Wikipedia Sucks | “Apparently we would all die without Wikipedia so we should give them all our money”
Caption & Image from Encyclopedia Dramatica
* * *
* Part 2 post is on how and why “Wikipedia Notability Sucks.”
I’ve noticed Wiki admins become increasingly rude and aggressive towards other well-meaning (“lowly”) “members-of-the-public” (who do not have “admin” status on Wikipedia). My tolerance level is quite low when it comes to ignorance + arrogance, so here’s another rant.
You know what I’m talking about, if you’ve ever tried editing any Wiki pages. If you have not, please do not bother wasting your time, because your goodly intentions are likely to be flagged by an ego-tripping admin for utterly lame excuses. Such reasons given include…
* “Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam.”
* “A collection of external links per WP:NOT.”
Why should a page be deleted because of external links, which are deduced as “spam,” just because they are “external links”? Pages get deleted because of external links that people do find useful. I know because I have edited some dragon pages a few years ago. I added a few links, which point to specific and related pages on my dragon website, which is a dragon information resource site. I also pointed to some other pages on other dragon websites, which were well-written and well-researched. My links were always removed, because the websites were “dragon fansites,” and not by scholars/etc. Never mind the references and what-not that were included on my and the other dragon websites. All of that didn’t matter because “the links were not worthy of encyclopedic standard.”
Wikipedia’s notability/verifiability/self-published sources guidelines are something I find very irksome (and the words “presumed to” hints at a “lame excuse” alert).
Point #1: “A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right.” — Wikipedia:Notability
Point #2: “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” — Wikipedia:Verifiability; Self-published Sources
Interesting Point #1: Isn’t Wikipedia based on the model of self-publishing? Why is an admin granted power? Why are the opinions that they impose upon others more “credible,” when there is no definite way to prove that the admins are credible sources themselves (and yes, according to Wiki’s own guidelines!)?
Interesting Point #2: An indie band or indie writer (anyone/anything independent) could achieve immense success, and contribute immensely valuable and innovative products to society, yet never be considered “notable” enough, because they haven’t been “extensively covered” by the mainstream media. Why should an immensely popular/influential, widely-read and highly-regarded blogger have less power/credibility today, as compared to a journalist who graduated from (insert elitist big name school), and is now working for (insert big name news company / keep in mind that newspapers are going out of business too)?
An indie band/writer could sell a million copies, and still not be on Wiki, and be regarded as “not notable,” as compared to a mainstream band or writer who sold 2,000 copies. In the latter’s case, what matters is that “he/she/they were published!” or “picked up by a major label!” and were therefore “verified by an “authority source!” Which brings us back to the whole bureaucratic shit.
With regards to artistes, the Wiki admins consider notable people to be people that have been either picked up by a major recording label, or publishing house (with regards to musicians, and writers). If you’re not known by the masses, you can’t cut it on Wikipedia. It is completely and conveniently swept under the carpet that the very concept and model of Wikipedia is based on self-publishing. Hypocritical, no?
I have seen Wiki admins suggest to non-admins to “lobby for consensus,” if they want to make suggestions to the existing rules of the site. That’s not going to work when the majority of the admins are not open to change anyway (which would stop them from their power-tripping).
There are many people who have experienced similar distasteful outcomes with self-righteous, egotistical-maniacal “Wikipedia Admins” (like that means anything in the real world — as in, do Wikipedian “awards” and “badges” translate into any honors on a resume?). Here are a few enlightening comments below (some of the external links on the pages below might have content/images NSFW):
In other words, here are some examples of the fine opinions/media coverage that Wiki has been generating for itself.
“The People’s Communist Republic of Wikipedia,” commonly shortened to simply Wikipedia, is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game in which participants play editors of a hypothetical online encyclopedia. — Bureaucratic Fuck, 10 November 2010
Albert Einstein could come back from the dead and post a few paragraphs about particle physics — and it would be deleted by a bunch of college kids and other losers who have a lot of time on their hands who have finally managed to grasp what they imagine is power — an “admin” on wiki or whatever their power titles are. Things will change soon enough, professional editing is coming. — user comment, 6 September 2009
Wikipedia is bullshit. It’s run by a ring of self indulging zealots worldwide (who knows how they even got their power to begin with). True, it’s the “encyclopedia” (in quotes due to laughability of wikipedia) that “everyone can edit” — but not everyone can contribute to equally. Trust me, if your edits don’t satisfy the moderators and their extremely pedantic and overall worthless personas, they will be removed within minutes. Oh, and fuck all of the wiki fanbois who will constantly link you to wiki articles as if they have more value than graffiti on a derelict building. The world’s becoming full of idiots and wikipedia has become a hub for these narcissistic fucks they call administrators. — user comment, 3 November 2009
I think Wikipedia was a great concept — but what’s going on with (a lot of) the admins is abuse of power. Isn’t the concept of “Wikipedia Admins” a little hypocritical too, if this is supposed to be an open-concept kind of encyclopedia which “anyone can edit”? Admins can and should be around to delete obvious, blatant spam, and information that is inaccurate. But to have admins serving their own interests at the expense of others = abuse of power.
