admins.
June 8, 2009 at 6:39 am
Fuck Wikipedia Admin.. They erase the page by saying “Lack of reference info from google”.. What the fuck.. So, they mean google knew everything.. After i prove it with real life info.. Then, they erased all your history including the reason for erase… (Hey! they noted in their policy.. Not to erase other’s history, u can add comment, but not remove the history).. They set the rule, they break the rule. And they over rule it. Fuck’em.
June 8, 2009 at 6:53 am
Wikipedia said… “Wikipedia is not a dictionary”… yet… u still can find.. “Wiki:fuck”..
June 12, 2009 at 2:49 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Landon1980
Look at that poor sap’s editing history. The fag reverts edits like CRAZY when they don’t agree. For instance:
Source says: The Dog is of X breed.
Him: I don’t think so, quit pushing POV
Guy with source: Huh?
Him: You’re reverting my edits, do not vandalize.
Guy with source: You reverted mine though…
It wasn’t me either.
June 12, 2009 at 4:30 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Landon1980#A_Very_Serious_Barnstar
It should say:
For all your stupidity removing information as well as beating me to 3+ reverts tonight.
August 3, 2009 at 5:56 pm
WTF that’s not what I said it should say.
I don’t care if someone beats me to 3+ reverts, I don’t revert because I don’t even use Wikipedia.
If I would revert the asdhole admin that stalks* my profile would revert the revert, vandalize the page, then vandalize my talk page accusing me of vandalizing.
* Funny that everytime I make an edit to MY OWN PAGE, it gets reverted really fast (someone has no life), but the racist flame is still there. I wonder why he doesn’t do his job and remove that instead of harassing me and vandalizing my pages. He probably wrote that comment to begin with.
June 29, 2009 at 2:34 am
Any had any run-ins with administrator RKLawton?
September 2, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Nope. Either way is the WORST admin for me.
July 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm
What I can say in my experience with Wikipedia and one of our artists is that when someone posted this artist’s bio on Wikipedia, it became a nightmare. The so-called editors never bothered checking facts and accuracy and even posted comments that became a liability to the artist and the label. The editors lacked total knowledge of the subject’s popularity due to what it seemed a total lack of knowledge of the music genre the artists works in. The artist was obviously important enough to have joined celebrities like Kevin Bacon and Jessica Alba lending his name to their efforts in supporting a well known charity, had won several awards and topped music charts. Obviously, none of this was ‘important enough’ for the Wikipedia editors who fought to delete the article by posting one ignorant comment after another. Based on the discussions that ensued, these people were simply childish, ignorant and obviously had no life.
Note that none of us at the label even wanted our artist on Wikipedia. We just got caught in the middle and eventually, by complaining to Wikipedia corporate (and threaten with a lawsuit) did they remove all discussion which, they agreed, was libelous.
Personally, I used to have a high opinion of Wikipedia until that sad encounter. Since then I have checked many discussions behind articles only to have those nauseating old memories return. The idiotic, ignorant editor’s behavior seems to be rampant at Wikipedia.
July 15, 2009 at 7:05 pm
There are two websites that are almost entirely devoted to trashing Wikipedia and all that is wrong with it:
http://www.WikipediaReview.com
http://www.Akahele.org
(By the way, “akahele” is the Hawaiian word that is the opposite of “wiki”.)
July 15, 2009 at 11:29 pm
If you folks are looking for a place to openly discuss the corruption and incompetence of Wikipedia, may I recommend Wikipedia Review.
Just like the Ghostbusters, “we’re ready to believe you!”
July 16, 2009 at 12:57 am
Wikipedia has become an absolute mess, driven by egos, incompetent administrators, and juvenile POV editors. Its articles are larded with biases and errors. This wouldn’t be an issue had it been simply a social network site or blog, but to call itself an encyclopaedia is a dangerous insult to knowledge. It needs to be shut down.
