Wikipedia Sucks!

Ten things you probably didn't know about Wikipedia
Page 3 of 3

Author:  FUCKBOynotT0Day [ Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ten things you probably didn't know about Wikipedia

Hey im new here and I'm looking for a mod named lavrently??

Author:  Abd [ Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ten things you probably didn't know about Wikipedia

Dysklyver wrote:
I think this is good material. I have it on good authority from an admin that "it's all wrong", so I will think about how to expand on the individual points in a convincing manner. I think the format you have put forward here is a little more digestible than the normal more detailed posts on a specific issue. All seems good to me. :)
Well, it is not all balanced, but it is not all wrong, either. There are fundamental problems with the wiki, I will list below, that were enshrined in tradition, policies and guidelines, that probably make it impossible to fix. Each one of these seemed like a good idea at the time.

1. Anonymous editing. Not all that series, if you don't care about user time spent handling all the crap. But:

2. No valuation of user time. So negotiating consensus on an article, if even allowed to happen, can take weeks, with most of the effort actually wasted. This is caused by having no reliable decision-making process, only an adhocracy, with incredibly inefficient appeals, taking massive discussions often to make the simplest of decision, which then create no precedent.

3. I.e., no respect and understanding of traditional forms of organization. If Wikipedia had to pay for labor, even a pittance, it would quickly run into the ground.

4. Anonymous administration. Anonymous means "not responsible." Combine this with administrators circling the wagons to protect admins from non-admins, this creates a massively toxic environment.

5. Unpaid administration. You get what you pay for. Administrators can't make a living with it, they quickly burn out dealing with spammers and POV pushers and start to see everyone as a nuisance.

6. No advertising. Instead, dependence on charity and donations from some very large interests. To make the project reasonably reliable would take professional editoral staff. It could still use volunteers, but high level decisions would be made by professionals, responsible -- and if they don't follow established policies, they lose their job. This is quite what traditional encyclopedias did. It is also what nearly all "reliable sources" do.

7. Great policies that are worthless without reliable enforcement. In fact, there are administrators who have openly defied basic policies, like NPOV, and nothing is done, because they are "useful volunteers." They drive away countless users who run afoul of them, but those are all worthless, "not here to build the encyclopedia." -- but only one piece of it where they actually know something.

8. Failure to engage subject matter experts. I proposed declaring experts as having a COI, which was interpreted as "ban them". Because that is what they do. But anyone with a strong POV, which is common with experts, has a kind of COI, and they should be harnessed to comment on content, suggest sources, validate interpretation of sources as accurate, etc. I was suggesting not allowing experts final say on content, but protecting them from harassment. Instead, the project harasses experts.

9. Not actually owned by the community (which would include readers, not just editors). Rather owned by a nonprofit, ostensibly set up to empower the community to create the project, but these kinds of organizations always end up dominating the community, per the Iron Law of Oligarchy, which is very real and which is why wikis, without protective structure -- which is never set up because it is considered too much trouble when all we need to do is discuss everything and come to consensus, we don't need no effing structure, that the old way, bureaucracy. Later, when it is actually needed, it's too late, the oligarchy is firmly in power and controls access to communication. Better, a for-profit corporation dedicated to creating reliable content for its owners, possibly organized as a cooperative, or even purely for profit, because actual reliability could be a valuable commodity.

10. No interest in how to reform the project to make it fair and reliable and minimize abuse.

So what is missing, the presence of which would make a difference? I used to write about this a lot: two or three people dedicated to making this happen. I now add at least one to that, because this, at least with Wikipedia, is no longer my main interest. But I would be willing to share advice and ideas with anyone who decides to take it on. Wikipedia For Profit could be a billion dollar company.

It would harness the existing project, but sell advertising according to its own standards (one would want the advertising to also be "reliable," and one would want a rigorous separation between advertising sales and content administration, but that is common with some media). It would pay for work on content, but it might pay in credits of some kind, effectively shares. Kind of like Steemit.

