Wikipedia Sucks!

Here are a few answers by established Wikipedia editors:

• "There are quite a few mentally ill people who edit Wikipedia. I have been stalked and harassed by more than one person here during my tenure, and while almost all of those folks were eventually indef blocked, after awhile, it gets to be too much. It is emotionally and physically draining." (wikipedia.org)
  "I'm just not interested any longer." (wikipedia.org)
  "There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do.There is no reason to continue here." (wikipedia.org)
  "Wikipedia was a great idea, but the structure dooms it - it has hit an ethical problem no-one who started it ever anticipated, and its decision making processes, and lack of responsibility, make it impossible for the community to fix it. Everyone with sense knows the problem, but minorities, and people who like to "play" wikipedia unimpeded, make proper radical solutions impossible. The one man who could make a difference isn't willing to try. So, I've had enough." (wikipedia.org) (This comment was removed by the editor later)
  I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has unique issues with volunteer coordination and communication due to it's large scope, the novelty of an internet medium and it's need to remove itself from "publishing" the works it helps to create. Nevertheless, I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with the way the Foundation distances itself and the lack of good communication, especially in serious cases such as this recent leak. That someone had to "break ranks" for the committee to get any concrete information on the various issues at play seriously concerns me and we're still almost completely in the dark about what the Foundation is doing and how it plans to handle security going forward - so it's not just the community who's being left out here. (wikipedia.org) (This user was an arbitrator)
  "Ending my involvement with this farce." (wikipedia.org) (I think this user is editing under a new name now).
  "Contrary to part of the statement in the recent "decline" of my request, it would seem to me that encouraging Wikipedia (administrators) to "demonstrate" its own "fairness" and "justice" in the application of its own process would be a most "productive" contribution to this encyclopedia and would encourage other editors of my caliber to contribute to it. As the "process" stands, that is highly unlikely." (wikipedia.org) (This user is an academic)
  "... I have truly seen that this place is no longer a good place to spend my time. I still very much believe in the project, however the beauracracy and process before people (or rather in my opinion process over pedia) mentality is going to and is, destroying the site. "

The last quote I am going to provide was said by an academic who has his own entry on Wikipedia:

" (wikipedia.org)...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant" (wikipedia.org). " (wikipedia.org)

Personally I was forced out for advocating the admins follow policy and not be held to a lower standard than editors. That was after years of being extremely high output, with over a million edits to the wikimedia projects.

Kumioko wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:01 am

Personally I was forced out for advocating the admins follow policy and not be held to a lower standard than editors. That was after years of being extremely high output, with over a million edits to the wikimedia projects.

Stop lying. You were banned for being an annoying tit.

Hundreds of high output Wikipedia editors have said Admins should follow policy and hold themselves to a higher standard, and once they realise it's a pointless request, they stop, and surprise surprise, they don't get banned.

You were just too stupid to realise that the easiest way to keep feeding your Wikipedia addiction, was to be a good boy and shut the fuck up.

Now the world knows you were such an annoying tit that they decided to do the same to you that they do to the pedophiles. You're pedo banned. So, pretty fucking annoying.

Thats such bullshit. But it doesn't matter, because no one cares what you think.

Kumioko wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:44 pm

Thats such bullshit. But it doesn't matter, because no one cares what you think.

Ha. You sound like Beeblebrox. Great minds, eh?

Wow thats a low blow. Pretty soon you'll be comparing me to that dickhead jimbo.and really spitting in my face.

TMC1982 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:14 pm

The last quote I am going to provide was said by an academic who has his own entry on Wikipedia:

" (wikipedia.org)...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant" (wikipedia.org). " (wikipedia.org)

And directly below that:

WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:NPoV, WP:N, WP:COI, WP:CIVIL, WP:SMITE. Only kidding. There are notions here we might heed and think about. Thanks for sharing your thoughts so straightforwardly. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the things I could tell you about Gwen Gale.....

Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:46 pm

Kumioko wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:01 am

Personally I was forced out for advocating the admins follow policy and not be held to a lower standard than editors. That was after years of being extremely high output, with over a million edits to the wikimedia projects.

Stop lying. You were banned for being an annoying tit.
Hundreds of high output Wikipedia editors have said Admins should follow policy and hold themselves to a higher standard, and once they realise it's a pointless request, they stop, and surprise surprise, they don't get banned.
You were just too stupid to realise that the easiest way to keep feeding your Wikipedia addiction, was to be a good boy and shut the fuck up.

You're both right and you're both wrong.

Wikipedia would have failed back in 2005 if not for "annoying tits" like Kumi, who generated a large percentage of the actual content. Any volunteer organization has to put up with ADHD people, little dictators and narcissists. Human resources have to be MANAGED. Wikipedia did no such thing--instead they handed the reins over to the worst of the autistic manipulators and narcissists. Installed by King Narcissist Jimbo at first.

Does this forum have a big sign "Wikipedia critics may bash each other here"?

I can't help it. When the guy says the worst ever Wikipedia Administrator is Beeblebrox, and then he LITERALLY says the exact same lame ass thing to me that Beeblebrox said, for the exact same reason presumably (me having them dead to rights), well, what's a guy to do? He leaves himself open for the low blows, all the time.

I'm not really a take the high road kind of person when it comes to Kumioko. Slapping his bitch ass around is just too gratifying. It's a weakness borne of having had to listen to his utter nonsense for years, never changing, never evolving, and never making any goddamned sense, all because his momma dropped him on his head as a baby or something.

Speaking of which, I think the central point stands. Yes, Wikipedia needs annoying obsessives, but Kumi was so bad, he actually exhausted Wikipedia's patience for annoying obsessives. It's insane.

It's like getting thrown out of the JW's (hey, I just noticed that, cool!) for liking bow ties and knocking on doors too much. You would think it's impossible, but no, he managed it.

He's one of a kind. Special.