July 16, 2009 at 5:36 am
Your description of the two species of moderator reminded me of this article on different species of people who inhabit different corners of the web:
http://www.culturekiosque.com/nouveau/comment/rheflamewars.html
July 16, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I must say I have only had one experience editing Wikipedia, and that was enough for me. I have many interests, one of which is being an investor. I have been investing for over seven years and have what I would consider extensive knowledge in micro cap stocks. I attempted to edit some false information found on one of the investment pages only to see it removed in under two minutes. When I questioned the removal, showed evidence and backed up my edits I was banned from the site. I feel like a part of the community already, thanks Wikipedia! 🙂
The funniest telling of Wikipedia nazism I have heard though is from a friend who is an author. He edited some false information on a Wiki page for one of his own books, it was removed. Sad….
July 17, 2009 at 5:19 am
It bears noting that Wikipedia has apparently morphed from an ‘it’ to a ‘them’, which creates the inevitable and unavoidable dichotomy of ‘us’ against ‘them’.
Wikipedia began a rapid toboggan slide down a very slippery slope with the advent of moderation.
It is ironic that moderators, putatively introduced to remove the bias (in addition to misinformation, poorly written content and spam) from Wikipedia, have instead replaced user-contributed bias with their own, moderator-contributed brand of heavy-handed chauvinism, pettiness and personal agendas.
Perhaps Wikipedia was doomed from the start, for the fatal blow that the libelers, spammers and vandals failed to deal to it is instead being dealt by the moderators themselves.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot …
July 17, 2009 at 8:20 am
In my opinion, Wikipedia is stagnating.
The picture of a girl in a red bikini, which nobody likes, stays up because there are a some gestapo policing the page. (http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/bikini)
They delete anything new claiming it’s not notable.
I think the answer is to do wikipedia one better: create a better type of wiki, one that attempts to include everything and in detail. As it is now, it’s just a general overview of what the admins think is important. I thought Wikipedia would be the beginning of an Encyclopedia Galactica, but it’s not… it’s a watered down stagnating body of supposedly notable facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Galactica
August 3, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“create a better type of wiki, one that attempts to include everything and in detail”
That’s what I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be. My wiki includes everything (that I can possibly make) in detail, so it’s slogan is “Everything Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be”
July 17, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I had the same problem with this idiot. If he didn’t write the content it is deemed an advertisement.
Wikipedia is not bad, this moderater is.
September 2, 2009 at 5:39 pm
“Wikipedia is not bad, this moderater is.” That’s what I’ve been trying to get at.
July 20, 2009 at 12:37 pm
[…] Not everybody believes in the validity of the term “data as a service,” but these opinions seem to be held mostly by academics and niche bloggers who are resistant to “yet another –aaS acronym” (which is understandable, I guess). There is still no entry for the term DaaS on Wikipedia. […]
August 3, 2009 at 6:24 am
Wiki wiki!
August 3, 2009 at 5:44 pm
@ 48
Go away, your post is pointless crap and adds nothing to the discussion.
August 5, 2009 at 10:19 pm
“DudeOfTheWild Says:
June 12, 2009 at 2:49 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Landon1980
Look at that poor sap’s editing history. The fag reverts edits like CRAZY when they don’t agree. For instance:
Source says: The Dog is of X breed.
Him: I don’t think so, quit pushing POV
Guy with source: Huh?
Him: You’re reverting my edits, do not vandalize.
Guy with source: You reverted mine though…
It wasn’t me either.”
That’s quite a coincidence. I had run-ins with this guy as well. He seems to be the perfect example of “Gaming the system” on Wikipedia. A good example is when in the article for the band Thousand Foot Krutch (who are commonly known as a Christian musical group) had a genre dispute. Landon wanted it out. Eventually, he was refuted by an editor. The editor was eventually banned and Landon proceeded with his own edits
August 10, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I must say that Nicola girl who replied earlier is a complete retard. Just some butthurt chick who thinks highly of herself.
August 13, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I have given up on posting on wikipedia.
Any opinion is considered to be “bias” — so you are not allowed to voice your opinion — even when you admit it is opinion. How weird.
And an original thought? — forget it.
