Wikipedia Sucks!

A few days ago I was reading a chemistry-related book (not going to say exactly what) and I wanted to know some precise information on a particular isotope. I search on Google and of course the first result is Wikipedia, so I skip. Next one is a news article from 2007, skip. Now I get to a website called "http://chemeurope.com" - now THIS seems promising. They literally have 'chem' in their name, they must be reliable - right? So I click and at first it seems promising, but the formatting seems familiar. I scroll down and sure enough, "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article ____________. A list of authors is available in Wikipedia." *facepalm*

After scrolling further, all other links are either: old news articles, "study material" like http://study.com, http://chegg.com, or http://byjus.com, or don't have the information I need.

Eventually I find a thread on http://chemistry.stackexchange.com - while this thread did not have exactly what I needed, it lead me to an awesome website called http://periodictable.com, which not only had the information I needed, but is also ad-free and has a very nice design. I encourage you to use the website if you need information on specific atoms and isotopes as well. Unfortunately, I could not figure out what license the text of the website is released under, however, the contact details are thorough and you could probably find out easily.

From my open letter to google;

It was suggested to me by Wikipedia administrators that “If you don’t like Wikipedia, don’t use it.” It was something quite easy to say but hard for me to easily accomplish given the fact that all searches lead to Wikipedia. I reached out to Wikimedia with concerns about Wikipedia and they couldn't care less about the quality of content on their flagship product.https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... php?t=2384

No surprise you experienced the same company line repeating. The propaganda about Wikipedia is all dissonant - "anyone can edit, an online encyclopedia, etc.." The dissonant mantra that Wikipedia approaches the same reliability that Britannica can be found in the nature article of 2005. Once the nonsense gets said its repeated.

In 2005 nature

Wales also plans to introduce a ‘stable’ version of each entry. Once an article reaches a specific quality threshold it will be tagged as stable. https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a

"Articles meeting internal Quality Thresholds"

Good articles in 2005 represented 1.4/1000 of a percent
Good articles in 2023 are .566% of all articles
Good articles (exceptions) on Wikipedia are not written/organized curated as well as Every Average Article on Britannica. (Look at George Washington)

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

I don't like Wikipedia because it's unreadable/disorganized/nonsense/parroting which is wrong in overview, context, weighting. I hate Wikipedia because “don’t use it” is an impossibility.

To me; all the bad players, internal toxicity, scandals, lack of process, infighting, and the voluminous details of the "shit show" are irrelevant. You can write a book about it but nobody is going to care because it's not "Jerry Springer" material. What happens inside Wikipedia is their business. The problem I have with Wikipedia is the callous impossibility of the point mentioned - "If you don't like it don't use it" - so it is really Google that is the bad player.


I will ask the question again; Why do you hate Wikipedia

In my opinion, there is no merit in holding personal grudges or trying to take down Wikipedia through hacking. Also there is no point in being "granular" - just sum it up. That is why "Why do you hate Wikipedia" is a key question.

wexter wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 27, 2023 9:22 pm

From my open letter to google;

It was suggested to me by Wikipedia administrators that “If you don’t like Wikipedia, don’t use it.” It was something quite easy to say but hard for me to easily accomplish given the fact that all searches lead to Wikipedia. I reached out to Wikimedia with concerns about Wikipedia and they couldn't care less about the quality of content on their flagship product.https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... php?t=2384

No surprise you experienced the same company line repeating. The propaganda about Wikipedia is all dissonant - "anyone can edit, an online encyclopedia, etc.." The dissonant mantra that Wikipedia approaches the same reliability that Britannica can be found in the nature article of 2005. Once the nonsense gets said its repeated.

Wales also plans to introduce a ‘stable’ version of each entry. Once an article reaches a specific quality threshold it will be tagged as stable. https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a

"Articles meeting internal Quality Thresholds"

Good articles in 2005 represented 1.4/1000 of a percent
Good articles in 2023 are .566% of all articles
Good articles (exceptions) on Wikipedia are not written/organized curated as well as Every Average Article on Britannica. (Look at George Washington)

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

I don't like Wikipedia because it's unreadable/disorganized/nonsense/parroting which is wrong in overview, context, weighting. I hate Wikipedia because “don’t use it” is an impossibility.

To me; all the bad players, internal toxicity, scandals, lack of process, infighting, and the voluminous details of the "shit show" are irrelevant. You can write a book about it but nobody is going to care because it's not "Jerry Springer" material. What happens inside Wikipedia is their business. The problem I have with Wikipedia is the callous impossibility of the point mentioned - "If you don't like it don't use it" - so it is really Google that is the bad player.


I will ask the question again; Why do you hate Wikipedia

In my opinion, there is no merit in holding personal grudges or trying to take down Wikipedia through hacking. Also there is no point in being "granular" - just sum it up. That is why "Why do you hate Wikipedia" is a key question.

While Wikipedia sucks in many, MANY ways. The reason I HATE Wikipedia is harassment and toxicity. Not only will they harass you, but after they are done NO ONE WILL BELIEVE YOU. To them, claiming you hate Wikipedia is like claiming you punch kittens daily. The most recognition you will get is them saying you are a Nazi, because - "after all" - "only Nazis would hate something as amazing as Wikipedia".

The reason I HATE Wikipedia is harassment and toxicity. Not only will they harass you, but after they are done NO ONE WILL BELIEVE YOU. To them, claiming you hate Wikipedia is like claiming you punch kittens daily. The most recognition you will get is them saying you are a Nazi, because - "after all" - "only Nazis would hate something as amazing as Wikipedia".

If you are "in school, or work at a job, or in a bad marriage" then harassment and toxicity could be a major problem.

Absorbing the "harassment and toxicity of Wikipedia" is your choice because you don't have to participate. If you are banned they have done you a favor. Their internals and culture are really their business.

Nobody believes how bad Wikipedia is -- the "narrative has been institutionalized" along with tons of other narratives - it boils down to big business and sheepish consumers.