Forum:Any complaints about Wikipedia?

From Wikinfo

Contents 1 cyber-bullies 2 Priorities 3 The Great Image Purge of 2008 4 Reliability of Wikipedia 5 Allegations of extreme bias 6 Rampant Deletionism 7 Conflict of interest

cyber-bullies

I think this is becoming a serious problem on wikipedia but not one that the administration have any wish to address. Groups of users now patrol wikipedia trying to enforce their wills on everyone else. They venomously and vindictively attack qualified contributors and deliberately hound them off the wiki for their own self satisfaction. If anyone accuses these people of bullying then they are blocked (often indefinitely). Anyone disagreeing with their viewpoint is labelled a spammer. They then attack anyone posting from the same IP address. It's a very unpleasant atmosphere and I was so glad to find this wiki to post to instead. It's madness over on wikipedia but I get the impression the nutters are running things.Ejn21 19:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

They don't run things, but can get away with a lot. This is actually nothing new. That was one reason Wikinfo was started. Fred 00:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, what's use of this forum? Does it draw any attention of the Wikipedia upper level administration?

--NovaNova 21:55, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

It is as likely to criticize them for being too lenient as for being too strict. Fred 23:17, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Priorities

Episodes of minor TV series are given long articles - but real-life topics are ignored or deleted - eg the stub I started on AIM25 [www.aim25.ac.uk]. I would have accepted putting it on the archives article as a link - and got no reply from the person who did the deletion when I suggested this.

The bizarrely long lists of articles to be improved/edited etc (and try and find a suitable list to place an article where an relative expert can deal with it).

Jackiespeel 16:59, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Covering various points on the subject:

Perhaps it should be noted that Wikipedia does have its uses - as a point of first resort, whether for information or for people to learn relevant skills before going on to other wikis (g), and, by analysis of what it #could# do how other wikis can be developed.

I think some of Wikipedia's problems arise from it being the largest and most well known wiki, and also in the way it tries to be all things to all people: it can be seen as the victim of its own success.

All wikis are likely to have a certain level of problems and flaws as well as uses (including unexpected ones) - typos, misunderstandings, multiple-edit-itis,"failure to engage brain before writing", "silliness and other attempts at humour" and similar which most of us have probably been involved in occasionally, to vandalism, shouting matches, edit wars (which tend to be incomprehensible to Innocent Bystanders) and other negative inputs (which most of us don't). There are likely to be occasional bizarre incidents (not necessarily libellous or offensive), whatever the checks. There will also be certain limits to what is considered appropriate for the wiki (and some debate about where the edges lie).

We can probably all cite "categories of articles needing improvement" (eg mathematical and other formulae which are mere symbol-soup - a one sentence "this was developed by x in y, and is used in z to do w" would help) and "overpopulated categories of minor interest even to those involved in the field" (walk-on characters in lesser soaps).

There appears to be an inherent contradiction in the "no original research" statement - a certain level of research has to be done to actually create the articles, and there are a significant number of lists, overviews, and similar which exist only on Wikipedia and not elsewhere in cyberspace/more traditional sources (and which can be useful). Possibly the matter could be resolved by having more visible interactions with "appropriate other wikis"

Given that the wrongness (or not-even-wrongness) of some articles has led to incidents in the Real World, how long before Something Major resulting in much wailing and gnashing of teeth (if not more so) happens?

Not necessarily directed at Wikipedia per se - but the near-solipsitic repetition of certain articles (or their previous versions) seemingly from Wikipedia to "various to many" other websites does tend to undermine confidence in the whole (especially when there appears to be no original real world location from which the information was derived.

Jackiespeel 13:58, 4 February 2008 (EST)

The Great Image Purge of 2008

I know that title sounds grand, but it's actually been ongoing for quite a while and is picking up steam lately. A "bot," betacommandbot, has been recently on a RAMPAGE at Wikipedia, let loose by its creator to "tag" almost all images with warnings that they are not in compliance with rules and WILL be deleted. It has literally tagged 866,926 images with warnings that they will be deleted (by its own count!) Some owners on the bot's talk page say they have had 6 images tagged IN ONE MINUTE. I noticed four I added years ago to articles have been tagged in the last day.