I am trying to explain to the American Public how I think our money and banking system works and am having a difficult time — mainly, I believe, because of wikipedia’s acceptance of Federal Reserve Documents as unquestionably valid — even though I show them to be in direct conflict with written U.S. law about how much reserves must be held by banks.
This is serious stuff.
I am about ready to self-publish a pro bono book on the subject of banking and money and will do my best to expose the non-thinkers at wikipedia. I think it will prove my point that almost everything we read on money and banking springs from the Federal Reserve’s self centered view.
Would you like to keep in touch?
Ask and I will send you the URL for my treatment of the Fed.
Marty Carbone
August 14, 2009 at 12:10 am
Aparrently you are not allowed to post opinions at Wikipedia.
They are Nazis
August 21, 2009 at 2:04 am
Most of the so called administrators and are slightly aspergic with a touch of mental retardation. They think it is their sandbox to play with and then start to cry when educated people make legitimate contributions. I can’t think of a way to pepper administrating into a conversation ANYWHERE!
And good luck trying to read any math or science article…monkeys could compose better entries. I’m not looking for step by step, just clearly worded english and material relevant to the topic. Sometimes more is less (especially when it comes to the hyperlinks to other articles).
August 25, 2009 at 4:51 am
Ya, they say things in a way that make no sense and then when you goto the discussion to ask, they say you can’t ask questions in the discussion.
Well then where do you ask them?
September 2, 2009 at 5:22 pm
You could not have said it any better. Praise to you a thousand times for cursing administrators. Hitler would’ve looked like George Washington if you compared him to an administrator on Wikipedia. Satan would look like god and an administrator would BE Satan. I also wrote another blog post with the same attitude: http://deathgleaner.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/why-i-really-hate-wikipedia-administrators/ and Part II is also on my blog. Administrators just love how I’m so “wrong” and they’re only saying that because they’ve been hypnotized by watching Wikipedia fourteen hours a day for “spammers” and stalking people. Again, praise to you a thousand times for this blog post.
September 2, 2009 at 5:24 pm
And yes, the only way to remove Wikipedia administrators from their totalitarian regime is to force them out. Let’s form a band of Anti-Wikipedia administrators indeed.
September 2, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Thanks for the post. I’ve reblogged this at http://deathgleaner.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/why-other-people-really-hate-wikipedia-administrators-as-well/ .
September 10, 2009 at 8:39 pm
this is a really good article. i contributed one article to wikipedia and another to wikiquote. both got speedy deletion notices because they said it wasn’t clear what they were about. but it was abundantly clear, except to a moron. and as you say, it is astounding that there is no one to complain to about the behaviour of administrators. i protested about both the deletions and cleaned up the articles and now theyre up, but it really is too much work for nothing. there is no way its worth all this trouble.
September 11, 2009 at 1:11 am
Thank God it isn’t just me that found Thw WIKId Power crazed police. I actally had 2 very helpful people who went out of their way to help me…but the rest were power mongers. I TRIED AND TRIED to make my pages neutral, conformist, and within the guidelines, but give a control freak a bit of power and…you get Wiki Administrators. I’m GONE and not using them. There is an online Encyclopedia Britanica and several others. Wikipedia Control of Information = * *
X silence through censor.
September 12, 2009 at 4:25 am
Ya, it feels I quit WiKKKipedia and don’t have to deal with power trippin’ bullshit anymore…
September 25, 2009 at 7:12 am
Some on-line encyclopedia should change it to allow people to edit, and battle with wikipedia. In a long run.. I guarantee will win the game. But will it be a new encyclopedia with a lot of corrupted police? I don’t know.
November 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm
As long as it doesn’t reach the level of corruption as WP then it would win.
October 30, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Apart from ip proxy portals (which are all banned anyways) and ip hide software, is there any other way to get around wiki blocks?
November 25, 2009 at 5:52 am
I hate Wiki mods, you all suck, your pathetic, you think your god like. Actually you just spend way too much time infront of a computer. Absolute tw*ts the lot of you. I hope your mums proud. Now run along and die.
November 27, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Wikipedia admins can eat a dick.
