The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

Post by adamovicm » Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:58 pm

What do you think are the biggest problems with the current Wikipedia Policies?

I have searched the topic on Google and this forum and haven't found the answer.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

Post by Ognistysztorm » Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:54 pm

adamovicm wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:58 pm
What do you think are the biggest problems with the current Wikipedia Policies?

I have searched the topic on Google and this forum and haven't found the answer.
That they permits and possibly mandates reversion of works, even good edits, by users who are blocked or banned for any reason. Clearly they aren't so smart in separating art from the people. Even though the wording might specify the "good edits" exemption, in practice all edits had been indiscriminately reverted if found to be made by a banned user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BANREVERT

https://www.wired.com/story/socked-into ... wikipedia/

This is not to mention they utilize doxxing tactics against so-called "rule-breakers".

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

Post by wexter » Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:10 pm

adamovicm wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:58 pm
What ... are the biggest problems with the current Wikipedia Policies?
There are pages on pages of "policies" with the biggest problem being that they don't mean very much.


The reality is that Wikipedia is a hybrid between a social network and a cult -
--Within Wikipedia the policies (complete with jargon and abbreviations) are recited as "mantra" and (this can be seen in every notice board discussion)
-------this shuts down critical thinking, attracts the mentally ill, builds cohesion, exploits the weak minded, and effects control
--Outside of Wikipedia the "policies" are in place strictly as public relations (same thing as falsely calling the site an encyclopedia)
I am bringing you up on charges because you violated WP:3RR or you violated the "assumption of good faith" -- It is all cultist nonsense that gets bantered around and arbitrarily and capriciously applied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... reviations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... guidelines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... guidelines
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

Post by Bbb23sucks » Sat Jun 03, 2023 7:05 am

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:54 pm
adamovicm wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:58 pm
What do you think are the biggest problems with the current Wikipedia Policies?

I have searched the topic on Google and this forum and haven't found the answer.
That they permits and possibly mandates reversion of works, even good edits, by users who are blocked or banned for any reason. Clearly they aren't so smart in separating art from the people. Even though the wording might specify the "good edits" exemption, in practice all edits had been indiscriminately reverted if found to be made by a banned user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BANREVERT

https://www.wired.com/story/socked-into ... wikipedia/

This is not to mention they utilize doxxing tactics against so-called "rule-breakers".
G5 and the unofficial policy of assuming bad-faith with "suspicious" users too. Also the fact that admins not only cannot be removed by democratic vote, but also can't even be removed by the rigged "consensus" system either.

I actually thought there was a procedure to remove them by a desysop vote until I realized that I was mistaken recently.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

Post by wexter » Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:54 am

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/what-do ... 96d7d.html

The CEO of WMF does not think Wikipedia is a cult; but notice how that possibility got mentioned in a mainstream puff piece!
Wikipedia is a social-media/cult hybrid.
Some volunteers are extremely devoted, and there are big gatherings where they come together. Is Wikipedia a cult? I don’t think it’s a cult. I think it’s like a highly committed subset of humanity that comes from all walks of life, every corner of the world, and somehow finds a common cause in the idea of making free knowledge available to everybody. I think it’s the most extraordinary digital community in human history.
We know all about "wrong" articles here! Everything from laundry-list articles, improper context and weighting, marketing, agenda driven editing.. the list goes on with only . 6% of all articles are certified as "good articles" reliant on the weakest kind of fake editorial process. The following statement by the CEO is "public relations." There are no workable "policies" or mechanisms that govern the website or drive quality content. NONE. (they have a laundry-list of policy-nonsense for PR)
Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, doesn’t it mean all kinds of stuff is wrong up there? There are many built-in mechanisms that help us try to make sure accurate and verified content is on Wikipedia. Sources have to be cited and verified. We have both human and machine tools to identify vandalism, which is usually taken down within minutes, certainly on high-profile topics.
The people that participate on Wikipedia should be embarrassed. Certainly the Wikimedia Foundation has no shame - and no intent to evolve the product as to correct the giant mess of nonsense that has been institutionalized as fact.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

Post by Boink Boink » Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:47 am

(with the caveat that Wikipedia has FAR greater issues than merely problematic policies).....

WP:RS

Wikipedia editors long ago stopped caring about what actually makes a source reliable, and instead just started using this policy as cover for enforcing their biases.

WP:NPOV

In the space of a decade this went from being one of Wikipedia's most important policies to the most widely misunderstood. Virtually all established/experienced/unblockable editors now openly edit toward a specific POV, entrenched conflict between them is now the norm on controversial articles, meaning protection and sanctions are the norm. Quite bizarrely, nobody on Wikipedia even seems to remember that these used to be considered a bad thing.

WP:NOT

Wildly inconsistent, a pretty clear sign that no Wikipedia editor has a fucking clue what Wikipedia is meant to be or what it is really for.

WP:COI

It's been obvious for years that subjects of Wikipedia articles have very little to gain and everything to lose from engaging with Wikipedia in the way they recommend. It's been obvious for years that most Wikipedia editors prefer subjects to stay away entirely.

WP:ADMIN

Hasn't been enforced or enforceable for years. The idea Administrators are held to a higher standard is truly laughable. You're lucky if you find an Administrator who is capable of meeting even the basic standard. They practically flaunt their untouchability, most no longer even recognising when they are abusing their power, and probably wouldn't care even if they did.

WP:CIVIL

Exists on paper only. Only ever invoked to justify the warped idea that the best way to deal with an asshole editor, is to keep away from them. Keep your head down and don't make a fuss. It is basically a wife beater's charter.