Two issues here are 1) that little dictator administrators have created new "guidelines" for images ("non-free") that disallow pretty much all visual content except snapshots. Even previously allowed publicity photos, photos created by governments (as in "official" photos of congressmen, senators, governors, premiers etc.) are being deleted hurriedly. In fact, they have actually ignored the real copyright laws, and are going on the presumption that all images on the site will provoke lawsuits, therefore all images are evil. Their interpretations are extreme and illogical. and 2) the bot in question simply tags ALL images as illegit, even the ones that abide by the new guidelines or are tagged in compliance with long-established copyright tags. The Deletionist tendency in general is what disturbs me at Wikipedia. It's Orwellian, and it's why I've stopped creating articles there, and find it impossible to be there when I visit for brief periods. Like visiting North Korea. - Nhprman 22:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

"No free image Do you own one" sounds slightly tautological.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing a Domesday Book check through of all images: but there should be a systematic process. Why is Jeremy Beadle unallowed, but Benedict XVI, Richard III and William Shakespeare allowed - when pictures for the latter two are in the National Portrait Gallery.

The point, as Marx might have said, is not just to comment on Wikipedia but to decide how to do it better (on Wikinfo or elsewhere). Jackiespeel 10:07, 15 February 2008 (EST)

To begin with, Wikipedia itself is a "Doomsday Book" in the historical sense. More accurately, this Betacommandbot is more like a Doomsday device with the intention of eliminating ALL non-written content. That's the only conclusion one can draw when hundreds of thousands of images are "tagged" for deletion willy-nilly, even when fully compliant with long-established rules.

As for the implication that I'm simply just belly-aching and not offering solutions, I guess I'd simply urge you to read more closely, and I'll also expand on my comments, since the huge failures of Wikipedia are lessons in and of themselves. There are serious legal and philosophical questions that are going unasked within the Wikipedia community, which itself has numerous problems - among them being an anarchistic element that oddly seems work hand in hand with, and leads to, a totalitarian element (a much better Marxist/Communist analogy!) The legal issue is the idea of "non-free" images. The definitions dreamt up by Admins over there are far more restrictive than any nation's copyright laws. A photo of a political candidate, released by his or her campaign to the press and for illustration of their candidate, is used in the media and on dozens of news organization's Websites. Yet, Wikipedians delete them because they are not "free" and a snapshot of a candidate can, theoretically, be taken by someone. An actor releases a publicity photo, and yet, Wikipedians delete it because it's not "free" and, again, someone could harass them in a restaurant and get a photo to replace it. This is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that, but it fits with a Deletionist philosophy, in which all images must be deleted from Wikipedia to make it lawsuit-proof. This is preemption without common sense. But that's what happens when mobs of people are writing policy, and small ganglets within these mobs take it upon themselves to impose guidelines (like the def. of "non-free") as if they were long-established policies, and - worse - enforce it with a Bot that seeks to destroy all images preemptively.

To end on a positive note, I'll simply say "Let's not do that here." And that's the point of this page, and, more broadly, the point of the Wikinfo Website. The non-free nonsense, part of a long line of ridiculous, drawn out policy squabbles over there, have made the place very unfriendly and intollerable. I'll leave and never return to any site that either makes policy the focus rather than creation of content and leaves the making of policy to a mob of bullies or to mindless Bots. One other positive note is that the Bot has, in the last few days, managed to anger enough people so that even IT is being shut down and "blocked" from tagging for days at a time. Although it is "unblocked" again almost immediately by its deletionist allies. More evidence of the madness over there. - Nhprman 11:05, 15 February 2008 (EST)

There is much inconsistency - book covers and similar are allowed, and a random selection of photographs. A more coherent policy should be developed (as elsewhere - eg with what defines Original Research) before Wikipedia dissolves in its inherent contradictions. Jackiespeel 12:13, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Agreed. - Nhprman 12:37, 15 February 2008 (EST)