They think they are so big because they can censor stuff, but they can’t censor other sites.
They need to get lives and stop ruining the internet.
November 30, 2009 at 6:19 am
UPDATE: Another ass clown at Wiki has nominated my latest submission as not being “wiki worthy” . If the link has not been deleted you can read all the BS here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Uchitel
If the wiki volunteer fascists have already deleted my post, here is my defense as to why Rachel Uchitel is “significant” under Wikipedia’s directives for a biography of a living person:
“This is exactly why @wsj reports that Wikipedia is losing millions of users. Click on link to see the BS involved to get a simple submission up on wiki. The speedy deletion of this page is contested. Reason: Uchitel is the subject of 3 of the top 10 Hot Topic searches trending on Google for the past 48 hours. Her accomplishments in VIP operations is significant. She is closely associated with some of the most famous personalities in the world. Uchitel is the subject of thousands of main stream news articles associating her with Tiger Woods, the most recognized sports personality in the world. A7 criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. By any objective standard Rachel Uchitel is “Significant” and meets the criteria for a living person bio.
Wikipedia began with a goal to provide everyone in the world free access to “the sum of all human knowledge,” the declines in participation have raised questions about the encyclopedia’s ability to continue expanding its breadth
Hundreds of thousands of people have searched wiki for info on Rachel Uchitel in the past 48 hours. This number will increase into the millions as evidenced by Google trends. People from all over the world are seeking information on Uchitel at this very moment.”
Wiki sucks
Here is the entry that Wikipedia ass clowns rejected. Why? Because they can!
Rachel Uchitel, born in 1975, is one of the most accomplished nightclub VIP operations manager in the United States. She is currently director of VIP operations for Pink Elephant in Southampton.[1] After college Ms.Uchitel worked in TV and film. She spent five years as a television producer at Bloomberg News. After her fiancee, Andy O’Grady, was killed in the World Trade Center attacks of 2001 she moved to Las Vegas.[2] Ms.Uchitel launched Tao nightclub and restaurant, which became the number-one grossing venue in the world.[citation needed] Two years later she moved back to New York to oversee VIP operations for Tao operated Clubs Stanton Social, Marquee, Tao Bistro, and Dune.[3]
Uchitel married Steven Ehrenkranz, a financial broker, in 2004. They were divorced in 2005 after only four months of marriage. Her grandfather, Maurice Uchitel, owned the famous Manhattan nightclub the El Morocco, from 1964-1970.[4][5]
^ ^ http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/rachel-uchitel-speaks-i-dont-appreciate-my-name-being-dragged-through-the-m/13442
^ ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/fashion/weddings/12VOWS.html
^ http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/prime-mover-rachel-uchitel-vip-diva/3300
^ ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/fashion/weddings/12VOWS.html
^ http://www.sundayvision.co.ug/detail.php?mainNewsCategoryId=7&newsCategoryId=453&newsId=455246
Copyright ©2009 Bonzer Wolf™
December 8, 2009 at 2:53 pm
adolf hitler was right-wing not left wing
the left wingers believe in peace and equality
us right wingers believe in control, fear, war, and think we have the right to illegally invade other countries
adolf hitler is an idol of mine and wikipedia is excellent because i pay them money and they let me use it to advertise nazitalkradio
December 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Jimmy Wales is now asking for money…
So I left my contributions on a few pages.
Wikipedia is now run by all these moderators who in my own experience and in the experiences of many others, come across as being a pack of cunts running their own pedantic shit head fiefdoms – while we the peasants get our input, corrections and submissions trashed add-nauseum.
So I now tend to regard Wikipedia, as useful – but not the kind of a place or event I want to associate with nor support.
These scribbling pharisees and and their ganging up on people with their rules and banning them and getting their jollies out of fucking with everyone else and their contributions – if you arseholes want Wikipedia all to your very own selves – you can also pay for it.
