Comments on: The Wikipedia Thought Police http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/ tech, science, news and social issues for geeks Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:56:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Cyberxionhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-281720 Cyberxion Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:42:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-281720 The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that the folks who effectively run the place are too in love with enforcing Wikipedia’s rules to consider that a good deal of them don’t make much sense, or that the rules stifle progress and keep Wikipedia from reaching its full potential. As an example, consider the case of Ian Mortimer, a notable historian who made some edits to an article to address a factual error, only to see those edits reverted by an editor who admitted that he knew nothing about the subject. This editor, who went by the name “Mike Rosoft”, reverted Ian’s edits, not because they were factually incorrect, but because they were based on Ian’s own research, and of course original research is a no-no on Wikipedia. Let’s forget for a moment that all research is original research, and that the only real difference between Ian’s and that which they cited; besides the fact that Ian’s was correct and the cited research was not, was that Ian posted his research on Wikipedia himself. Should that really stand as a reason to dismiss his edits if they’re otherwise sound? Not to my mind. Providing accurate information should be the single most important thing to anyone and everyone who edits Wikipedia. When the rules become more important than the quality of the information that’s presented on Wikipedia, then you might as well close down shop. Sadly, the trend seems to be moving towards favoring the rules over facts, as Ian’s incident isn’t an isolated one. Not by a long shot. Wikipedia was supposed to be the repository for all the world’s knowledge, but between power-mad editors making senseless reverts and Jimbo stupidly leaving it up to the editors to determine what is or isn’t noteworthy, it’s hardly that. Worse still, the information that Wikipedia’s editors have managed to pull together is nigh worthless, because it’s integrity is questionable. Sure they cite their sources, but how can we trust in the value of the information when so often their sources are of questionable worth? More to the point, how are we to know that any of the many folks who edit a given article are authorities on the subject? I recall a noteworthy case involving a Wikipedia editor by the name of Essjay, who faked his credentials in order to pass himself off as an authority on several different subjects, so why should we trust that that an editor really is authority even if they claim to be? There’s just no way for the average Wikipedia user to trust that what he or she reads there is factually accurate, and/or contributed by folks who know what they’re talking about, so the site really isn’t much more than a mild curiosity at best. Wikipedia has a lot of kinks to iron out if it wants to qualify as even a worthwhile encyclopedia, much less as the repository for all the world’s knowledge. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that the folks who effectively run the place are too in love with enforcing Wikipedia’s rules to consider that a good deal of them don’t make much sense, or that the rules stifle progress and keep Wikipedia from reaching its full potential. As an example, consider the case of Ian Mortimer, a notable historian who made some edits to an article to address a factual error, only to see those edits reverted by an editor who admitted that he knew nothing about the subject. This editor, who went by the name “Mike Rosoft”, reverted Ian’s edits, not because they were factually incorrect, but because they were based on Ian’s own research, and of course original research is a no-no on Wikipedia. Let’s forget for a moment that all research is original research, and that the only real difference between Ian’s and that which they cited; besides the fact that Ian’s was correct and the cited research was not, was that Ian posted his research on Wikipedia himself. Should that really stand as a reason to dismiss his edits if they’re otherwise sound? Not to my mind. Providing accurate information should be the single most important thing to anyone and everyone who edits Wikipedia. When the rules become more important than the quality of the information that’s presented on Wikipedia, then you might as well close down shop. Sadly, the trend seems to be moving towards favoring the rules over facts, as Ian’s incident isn’t an isolated one. Not by a long shot.

Wikipedia was supposed to be the repository for all the world’s knowledge, but between power-mad editors making senseless reverts and Jimbo stupidly leaving it up to the editors to determine what is or isn’t noteworthy, it’s hardly that. Worse still, the information that Wikipedia’s editors have managed to pull together is nigh worthless, because it’s integrity is questionable. Sure they cite their sources, but how can we trust in the value of the information when so often their sources are of questionable worth? More to the point, how are we to know that any of the many folks who edit a given article are authorities on the subject? I recall a noteworthy case involving a Wikipedia editor by the name of Essjay, who faked his credentials in order to pass himself off as an authority on several different subjects, so why should we trust that that an editor really is authority even if they claim to be? There’s just no way for the average Wikipedia user to trust that what he or she reads there is factually accurate, and/or contributed by folks who know what they’re talking about, so the site really isn’t much more than a mild curiosity at best. Wikipedia has a lot of kinks to iron out if it wants to qualify as even a worthwhile encyclopedia, much less as the repository for all the world’s knowledge.