WP:BLOCK

Might as well not exist. Reasons for blocks are barely explained nowadays, instant no warning blocks and catch all excuses like NOTHERE are now the norm, appeals are routinely rejected for bullshit reasons, and the entire process now features exceptionally high levels of incompetence.

WP:CONSENSUS

Needs a radical overhaul. Voting is now the norm for any large debate. In medium sized matters, lies and disruption are more effective than ever, ensuring a minority can easily defeat a majority. Administrators are now so unsure of how to weigh consensus, they shy away from making big calls unless they can share blame among three or more of their number. Incredibly, this has not prevented some absolutely epic errors, but it has made it almost impossible to have them corrected. Small matters rarely attract enough interest to justify the effort, meaning the toxic culture of edit war first seek forgiveness later has only got worse.

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

Post by Bbb23sucks » Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:04 am

Boink Boink wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:47 am
Needs a radical overhaul. Voting is now the norm for any large debate. In medium sized matters, lies and disruption are more effective than ever, ensuring a minority can easily defeat a majority. Administrators are now so unsure of how to weigh consensus, they shy away from making big calls unless they can share blame among three or more of their number. Incredibly, this has not prevented some absolutely epic errors, but it has made it almost impossible to have them corrected. Small matters rarely attract enough interest to justify the effort, meaning the toxic culture of edit war first seek forgiveness later has only got worse.
Actual consensus is when a group interprets and implements an idea collectively and eventually reaches a mostly-coherent shared understanding through mutual respect, interactions, and civil discussion. Libertarian "consensus" is when one person decides the outcome and everyone who disagrees is banned.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

Dr Mario
Sucks
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

Post by Dr Mario » Fri Aug 04, 2023 6:35 pm

Boink Boink wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:47 am
(with the caveat that Wikipedia has FAR greater issues than merely problematic policies).....

WP:RS

Wikipedia editors long ago stopped caring about what actually makes a source reliable, and instead just started using this policy as cover for enforcing their biases.
Not only that but its funny that website that claims this policy is completly banned from being cited in an high school and academy work. What source is relable? Thats good question there plenty of ways to check this but wikipedia does non of that as we known. I think all articles on wikipedia should be "cn". and then external links at the bottomn of article instead of current jargon of a system.
WP:NPOV

In the space of a decade this went from being one of Wikipedia's most important policies to the most widely misunderstood. Virtually all established/experienced/unblockable editors now openly edit toward a specific POV, entrenched conflict between them is now the norm on controversial articles, meaning protection and sanctions are the norm. Quite bizarrely, nobody on Wikipedia even seems to remember that these used to be considered a bad thing.
So Wikipedia has regressed on this front over the years? who would have thought :o when the website and WPF s built on such a shaky grounds to begin with. Anyone can now it seems take POV on any topic they like as long as none admin disagree with them. So list articles whic you would have thought were save NPOV haven aren't so save after all. So I can see why this WP policy conflicts/overlaps with WP:CONSENSOUS
WP:NOT

Wildly inconsistent, a pretty clear sign that no Wikipedia editor has a fucking clue what Wikipedia is meant to be or what it is really for.
The the previous NPOV policy basically nullifies this one, so no surprise nobody knows what wikipedia is for other than making the bucks for Mr Jimmbo/Jimmy Wales and his cronies. This policy is clearly the unwanted stepchild of WP:NPOV and WP:CONCENSUS
WP:COI

It's been obvious for years that subjects of Wikipedia articles have very little to gain and everything to lose from engaging with Wikipedia in the way they recommend. It's been obvious for years that most Wikipedia editors prefer subjects to stay away entirely.
I suspect, lots of these subjects would be happy to sue WPF if section 230 was reappealed (and similar in other countries?).
WP:ADMIN

Hasn't been enforced or enforceable for years. The idea Administrators are held to a higher standard is truly laughable. You're lucky if you find an Administrator who is capable of meeting even the basic standard. They practically flaunt their untouchability, most no longer even recognising when they are abusing their power, and probably wouldn't care even if they did.

This policy is clearly PR bullshit by WPF as Many admins suffer from the Napoleon complex majority (all?) current wikipedia admis deserve a global ban for abuse of power.
WP:CIVIL

Exists on paper only. Only ever invoked to justify the warped idea that the best way to deal with an asshole editor, is to keep away from them. Keep your head down and don't make a fuss. It is basically a wife beater's charter.
Another bullshit PR policy, this policy in reality depends on whether an editor is unlucky to run into another editor that has diffrent POV and which side of that edit war an admin takes. Only hope here for this to work in most part is for one editor to hope nobody else pay attention to what they are doing, when they are doing it.
WP:BLOCK

Might as well not exist. Reasons for blocks are barely explained nowadays, instant no warning blocks and catch all excuses like NOTHERE are now the norm, appeals are routinely rejected for bullshit reasons, and the entire process now features exceptionally high levels of incompetence.
Obviously a PR policy which depends on the admin policy and we know many admisns should be subject of these same blocks they are imposing for incompetence
WP:CONSENSUS

Needs a radical overhaul. Voting is now the norm for any large debate. In medium sized matters, lies and disruption are more effective than ever, ensuring a minority can easily defeat a majority. Administrators are now so unsure of how to weigh consensus, they shy away from making big calls unless they can share blame among three or more of their number. Incredibly, this has not prevented some absolutely epic errors, but it has made it almost impossible to have them corrected. Small matters rarely attract enough interest to justify the effort, meaning the toxic culture of edit war first seek forgiveness later has only got worse.
This clearly overlaps/conflicts with WP:NPOV. No wonder Wikipedia is now so lost in its own burerocracy which will make any one sane who looks under the hood wonder if Wikipedia is Even an Encylopedia

Post Reply