The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

[adamovicm]

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.

[Ognistysztorm]

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".

[wexter]

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

[Bbb23sucks]

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.

[wexter]

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.

[Boink Boink]

(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.

[Bbb23sucks]

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.

[Dr Mario]

(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 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

[Archer]

Wikipedia Policy Critique - Part 1

The wording and structure of Wikipedia's policy makes it easy for Wikipedia's administration to make end runs around their own rules. It seems as though designed with two goals: (1) To give the reader the impression that Wikipedia's content represents an impartial public consensus and that its administration is public and democratic. (2) To accomplish the former without (or to the least extent possible) granting any specific, concrete rights toward users, or imposing any specific constraints/responsibilities upon authority to that effect. The following is an attempt to elucidate the subversive features of several Wikipedia policies, though it is by no means comprehensive.

Wikipedia:Consensus -

This seems like a surreptitious attempt to manipulate public opinion. Like most of Wikipedia's policy, it goes well out of the way to avoid defining any firm procedure or standard and further qualified, per usual, by quasi-official essays e.g. WP:WCON. However the biggest problems with WP:CONSENSUS are that 1) it's predicated upon the idea that a public consensus can and must exist, and 2) it implies to the reader that Wikipedia is representative of this hypothetical public consensus. Wikipedia claims to be "open", "transparent", "inclusive" and just about every other meaningless buzzword suggestive of public democracy, which they cannot claim outright because it would be an obvious lie. It seems to be written with the intent to convince the reader that Wikipedia's content is a reflection of public consensus, arrived at through fair discourse, critique and deliberation. In reality, disagreements are usually resolved by thuggery. Either you agree with "the consensus" or you'll be accused of "disruption" (or some such thing) and blocked. It does not matter if you actually are disruptive in any objective sense of the word. For this propaganda strategy to work there must appear to be a consensus, so from the administration's point of view dissent is "disruptive". This is likely part of why disagreement and debate - entirely normal behavior and presumably integral to any such process - are treated as a behavioral problem by the in-crowd at Wikipedia. This is possible by way of rhetoric; dispute is metaphorically compared to violence e.g. WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BLUDGEONING and probably a dozen more. Otherwise, it would do just as well to say that "consensus" is often not achievable, that administrators have the final word, and that reader/editor should interpret/edit Wikipedia's content with this in mind - exactly opposite the impression the site (and its corpulent and poorly-written policy) make. Instead of correctly assigning responsibility, Wikipedia's policy administration gaslights the public - "the community", to use their favorite euphemism. I'm sure most do not figure this out until they're blocked.

Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules -

I know of no other organization whose core constitution or policy includes a provision like WP:IAR. No such thing would be necessary in a concise, well-written policy. If an exception to the rules must be made then so be it, but then it would have to be explained and justified, and not casually ignored. WP:IAR sets low expectations and makes it harder to hold the administration to account. This is a common pattern throughout Wikipedia's policy, which frequently undermines or qualifies itself. Admins do not cite WP:IAR when they break the rules, but it confers upon them an implicit benefit of the doubt: they ignored the rules to improve the encyclopedia. Consider the position of an ordinary editor who is trying to show that an admin abused their authority, e.g. a wrongful block. Despite any evidence the editor might furnish, Wikipedia's self-defeating policy makes a farce of the whole thing. WP:IAR is the cherry on top.

[Archer]

Part 2:

Wikipedia:Blocking Policy -

If not the worst document of Wikipedia's policy, WP:BP is firmly in the running. How would you write this page? A fair-minded person might, perhaps, start off with something to the effect of "Blocks may be issued to users who violate policy", followed by a body that documents blockable offenses (with references to policy), the length of blocks that are supposed to be issued, where to report abusive blocks, and so on. Prima facie, the most bizarre feature of this policy document is that it does not appear to contain any such statement. Instead there is considerable emphasis of why blocks are issued, as if the reader is wondering why blocks are useful in the first place - everyone knows why it's useful to block a vandal, for instance - rather than what is expected of them or when users are supposed to be blocked and for how long. It describes the technical aspects of each type of block, but establishes no uniform standard that would make the block length and scope proportional to the offense. The only relevant portion is WP:BLOCKLENGTH, which pays lip service to the idea of proportionality but does not prescribe any specific limits or standards. These omissions seem bizarre only until one understands that Wikipedia's policy seems to be written in such a way that the administration can avoid accountability, at least to the greatest extent possible while appearing superficially fair. Like most of Wikipedia's policy articles, WP:Blocking Policy manages to be severely long yet still entirely non-specific in terms of responsibilities toward users. It avoids any solid, objective standard or commitment that might be cited to unequivocally demonstrate a typical instance of admin abuse vis-a-vis official policy. I could go on, for instance its endorsement of the essay WP:HTBAE, one of many essays that are not flattering enough for Wikipedia to claim officially but treated as de facto policy and frequently cited (more on that topic later) as a rationale for issuing blocks.

The section about unblocking has similar flaws; it avoids defining uniform standards or other concrete responsibilities toward users (but is utterly pedantic about technical details); it provides no means of accountability; it endorses a shitty essay. This section has no shortcut. Anecdotally, I've never seen an unblock request granted without a grovelling admission/apology, regardless of whether the block was justified or not, and never for a user who argues in their own defense. Users with self-respect tend to remain blocked. This is partly a consequence of WP:BP, which is useless mush. A clumsy fix would be limiting the maximum length of a block, but really the proper solution is a rewrite of WP:BP.

Essays in the WP namespace -

In addition to official policy, Wikipedia's WP namespace contains essays. Each essay bears the ridiculous message "This is an essay on [topic]. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." How should a new editor know which essays are merely minority opinions and which are "widespread norms"? Many of these essays read like policy and are cited and enforced as though they were policy. Wikipedia does not official call them policy because many of them would contradict Wikipedia's pretenses of objectivity and public consensus, contradict other essays, or, in some instances, even contradict the official policy itself.

I'll might add more at some other point. Some of this is material I had posted on wikipediocracy, but I've edited it and consolidated here. I was blocked on wikipediocracy, apparently for contradicting 'Zoloft' (https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... &start=350). Surely he knows better than that. I was not dishonest, rude or poorly behaved. Wikipediocracy was reminiscent of Wikipedia itself. Rather depressing.