]]> By: Teahttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-147444 Tea Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:10:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-147444 Far too many wiki users are simply obnoxious megalomaniacs lording over their pet article. There is no point io complaining, as the proceedure is useless and the whole site basically plagaries the rest of the internet and spams googles results. I wish it would die, preferably ruining the frontal cortexes of its users at the same time. It would she humanity of many rude and unpleasant people. Far too many wiki users are simply obnoxious megalomaniacs lording over their pet article. There is no point io complaining, as the proceedure is useless and the whole site basically plagaries the rest of the internet and spams googles results.

I wish it would die, preferably ruining the frontal cortexes of its users at the same time. It would she humanity of many rude and unpleasant people.

]]> By: Teahttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-266148 Tea Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:10:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-266148 Far too many wiki users are simply obnoxious megalomaniacs lording over their pet article. There is no point io complaining, as the proceedure is useless and the whole site basically plagaries the rest of the internet and spams googles results.I wish it would die, preferably ruining the frontal cortexes of its users at the same time. It would she humanity of many rude and unpleasant people. Far too many wiki users are simply obnoxious megalomaniacs lording over their pet article. There is no point io complaining, as the proceedure is useless and the whole site basically plagaries the rest of the internet and spams googles results.

I wish it would die, preferably ruining the frontal cortexes of its users at the same time. It would she humanity of many rude and unpleasant people.

]]> By: Lang Uagehttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-72567 Lang Uage Mon, 26 May 2008 13:36:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-72567 Wikipedia is full of a bunch of fascist pigs. They fish for people's ip address who don't agree with them and accuse people of sockpuppetry without much evidence. I have a dynamic ip address, which randomly changes every other day or so. They told me that my ip was associated with someone else. I have no clue who this other person is but they still believe that i was using a sockpuppet. They have the most ridiculous phrases and the worst company culture. They banned an old ip I was using. The next day my ip updated. I have a completely new ip now and I'm free to do whatever I choose with a new ip. I could go and create a new wikipedia user b/c they banned a dynamic ip address, which makes no sense. I told them that they probably inadvertently banned any luckless person who happened upon that old ip. If someone in my network area just happens to pop up with that ip then they're out of luck. They don't care and they don't believe me. So oh well. Wikipedia is full of a bunch of fascist pigs. They fish for people's ip address who don't agree with them and accuse people of sockpuppetry without much evidence. I have a dynamic ip address, which randomly changes every other day or so. They told me that my ip was associated with someone else. I have no clue who this other person is but they still believe that i was using a sockpuppet.

They have the most ridiculous phrases and the worst company culture.

They banned an old ip I was using. The next day my ip updated. I have a completely new ip now and I'm free to do whatever I choose with a new ip. I could go and create a new wikipedia user b/c they banned a dynamic ip address, which makes no sense.

I told them that they probably inadvertently banned any luckless person who happened upon that old ip. If someone in my network area just happens to pop up with that ip then they're out of luck. They don't care and they don't believe me. So oh well.

]]> By: Lang Uagehttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-266146 Lang Uage Mon, 26 May 2008 13:36:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-266146 Wikipedia is full of a bunch of fascist pigs. They fish for people's ip address who don't agree with them and accuse people of sockpuppetry without much evidence. I have a dynamic ip address, which randomly changes every other day or so. They told me that my ip was associated with someone else. I have no clue who this other person is but they still believe that i was using a sockpuppet.They have the most ridiculous phrases and the worst company culture.They banned an old ip I was using. The next day my ip updated. I have a completely new ip now and I'm free to do whatever I choose with a new ip. I could go and create a new wikipedia user b/c they banned a dynamic ip address, which makes no sense.I told them that they probably inadvertently banned any luckless person who happened upon that old ip. If someone in my network area just happens to pop up with that ip then they're out of luck. They don't care and they don't believe me. So oh well. Wikipedia is full of a bunch of fascist pigs. They fish for people’s ip address who don’t agree with them and accuse people of sockpuppetry without much evidence. I have a dynamic ip address, which randomly changes every other day or so. They told me that my ip was associated with someone else. I have no clue who this other person is but they still believe that i was using a sockpuppet.

