May
11
Wikipedia equals Fail - Death to the Open Encyclopedia
It’s amazing to think that just about ‘anyone’ can write an article about ‘anybody’ or ‘anything’ on Wikipedia.
Is it just me, or does that concept seem faulty at best? The only advantage of this system is that masses of information can be quickly written and updated - but that does not necessarily mean that the people editing or administering this website are so-called ‘experts’ in the fields they are editing.
The Wikipedia system, although extremely popular at the moment has the word FAIL written all over it. I argue that it is a good place for reference, but people MUST remember (and must not forget) to take the articles posted there very lightly.
While I believe in the various tenements of democratic principle, I also think that people left to their own devices will often come to the wrong Pavlovian responses and conclusions. People by nature congregate around what they perceive to be as facts. And what is even scarier is that people tend to believe what they see being written or reported.
In order to ‘resolve’ what inaccuracies the general public can introduce into Wikipedia, Wikipedia nominates administrators. Unfortunately, these administrators are STILL NOT experts - if you ever followed the back pages of Wikipedia administration (for which most of it is clearly visible through logging in, hunting and pecking around), you will encounter a very biased, nepotistic environment in which these admins are chatting about personal lives - attending parties, social events, and what-not. This is the ‘User’ or ‘Talk’ section of Wikipedia - the back-end to its mechanical inner-workings.
In my opinion, these administrators are in NO position to be monitoring each other or nominating others. It’s hard to elect a fair, unbiased party of ‘administrators’ that are impartial to judgement or the opinions of others in such an incestuous atmosphere.
Wikipedia does ‘implement’ guidelines, but I will discuss that in a moment.
To add to the reasons why the concept of Wikipedia fails, people (these editors in particular) generally are ‘fat, dumb, and happy’ for a couple of reasons:
- They follow group mentality and group beliefs.
- They don’t objectively find out facts for themselves.
A few years ago when Wikipedia first started, I posted some articles about myself for three main reasons:
- I was getting asked for interviews due to the field that I am in.
- Just general information - there’s a lot of incorrect information on the web about people and I thought this would help put an end to incorrect topics relating to my work.
- Rankings. I’m not going to lie - part of my motivation was to increase rankings within Google. Google views Wikipedia (fail) as a high ranking ‘authority website’ which means any link from Wikipedia, boosts the importance of those linked websites and your ranking increases.
I couldn’t have been more wrong about #2.
- Within a matter of a day the article which I had written about myself was rewritten by somebody else. WTF.
- Within a few days of that, somebody else changed that article. Double WTF.
- Someone eventually introduced improper grammar into the article. Please note: I know this particular website is full of improper grammar and badly formatted - I’m just rushing through writing posts here. But a little background about myself, I have worked in the editorial departments of some of the world’s largest and most famous publishing groups. And when it comes times to make an article ‘nice and pretty’, I can deliver that if so desired I just have better things to do most of the time.
- Several years later, the original article I wrote about myself morphed into a former shell of the original self. It was still recognizable, but words became completely twisted around. I wish I had saved copies for comparison.
Now recently, there seems to be some major activity going on behind Wikipedia. I’m seeing a large influx of deletions and changes within their topics. In particular, the article I had written about myself was deleted. You may ask why this was deleted? The reasoning was:
- Person is not notable.
- No references from an encyclopedia to this individual.
Let’s address #1. Person is not notable. F** You. Okay - I can live with the concept that I am not famous, but I do have a long line of contributions in my field. I’m not bragging. I am not showing off. I am just stating the obvious in my line of work. Chances are that you haven’t heard of me and that’s fine. But who and what determines ‘what’ is notable?
If you do a search for any movie star in Hollywood (and I’m not comparing myself to someone famous - famous being a completely objective/relative term), I am sure they have an article written about them. How is their body of work any more ‘notable’ than the rest of us? Is Britney Spears (listed in Wikipedia) any more important/notable to our daily lives? Does she add any true value to society? Hell no you fool. You may ‘think’ she does add something to your life, but I argue that she’s truly impertinent and inconsequential.
And if you do think her or the Olsen Twins is important to your lives (in the off-chance they aren’t family members), then you’ve got some bigger, much more deeply-seated psychological issues to contend with. Check yourself into your local hospital ASAP.
Perhaps Britney is notable in the sense that she is considered ‘famous.’ Perhaps that is good enough reason to list celebrities on Wikipedia. Fame however, should not be an indicator of whether somebody is worth listing in my opinion.
In a nutshell, these ‘famous’ people do absolutely nothing for us unless they’ve done something miraculous or profound to alter the trajectory of our lives in a lasting method. But who are we to judge that - and who the hell are these loser editors over at Wikipedia to judge that?