I like many, many, many other contributors who have left am saying – “You can all go drown, all by yourselves in your own shit – we have better things to do”.
google:
wikipedia moderators pricks arseholes
Results 1 – 99 of about 83,400 for wikipedia moderators pricks arseholes. (0.82 seconds
Wikipedia Sucks!!! – The RSS Blog
Wikipedia moderators are a bunch of jobsworths on a power trip. … of the editors and admins at wikpedia are the biggest fucking assholes I’ve ever encountered on the internet. … Wikipedia, what pricks! Thu, 21 May 2009 23:01:01 GMT …
http://www.therssweblog.com/?guid=20060410082920 – Cached – Similar
Eat shit arseholes.
December 22, 2009 at 6:06 am
Man, I want to thank you for this, this, this…wonderful piece. For the reasons you articulated in your post (plus a few of my own) I actually hope Wikipedia fails in their “blood” drive and has to go commercial.
I have watched while people who disputed the neutrality of a Wikipedia “article,” (on solid ground) were basically told to shut the hell up. I have had my own criticisms either deleted. I have been flamed into submission.
I have read countless articles on their site which are so incredibly biased…well…it’s just hard to believe how lopsided the information is. And now the founder wants ppl like me who can see though that wool to donate. I don’t think so. I hope the Wiki project implodes. They remind me of ppl who’ve been smelling their own farts for so long, they no longer recognize difference between clean air and natural gas.
January 10, 2010 at 6:42 am
Sir,
I agree 100%. I try to edit, but it ALWAYS gets deleted! The mods, and bossy members constantly control everything! You cannot even add anything.
I still use wikipedia, but I must say that I hope something new comes along, without such problems.
January 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm
This is a very serious matter. The problem is basically that Wikipedia has a lot of wonderful information on things that are factual and not likely to be controversial — so it is hard to believe that over-all, it is not worthwhile.
On the other hand,If you try to contribute to a serious discussion, you will probably run into administrators who will delete your words — because you expressed a point-of-view or an “opinion” or something you developed , or are developing. It seems as though they only want to include things that have been previously been in a major encyclopedia or book by a noted author.
If you are trying to help solve some major problem — like the status of our Money and Banking system — you will quickly find yourself on the outside and more-or-less barred from posting.
They have a formula that can’t work for serious matters over the long run. What a shame.
I simply don’t post anymore and do my best to ignore them — although I do go there often to find facts on one thing or another.
I am surprised that The Founder is allowing this to happen — he is wasting a good idea and the chance to really do something worthwhile.
My complaint is that they take anything the Federal Reserve prints as gospel truth — even though they are provable liars. Google “are we being lied to?” — I will bet you find my article that asks you to decide on that question. I think you will come to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve lies regularly — so as to keep the Public and Congress confused. This is serious stuff.
Martin Carbone — 1/12/2010
January 22, 2010 at 11:02 pm
In their mainsite Wikipedia describe themselves as [quote]”the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”[/quote]
It is misleading, because not anyone can edit, only the moderators are de facto editors! The other are just writers.
They just confuse people to fill the entries, because they prefer as many entries as possible to get started, but soon as the back is turned someone moderator can twist it.
What I encountered: A moderator who doesn’t know nothing about a subject, chose the wrong version, the version that is a rethoric lie of organization that is corrupted. Any attempts to fix the error entry were blocked, as the Wikipedia moderator took freedom to lock the entry and give cart blanche to their compartmentalization style.
February 1, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Yes!!! You are utterly correct in all you’ve said! I am definitely an Anti-Wikipaedian. I too have repeatedly experienced the mindless deletions of the Wiki- freaks, after doing absolutely nothing wrong. I have had to suffer the mind boggling idiocy of seeing genuine improvements to articles be deleted and returned to convoluted rambling, by some dolt who clearly doesn’t know how to write.
February 6, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I’m fed up Wikipedia, as well. I thought it thrived on the accuracy rather than on the ‘ownership’ of its information. Silly me! I just tried to edit an article about an actor. One of this actor’s credits had the wrong date. I corrected it. Moments later, the wrong date was back. I checked the edit history, and apparently someone was lurking in the shadows, didn’t like my edit, and immediately reverted it to the previous, incorrect version. As far I can tell from the article’s edit history, this person patrols ‘their’ edits and squelches any attempt to revise them, even with correct information. Nevertheless, I corrected the credit again and explained once more that the date was wrong. Hopefully it will stay corrected!