Which = a serious loss of credibility for Wikipedia (in this particular case).
Interesting Point #3: Elonka Dunin, one of the “Top 250″ editors of Wikipedia, has written an entire Wikipedia page promoting herself.
Do her accomplishments really denote “NOTABILITY” according to Wiki’s guidelines? (I put “notability” in caps because it’s something the Wiki Admins seem to get very defensive about.) Isn’t it against the Wiki guidelines to “self-promote”? As I excerpted in the blockquoted Point #1 above, self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources — so why is Ms. Elonka Dunin’s personal website allowed to be included as one of the reference links on her page? Why has this not been deleted, when other external links on other pages have been, because they point to “self-published media”?
Message to Jimmy Wales/Wikipedia founder –
“WHAT’S GOING ON WITH WIKIPEDIA?”
Is this what Wikipedia was meant to be? I don’t think so.
Then again, I’m not the founder and/or one of the admins with some weird agenda/insecurity complex to feed.
* * *
External Links / More Info (feel free to include any related links in the comments below; I will try to add them to the list here):
Bureaucratic Fucks @ Wikipedia
Why Wikipedia Sucks (Dotcult.com)
Why Wikipedia Sucks (Smoblogger.com)
Yahoo Answers: Why does Wikipedia suck so much?
Why I Really Hate Wikipedia Administrators, Part I (by deathgleaner)
Why I Really Hate Wikipedia Administrators, Part II (by deathgleaner) (click here to see ignorance/arrogance of some Wiki admins!)
Is Wikipedia Corrupt? (SiteProNews.com)
Ban Wikipedia — http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-wikipedia/
November 16th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Wikipedia would be flooded with spam by companies looking to self-promote if not for the regulations. I agree that they’re overbearing and the admins could be more polite, but the alternative is yet another pointless website. Good on Wikipedia for trying to be credible.
November 16th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
The problem is the Wikipedia Admins, not Wikipedia itself (i.e. human nature, lol).
There’s a difference between regulations, and abuse of power. If Wikipedia wanted to be truly credible, there needs to be greater/more stringent regulations for the administrators who police the site.
November 16th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
True, true. I guess they’re just possessive.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:29 am
By the way, I really enjoyed reading this.
November 17th, 2010 at 5:35 am
Thank you so much for mentioning one, no TWO, of my posts! I’m glad you’re helping me spread the word.
PS: The name is deathgleaner, not Death Gleaner *hint hint* edit post *hint hint*
November 17th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
@ deathgleaner: ok, just updated ^^ — i’ll link to your “part 2″ post if i have a “part 2″ post in future too. i sent a summary of this blog post to Mr. Jimmy Wales (Wiki founder), and his reply to one of the points was (exact words): “I have no opinion about the notability of Elonka Dunin.” his reply seemed to give me the exact, same runaround as the Wiki admins do when people question their moves/motives (monkey see, monkey do).
that’s a really sycophantic/spineless/no-backbone kind of answer (“no opinion” is an okay answer if the query is obviously a stupid one — but i don’t think the points brought up were invalid). Wikipedia takes the ideology of neutrality to a whole new (twisted and misguided) level, lol.
@ Pete: glad you enjoyed the read — i look forward to reading more of the Wiki founder’s views/opinions (i sent him a summary of this blog post, with the subject line: “Query: What’s Going On With Wikipedia?”).
he gave me the runaround with “what i seem to have overlooked,” so i gave him the runaround right back with the other side of things he seems to be overlooking. i don’t think i’m going to get any more replies though. but i might still put the correspondence up online, because it is an accurate reflection of the Wiki guidelines which the over-zealous admins so closely (and anal-retentively) adhere to.
November 19th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
[...] * Part 1 post is on how and why “Wikipedia Sucks.” [...]
March 1st, 2011 at 3:07 pm
My experience with wikipedia is that if the admins, and the majority of other editors working on an article have something against the topic then they will be vigilant and even abusive towards you. Even to the point of looking up your personal information and using other information they’ve found on the net against you. Yep, Wikipedia sucks.
March 2nd, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Hi Xen,
I know! It’s a great pity that members of the public are largely unaware of how the admins operate (I presume that many Wiki visitors read the articles, without editing any of the content). The vast majority of admins I’ve seen tend to be that way (vigilant + abusive) — those that aren’t are either “quieter” on Wikipedia, or less active on the website.
More people will be aware of the Wiki admins’ various shenanigans, in time — hopefully ^^.