Let’s address #2. No references from an encyclopedia to this individual. Gee whiz. I think the folk over at Wikipedia should just simply cut and paste the articles they find in Brittanica and call it a day. this clause is a self-defeating concept, and a way out of a ‘tight spot.’ Isn’t the point of this online encyclopedia to be more informative than what is currently out there in traditionally published encyclopedias??? If I had to turn back over to Brittanica every time I edited an article, nothing new would be written.
If I have a recommendation for any of the search engines out there trying to do the right thing, take Wikipedia and burn it into the ground. Give it very little authority.
Yes, I am a little hurt that someone called me a nobody. It’s also funny and ironic how when I marked one of their own editors as ‘not notable’, all hell broke loose.
Wikipedia equals fail.
I should also probably add - I’m not so much ‘angry’ with the Wikipedians, but I do find their efforts rather foolish, ultimately deceitful, and useless. It cannot be trusted.
Support the ‘I hate Wikipedia Campaign’ by signing below.
(4 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
June 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Wikipedia is the playground of Wikipedia Administrators and Sysops. There are multitudes of ‘mathematical’ articles that are incorrect or biased. Would it surprise you to know the Wikipedia illuminati is comprised of several prominent Jews in the administration of mathematics and scientific articles? As a result, the articles are incorrect, biased and slanted according to the perspective of this group of editors. As one reviewer stated, everyone should read Wikipedia but do not believe anything you read if it is not confirmed by other reliable sources. Unfortunately, too many stupid people accept what Wikipedia publishes as absolute truth, so there will be an abundance of sites that say the same thing as Wikipedia. One simply can’t be too careful.
December 24th, 2008 at 5:02 am
Wikipedia is the “blanket” of insecure people because they have something to toil about and make themselves anonymously famous.
December 24th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Have youread there is such thing as unencyclopedia (?) and it’s funny but i don’t know if their target is to make fun of wikipedia. Well, I think it is…
You are correct with your idea to inform everyone to hate wikipedia. I copied this in one talk wikipedia pages and here is it… at the end the abusive editor said sorry behind the lines but it was not reflected here:
_________________________________________________________________________________
In fact, the vanity of wikipedia editors (like you) can already be felt unconscious on their(your) part while the other party is suffering from hypertension because of such stresses. If there are health related reasons done by editors of Wikipedia to their clients this has to be voiced out worldwide through the net. Better Quality Management has to be practised! Your posted warning images are terrifyingand demeaning. How about your being a Croatian- Singaporean-German? Does that exempt you! You ought not receive the benefits of the discoveries that ABI awardees are given plus your flock as well as your future generation. Wikipedia must establish a quality control management in dealing with clients that includes the younger generation and the adults. It seems that this wikipedia bruhaha is only for warring girls and boys! It has no right trail to follow and no ethics to observe. Automatically “here is for you… you idiot” thing. We are not learning anything here when it comes to ethical values. Instead of making the insult and all your surprising “stupid gimmicks” why don’t you help in editing the text… if you are really capable of doing it. That solves the problem. Why talk, talk, talk and here’s for you! As change is the motto of the new President of the USA, I wish that he will look into this problem as Wikipedia is US based. The US is very much concerned about Human Rights and Values World wide, Wikipedia through her editors is not. I think its time to change the President of Wikipedia… an honorable black one will be good. But the outgoing has to be audited for the millions and for human rights violations due to mismanagement of Wikipedia. These are SOPs, isn’t it? I hope that the part of the donation which is now in millions that Wikipedia has received will be devoted to changing your rules and infrastructure so both parties will have harmony and better quality management not the warring kind.
XXXXXXX are you sending me new messages? How come that when I open the discussion page of XXX there is this post that says I have a new message! What are you trying to insinuate. I cannot find one here. Are you playing bad games with me? You editors, you are already of age and you know what respect is . I think you can also be tried in courts by all your clients that you have terribly insulted. I don’t think the “customer is always right” is working here. Harassment has started in the US as a law and other countries have adapted it. Don’t tell me that Wikipedia editors are exempted!
Because they are anonymous so they can do it. I think this will be one of the changes that Wikipedia will undertake! I saw in TV in the USA a company that mentions about specific killer genes. Once thrown in public/crowd the individual that will be killed or be badly damaged is the individual where this specific killer gene was specifically tailored for and the rest of the people will not be affected. With all these advances in science in individual specific targeting, can we not reveal the names and true identity of these abusive anonymous wikipedia editors? I am sure it is always possible!
Why do you have to remain anonymous? How can you use that experience with Wikipedia in case you look for a job or apply at schools or go abroad. People will doubt about you. You may be loyal in your work but your employer is not sure of your credentials especially if he got information that you were once connected with the wikipedia business–e.g. he may think you are “biting” when his back is turned, etc. I think it is much better if intelligience agencies by governments like the USA, will penetrate the wikipedia internal system and identify people practising human rights violation and release their immigration histories for their identification and inform port of entries locally and abroad of their presence. They can even do collaborative work with child molesters internationally, how about these wikipedia editors practising harassments (this come in various forms). They need to be Tagged! Be considered as the Most Wanted in this category.