February 18, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Doubt it will stay corrected. Hopefully Wikipedia crashes and butns…
March 19, 2010 at 2:19 am
I’ve been doing a little editing on wiki and a pedantic troll of a moderator decided to delete the lot time and time again despite my contribution being well researched with citations.
I got the excuses: commentary is not allowed, you used an opinion that’s not allowed, original thought or work not allowed, biased not allowed, too long not allowed, a description? well I think that’s a comentary so not allowed. ffs I could get published in a peer reviewed journal but not on wikipedia ha ha.
Here are the rules in a nutshell: if an administrator doesn’t like it it gets deleted, if an administrator doesn’t like you it gets deleted and the interpretation of wikipedias guidelines (rules in the hands of the moderators) are totally subjective. Argue and protest or revert edits you get banned. Like a ban would be a deterrant for a normal human being with a life. Of course I got banned ha ha. I’d have been ashamed if I hadn’t.
March 19, 2010 at 9:05 am
This might have been thought of already, but how about a Wikipedia Submission Bomb? Every jilted contributor and whoever else gets together and picks a date and time to spontaneously submit their work, or whatever you can think of, and overwhelms the place with updates. Cut and paste a bunch of stuff you have written already over a period of weeks. Say, a Sunday night on a holiday weekend at midnight Eastern? Make the little wiktators work to maintain their tyrannical ways. In today’s world it might be illegal, (sabotage?) I have no idea, but it’s just an idea. :o)
March 20, 2010 at 12:27 am
There was this administrator who blocked me for no reason! i didn’t do anything wikipedia administrators must be banned from blocking other users and editing wikipedia!
May 25, 2010 at 7:12 pm
i have tried since so many years to register some information about our music band, i dont know why these nazi assholes from wiki never posted it online, fuck them all bitches
July 5, 2010 at 1:52 am
ok whenever i look up things like emma goldman, haymarket martyrs, alexander berkman or any subversive stuff it takes ten minutes (if it loads at all)for the page to load; but when i look up nonsense like brittiney spears or green day its instant. it seems to me that there are alot more things going on when i look up subversive anti government material, its like someone else is watching yea? as if anything on there is factual anyway.
wikipedia is a massive multiplayer online editing game; like warcraft but for info-nerds.
July 5, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Ya totally, Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia because encyclopedias are accurate and don’t have information altered to support their point of view. Wikipedia is simply a social network or a big game, but not an encyclopedia…
July 19, 2010 at 3:43 pm
You’re dead on about the Wikipedia gods. It’s their way or the only way. They play favorites among editors. If one gets on the favorite list, whatever one does is acceptable, even if the edits are scientifically proven to be inaccurate. So much bias is present, it’s startling.
While Wikipedia was started with good intentions, it’s become a site for power trips. Given the profit the owners are making, I don’t see them changing anything to boost credibility and journalistic integrity.
September 17, 2010 at 4:22 am
Thanks for sharing.
October 9, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Recently had a bad experience with Wiki and it was just as you described. They give you the guidelines then accuse you of misusing them. Since, it was my first experience I didn’t know what to make of it. Someone kept posting live on the web over my article conflict of interest, vandalism which I still am trying to understand what that means. Basically accusing me of coming to wiki with a hidden agenda.
News flash I had a career before going to wiki. Don’t need them to validate it or my work. Thought I was adding historical content to be archived in history by a valid encyclopedia. Didn’t know it was run by amateurs trying to validate their business by having others post articles or events that does link to major content contributors on the web.
Here is how we get back. Bad news spreads quicker than good. Each of us on this blog hit 10 more blogs we frequent and post the same thing “Wikipedia is not a reliable or credible encyclopedia.” All articles are written by anyone who wants to create content with no editorial board or professional input.
Post your message to any blog with any subject matter and that will let you post a comment. The point is to kill their credibility or what is left of it.