They have the most ridiculous phrases and the worst company culture.

They banned an old ip I was using. The next day my ip updated. I have a completely new ip now and I’m free to do whatever I choose with a new ip. I could go and create a new wikipedia user b/c they banned a dynamic ip address, which makes no sense.

I told them that they probably inadvertently banned any luckless person who happened upon that old ip. If someone in my network area just happens to pop up with that ip then they’re out of luck. They don’t care and they don’t believe me. So oh well.

]]> By: Lang Uagehttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-266147 Lang Uage Mon, 26 May 2008 13:36:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-266147 Wikipedia is full of a bunch of fascist pigs. They fish for people's ip address who don't agree with them and accuse people of sockpuppetry without much evidence. I have a dynamic ip address, which randomly changes every other day or so. They told me that my ip was associated with someone else. I have no clue who this other person is but they still believe that i was using a sockpuppet.They have the most ridiculous phrases and the worst company culture.They banned an old ip I was using. The next day my ip updated. I have a completely new ip now and I'm free to do whatever I choose with a new ip. I could go and create a new wikipedia user b/c they banned a dynamic ip address, which makes no sense.I told them that they probably inadvertently banned any luckless person who happened upon that old ip. If someone in my network area just happens to pop up with that ip then they're out of luck. They don't care and they don't believe me. So oh well. Wikipedia is full of a bunch of fascist pigs. They fish for people’s ip address who don’t agree with them and accuse people of sockpuppetry without much evidence. I have a dynamic ip address, which randomly changes every other day or so. They told me that my ip was associated with someone else. I have no clue who this other person is but they still believe that i was using a sockpuppet.

They have the most ridiculous phrases and the worst company culture.

They banned an old ip I was using. The next day my ip updated. I have a completely new ip now and I’m free to do whatever I choose with a new ip. I could go and create a new wikipedia user b/c they banned a dynamic ip address, which makes no sense.

I told them that they probably inadvertently banned any luckless person who happened upon that old ip. If someone in my network area just happens to pop up with that ip then they’re out of luck. They don’t care and they don’t believe me. So oh well.

]]> By: Mark O'Neillhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-68925 Mark O'Neill Fri, 16 May 2008 15:39:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-68925 Well what can I do? Break the non-disclosure agreement and damage my credibility even more? I don't think so. Well what can I do? Break the non-disclosure agreement and damage my credibility even more? I don't think so.

]]> By: Mark O'Neillhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-266145 Mark O'Neill Fri, 16 May 2008 15:39:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-266145 Well what can I do? Break the non-disclosure agreement and damage my credibility even more? I don't think so. Well what can I do? Break the non-disclosure agreement and damage my credibility even more? I don’t think so.

]]> By: Johnhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-68913 John Fri, 16 May 2008 14:43:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-68913 It might not be revlevant to your article, but it is to your credibility. It might not be revlevant to your article, but it is to your credibility.

]]> By: Johnhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-266144 John Fri, 16 May 2008 14:43:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-266144 It might not be revlevant to your article, but it is to your credibility. It might not be revlevant to your article, but it is to your credibility.

]]> By: Igor The Trollhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-266143 Igor The Troll Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-266143 Hi Mark! As an editor at Wikipedia, my post illuminates the Dark Side of Wikipedia! <a href="http://www.igorthetroll.com/blog/wikipedia-igorberger-mediation/" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia-Igorberger-Mediation</a> Hi Mark! As an editor at Wikipedia, my post illuminates the Dark Side of Wikipedia!

Wikipedia-Igorberger-Mediation

]]> By: Igor The Trollhttp://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/26/the-wikipedia-thought-police/#comment-66401 Igor The Troll Mon, 05 May 2008 16:00:46 +0000 http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2453#comment-66401 Hi Mark! As an editor at Wikipedia, my post illuminates the Dark Side of Wikipedia! <a href="http://www.igorthetroll.com/blog/wikipedia-igorberger-mediation/" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia-Igorberger-Mediation</a> Hi Mark! As an editor at Wikipedia, my post illuminates the Dark Side of Wikipedia!

Wikipedia-Igorberger-Mediation

]]>