, , , ,

A compendium of criticism of Wikipedia from Wikipediocracy.

Really, it seems that only Sue Gardner is unaware of how bad en.Wikipedia is. If you plagiarize from everywhere, but can’t do so accurately, and you write like crap, and you vomit this into cyberspace for it to stay forever; what do you think you are writing?

It’s not an encyclopedia, it’s a mountain of garbage on a playground.

Wikipediocracy, a website critical of en.Wikipedia, recently posted their blog, linked above, about the usual criticisms of Wikipedia. Nothing I’ve said here is new. The editors at Wikipedia know that the Did You Know editors are plagiarizing from sources and making up science to get it quickly to the main page of Wikipedia, and they don’t care. Because, it’s not an encyclopedia, it’s a mountain of garbage being created on a playground.

In honor of Wikipedia, I’ve stolen the Wikipediocracy blog, but rewritten it in my own words to show that it can be done. Still, no one should seriously give me credit for what is written below, but, as usual, should blame me for any problems in it.

And remember,

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Wikipedia content

1. Wikipedia articles are wrong. The editors using the sources can’t read them; the citations aren’t there to verify anything because the information is made up.

2. Administrators and editors are anonymous in addition to often being uneducated children. They use the rules in an arbitrary manner, but usually just to attack anyone who disagrees with their made up information.

3. Pokémon beats science, always.

4. Plagiarism, plagiarism, plagiarism.

5. Google helps Wikipedia spread what they made up. Editors, administrators, and the Wikimedia Foundation argue that the made up factoids on Wikipedia will be corrected; but they don’t care that it is first copied by Wiki mirrors, and never removed from Google after some child editor makes it up and a Wikipedia contest spreads it into cyberspace.

Bureaucracy and Culture

1. Wikipedia is disrespectful of scientists and specialists. The author is generally discussing the fact that Wikipedia does not allow editors to claim credentials. But I don’t think that credentials are necessary; there is never a problem distinguishing expert material from Randy from Boise’s meaningless made up Did You Know science. And the made up science always trumps the expert’s knowledge.

2. It’s easy to write crap and walk away on Wikipedia—anyone can edit, anonymously, then walk away from their bad science, and from any responsibility for permanently uploading that made up science into cyberspace.

3. Wikipedia administrators are an entrenched and ridiculous group who argue with each other and trump each other with little boy declarations of policy.

4a. Policies and procedures are not enforced equally, so no one ever knows what to expect. 

4a. Policies and procedures are not enforced equally, so no one ever knows what to expect.

4a. Policies and procedures are not enforced equally, so no one ever knows what to expect.

4a. The rules are a joke. An insider’s joke.

4b.Administrators and regular editors are frequently given a free ride by the little techno boys in the community. There are warning templates for all sorts of things, but it’s considered impolite to put warning templates for infractions on the talk pages of regulars. Only outsiders may be warned for infractions.

6. ArbCom is such a joke they can’t even support themselves, so most of them quit this year. Few of them even bother to pretend they are part of the community that is supposed to be writing an encyclopedia. If you want to find editors with power who aren’t there to write an encyclopedia, go check out the contributions records of members of ArbCom.

7. The Wikimedia Foundation is Jimmy Wales’ sycophant. So is ArbCom. So are Wikipedia administrators. That’s why it’s not really a community run encyclopedia, or maybe it is, until a friend of Wales wants to Raul a position.