I just read the so many web sites condoning wikipedia even child pornography. I would suggest that someone will boldly create a web site where a list of Wikipedia editors who practised harassment online as well as violators of human rights will be made available worldwide. And for the faults done by Amatulic it must be graded to what extent did amatulic did that blunder but it does not exempt her to be included in the proposed web site. She has to be included there.
I hope that there will come a time that educational institutions, for most don’t believe in the accuracy of the information as discussed in the internet and media worldwide or if there are verifiable ones, they are just duplicates of what were taken from outstanding newspapers as well governments worldwide will condone the immorality and the human rights violations of wikipedia so it will no longer function. Even sponsors of this “kind”(as decribed above) of wikipedia will also be charged… isn’t it? It’s just like sponsoring something illegal. Are they not aware that Wikipedia (this apply to almost all Wikipedia editors that I suppose are being encountered by anyone. I believe the victims have the same feelings as mine) are trespassing human values and rights. They donot have respect at all. “It’s a chaotic lawless country.”
Being shamed in the net for the worldwide audience carries a big penalty. There is no law that protects behavior. Is there one? Unlike genes. So harassment can come in here. It says there is no personal attack but look at what they are doing at the talk page I felt I am stoned. That is a personal attack! How about throwing stones at you just like what the other countries are doing to their criminals in public parks? This is no joke!
Instead of using the donations in providing a venue to create and support this type of “war”, it could have been much better if the money was provided for the Victims of Katrina!
The knowledge derived from Wikipedia has to be verified by a university professor at least an expert and one still has to spend time going to library in order to complete it. So Wikipedia is not really serving its purpose. It gives fragmented information and it makes the person lazy rather than go to the library and make personal consultations with bonafide experts.
Pre December 25 important statement and reminder
As my pre December 25 statement: It is never a privilege to be a wikipedia user. It creates stresses and violations. Well better try it if you wish! I would suggest to Wikipedia Editors that before you post a warning or stamp your warning sign use the words: Please in your first statement but at the end of your statement don’t forget the word “Sorry”.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:26 am
i agree with you. i had the same problem when i tried to inscribe my media company at wikipedia. we are the market leader for community and town guides in Swizerland. Any dump german so called experts decided to delete my article and made defamation and incompetent notices.
On the other side, the same ppl. composed articles about inconsiderably persons (maybe friends of them) and companies in Germany.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I should add that you are absolutely correct.
To be honest, I still read Wikipedia. You just have to NOT trust it. It is quite amazing that you can’t read about your colleagues who are actually contributing something useful or even beneficial to society, yet you can read about anyone who has had their 5 minutes of fame on some crap television show.
I’m part of a forum that contributes to the 3D industry, yet most of my fellow colleagues will never get recognized on Wikipedia for their efforts because their editors are simply uneducated about the topics (and quick to delete them as they come across them.) Some of these guys (including myself) have created a lot of work for magazines, books, and the movie industry - including the creation of some techniques that have become standard practice within the latest movies in Hollywood.
I’m not bragging, but rather stating a fact.
I not ’supposed’ to write about myself (although nothing currently states on Wikipedia that I couldn’t - however it is frowned upon lol), but some other jackass that doesn’t even really know me can.
Oh well. Wikipedia is heading in the direction of what is currently popular and previously ‘accepted’ - as you have brought up. Much of future history, especially in such an innovative computer age that we currently live in, will be lost due to their own actions, inactions, inabilities, and lack of willingness to do their own research rather than simply hitting the ‘delete’ key. The sad part is that future generations will take the majority of these amazing strides for granted, and the editing of these obsessive compulsive dolts to be held as true.
You would expect Wikipedia to cover and record everything happening within the world as we know it today, but apparently this isn’t their policy. Granted, their system is intended to keep out spam and self-promotion, but as a whole it still fails miserably. Their editorial system lacks proper governing authority and their review process/criteria is nothing but a gigantic popularity contest.
I suppose ‘history’ and ‘notable’ events have always been characterized by highly unusual circumstances. Act dumb enough or do something incredibly idiotic to be on the news (or even Youtube), and you may find yourself listed there along with ‘Kevin Federline’ and ‘Kato Kaelin’.
Better yet, just be a pretty face, smile a lot for the camera, and they will include you. ‘Fame’ is their price of admission.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
LOL. That’s too funny…
May 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Wikipedia is full of ironies or simply put, Wikipedia is an ironic failure. Best thing that Wikipedia can serve is pop culture. Is has more information about show business and pornstars than anything else.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Nicely put.
Wikipedia is one of those things I’ve never used nor seen the point of.. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can add stuff there and people look at it thinking its a correct answer. Bollocks says I.