I would certainly prefer, for my own use, a reliably complete and neutral encyclopedia, with appropriate advertising, to the ad-free Wikipedia as-it-is and as it is likely to be for the forseeable future. The new project would start as a fork of Wikipedia, and would use Flagged Revisions to create stop-loss efficiently. So it would be "Wikipedia or better." It would use Wikipedia as a basis, but would not be frozen there. It would create real dispute resolution process, building on what is known about how to negotiate high consensus. (at any point, users could compare an article with the Wikipedia article and vote in a standing poll: which is better? discussions could find compromises to maximize the consensus of readers. This process need not be "quick," which is the wiki ideal. but participating in it should be made easy and fun. And it can also be rewarding, that's the Steemit idea.

I have just opened up my own wiki, to anonymous editing, installing Flagged Revisions to inhibit vandalism.. I am using it to build a collaborative project, a who's who of companies and individuals involved in cold fusion research and commercialization, that can be easily updated piecemeal by anyone, subject to approval by an editor with the required permission. We'll see how it goes

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ten things you probably didn't know about Wikipedia

By their own admission, something like only 3% percent of Wikipedia articles have more than ten in-line references, i.e. a citation next to a piece of text you might want verify was not completely made up ("reference" here generously ignoring what the ten references actually are, some or all may not be reliable or secondary) ... =13&t=1171

Completely undercuts any idea Wikipedia is either a great starting point for research, or a fast way to quickly check facts.

Unless.......97% of Wikipedia articles are not needed for that purpose? :?

Author:  Graaf Statler [ Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ten things you probably didn't know about Wikipedia

Let's have a look how this article on the Dutch wikipedia is built up.

Titanic (schip, 1912)

Nice article, isn't it?

The start.

*,_1912)&diff=361702&oldid=351597 (Versie van 19 mrt 2004 om 08:25 (brontekst bekijken)
Chreng (overleg | bijdragen) (doorverwijspagina aanbrengen)

**Doorverwijs pagina? Strange.

*First major edit.,_1912)&diff=next&oldid=494427

One issue user. made a few major edits.

**Not trusted edit.


Only one edit on WP-NL

**Not trusted edit.

The article:,_1912)&oldid=501358

Not bad, isn't it? The article on 22 Sep 2004, 18:16.

P. S. : Tussenkop Chronologie is nog niet afgewerkt. Ik werk er later aan verder.


Yes Ken, but where came the base of this article from? Two one issue anonymous IP addresses. And it is declared free under a CC licence in a country without Fair Use and a extreem strict copyright law. A copyright law what makes the so called copyleft absolute impossible. You can not left copyright in my country, Holland! That is legal impossible!
You can give only you one work for free as you can read here. But who was it who gave this work free? Two one issue complete unknown anonymous persons who even did't had themself registered! I absolute doubt if it was there work because a real writer writes in a complete different style.

As you can see I build the article up with many edits, (For Old times' Sake is a suck puppet of me, just like Graaf Statler and Sir Statler). little by little.

This is fraud! Look here:

Creative Commons wrote:
Creative Commons biedt auteurs, kunstenaars, wetenschappers, docenten en alle andere creatieve makers de vrijheid om op een flexibele manier met hun auteursrechten om te gaan. Met een keuze uit zes (gratis) beschikbare standaardlicenties bepaalt de auteursrechthebbende in welke mate zijn of haar werk verder verspreid mag worden, en onder welke voorwaarden dit mag.

Met een Creative Commons-licentie behoud je al je rechten, maar geef je aan anderen toestemming om je werk te verspreiden, met anderen te delen of bij sommige licenties ook om het werk te bewerken. Het aanbieden van je werk onder een Creative Commons-licentie betekent niet dat je je auteursrechten opgeeft. Zonder een Creative Commons-licentie zou iedereen expliciet toestemming aan je moeten vragen voor elk gebruik van je werk. Met een Creative Commons-licentie kan je in een keer aan iedereen duidelijk maken onder welke voorwaarden ze je werk mogen gebruiken zonder dat er telkens toestemming nodig is.

You are aloud to licence your work, just what I did with my work in the article Yanis Varoufakis, but you can not licence the work of a other! As what happend in the article Titanic. You can licence only your one work. And better should be to do that under your real name. That made it so mean whats Ymnes and Natuur12 did, claiming my work was a copyright violation, later Natuur12 came to the conclusion it was not, but at they end I had a Office Ban. And James Alexander has left! Leaving the others with the chaos! Chatting nicely with Hillary Clinton! The jerk! My work was no copyvio, it never was! But they doxxed me because they thought it was, so stupide are these guys.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group