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-Igorberger-Mediation

Interesting. I agree and disagree with some the comments above. I don’t think Wikipedia or the idea of it is broken, but I do agree that the elitism that pervades the site is despicable. I only have one account, but I don’t feel that editing with multiple accounts — even within the same article — is inherently a bad thing, yet I do see the obvious potential for rampant abuse.

I tend to edit articles that are generally uncontroversial, and I also try to give other users (”editor”, in my opinion, is clearly an inaccurate term for most of Wikipedia’s community) the benefit of the doubt by asking them to cite their claims and such before deleting.

Then again, I rarely edit articles that I care deeply about, and even then I typically edit for grammar and punctuation. I’ve only ever run into a few jerks, but they were Class A elitist morons who felt their years of experience on Wikipedia and their gazillion edits (most made through automated programs) made their opinions more valuable than others. It is also truly difficult to get any form of consensus on a matter when hundreds of users have the ability to opine on subject matter they no little about.

I also agree with Mark that Wikipedia should attempt some housecleaning. Wikipedia could use an accredited editorial board, made up of truly qualified individuals. I’m unsure how that might be achieved, though. I do think users should be made to register to avoid mostly anonymous edits. Assuming spammers and idiots are not spoofing their IP addresses, it’s kind of fun to track someone down and out them…

As with any publicly accessible site (e.g. message or bulletin boards) there will be long-time users who believe they are more important than anyone else by sheer dint of their longevity. For example, Gamefaqs.com is such a site where comments from users with high karma (the point system required for obtaining more access to the site) are sometimes given too much credibility and weight. Sites like these tend to form bizarre, elitist sub-communities - a more recent example for your consideration is Facebook’s Human Pets application.

In closing, I feel Wikipedia is an excellent resource but rife with moronic users probably just having a laugh. Something should be done to make it more accountable, yet if it never happens, I’d still visit the site.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Making multiple accounts is a brute-force method and is strongly discouraged. Sock puppetry is against Wikipedia’s policies and can get your account(s) and IP banned from editing Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia’s Policies and guidelines to get a better view of how Wikipedia works. I hope I was helpful.

I agree that idiots shouldn’t use an open encyclopedia to promote despicable agendas, especially about the holocaust or 9/11. But its going to happen on any non-commercial venture like wikipedia.

And the mob mentality gets to set its own agenda. I think its time to recognize that wikipedia is a broken, unreliable idea.

And who gets to decide who’s “noteworthy” and who’s not? And who gets to decide who writes the article and who doesn’t? Wikipedia is a very noble idea but I get scared when these “editors” get to decide what is and what isn’t noteworthy in the world and then schoolkids get the impression that everything on Wikipedia is 100% correct.

And I’m pretty sure that Wikipedia has a strict “no self promotion” policy. Sure, Google and Yahoo are on it and take part in keeping their articles up to date. But they are imminently more noteworthy than “Jim’s Used Auto Parts,” or whatever client wanted an entry on Wikipedia. If the company is noteworthy enough, someone will write the article.

But you are right about wikipedia being broke for all of these reasons. Until information can be validated as authoritative, along the lines of digital signatures, things on the internet cannot be trusted to be accurate.

I have had multiple accounts with Wikipedia due to the various disputes I have had with editors over various articles on various subjects. Let’s just say I have become rather well known by my usernames. So whenever I have hit an insurmountable wall with them, I have just started a new account and started again. For example, I have edited articles on historical subjects relating to things like the war, the Holocaust and things like that and I have had fierce arguments from people claiming that the events didn’t happen. Crap like that.