Wikipedia Sucks!

According to Wikipedia

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia

Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias, where the majority of editors are male.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Page protected

Which is correct?

Let's see if Norman can coordinate this mind f***. "norman coordinate · A response to being presented with a situation or hearing an utterance that is illogical and/or incoherent to the point of causing a mental short-circuit. "

I posted this on the administrators notice board so the hive mind can coordinate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped ... king_Point


Mission Statement Critical Thinking Point


According to Wikipedia

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia

Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias, where the majority of editors are male.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Page protected

Which is correct?

I suggest an edit to the main wikipedia page away from a specific towards the overview. I would replace:

This

Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias, where the majority of editors are male.

With

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. Gender bias has been mentioned as a currently relevant concern because the majority of editors are male.

Credibility

This change would improve credibility because it identifies and acknowledges the major criticism, rather than accentuating a secondary criticism. It also improves consistency between major wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

wexter wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:28 am

Let's see if Norman can coordinate this mind f***. "norman coordinate · A response to being presented with a situation or hearing an utterance that is illogical and/or incoherent to the point of causing a mental short-circuit. "
I posted this on the administrators notice board so the hive mind can coordinate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped ... king_Point

Go ahead and try. I seriously doubt they will allow it. You're an OUTSIDER, therefore you cannot be trusted and are probably a "sleeper agent" for the "otherside". And they won't explain what the "otherside" is, or why they feel this way.

You know what else operates like Wikipedia? Religious cults.
WP nerds absolutely hate Scientology yet they operate in a very similar way.

Sure enough, some autistic bot-driver named "Primefac" closed your request. "Wrong venue" as usual.

You could put it in this article. It is WP:OWNED by that nerd BluRasberry, and three attempts to delete or merge it have failed so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictio ... _Wikipedia

This does not seem to be an administrative issue. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.


Yep thwarted by a robot, a whole swarm of em.


I REPLIED


This does not seem to be an administrative issue. There is just a lack of critical thinking.

->this is an administrative issue because the MAIN page describing Wikipedia is incorrect and there is NO way to change it. Gender bias is not he most important point to emphasize

->How would you correct this error? What is the process to get a blatant error on the main page corrected?


I AM ABOUT TO BE BANNED AGAIN

wexter wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:54 pm

According to Wikipedia

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

Since Who Wrote That? busts me as the author of some of that, I want to say i was just summing up what was written. Obviously it's been criticized for a whole host of other things, but that's what I found in the "entry" when I got there. The rambling New Yorker article mentioned in another thread actually does "criticize" its effect on the modern reader's psyche a little (who needs to remember?), and surely some RS somewhere has written something about their close association with the Google Juice Co. I read some complaint about Wiki-Lambda recently because it was being grown by a google employee, but just in the meta proposal and maybe off-wiki, not so much out in the wide wide world.


fun fact: I appear to be responsible for every occurrence of Google in the "entry"

Well Done!!!

That factually concise criticism needs to be here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Let's get that done! OR be banned trying.