To which component? Suggestion - to resolve potential picture problems here - put a comment on the talk page, giving source. Jackiespeel 16:55, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I agreed that a more coherent policy there is needed. The problem is that policy changes regularly and (despite claims that "WP is not a democracy") the mob that is largest is able to bully its policy positions into reality. Consensus is a myth in such a large, sprawling and frankly, lawless, environment. I like your suggestion, re: source citations, too. Scans of book covers are allowed under copyright law for descriptions and reviews (you see them in newspapers all the time for this purpose) and photos of individuals released to the public for promotional purposes are definitely allowed for purposes of commentary, review and articles such as those in an online encyclopedia. That this is controversial over there is amazing to me. The KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid) should be adopted here when it comes to all policies.

To review, I suggest that we don't 1) try to develop complex definitions of "copyright" that go far beyond national laws and 2) that we don't have endless wars about new definitions, policies and tags. Those are the major flaws and shortcomings of WP. - Nhprman 18:07, 15 February 2008 (EST)

So - a statement on source used on the talk page, and a general comment on policy adopted "and if there are any queries contact...." Jackiespeel 09:54, 18 February 2008 (EST)

"Any suitable location" for the information (would be useful for anyone wishing to pursue the topic further) - and using images/text etc that comes under "publicity material, fair usage and similar generally accessible terms" and used with good intent.

Jeremy Beadle's image has returned btw.

At least Wikipedia is more reliable than Conservapedia. Jackiespeel 13:25, 18 February 2008 (EST)

---

It's really incredible that betacommandbot has gone away with it. It really shows how dsiorganized is Wikipedia nowadays how there is absolutely no community nor effective discussion. Everybody was against the bot and its activities, yet it managed to survive.

This is extremely dangerous for Wikipedia, because if a machine can rule and set policy and precedent with the help of a handful of organized plotters, it can really spell the end of Wikipedia as a participative entity.

Now it's images, tomorrow who knows. The case is that it's been demonstrated that a handful of people with a bully bot can do whatever they want. --Sugaar 01:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Reliability of Wikipedia

The comment of this Wikipedia page [[1]] possibly sums the whole page up.

Wikipedia evolves - as do other wikis.

The point, as Karl Marx said, is not merely to describe the world, but to change it. Jackiespeel 14:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Allegations of extreme bias

There are frequent allegations made that on Wikipedia, a distinct bias to the social, political and religious Left exists. I know other biases also exist, but this one seems to have great credibility. Exhibit "A" for me is the article on the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which I've just come across. On Wikipedia, it's not standard to include a paragraph on the popular reception of a film in the lead paragraphs, and yet, it's done in this article. I feel it's simply done here to demonize and defame the film, which has indeed gotten some bad reviews (in part, because of the hairbrained idea of denying most reviewers a chance to preview the film - always a bad idea, and I'll also throw out there that Hollywood is far more forgiving towards films that lean Leftward. It's just a fact.)

Note that the left-leaning Michael Moore film Bowling for Columbine has a section on it's reception far deeper in the article, even when it would have been easy to highlight the 90% positive reviews in the lead paragraph. The Moore film also allows for a complete blow-by-blow analysis of the film's major points, unrefuted of course. The controversial conservative film, however, has an article that dives right into the controversial aspects and is overly negative. Add to this the category appended to it: American propaganda films, which has been removed several times but is re-added by an overwhelmbing number of people, in what I call "gang editing," and the bias/POV is pungent. In the article, fundamentalist Christians groups are accused of creating and pushing this film - even though it's producer and star is a non-Christian Jew who has doubts about ID *and* evolution.

There's a place for criticism within the Expelled WP article, just as there is in the Michael Moore article (though it's unsurprisingly VERY hard to find critiques in that one.) And while I'm not an ID supporter, nor a fundamentalist christian, I feel this is a clear case of POV, and a great example of a well-referenced hit piece - something that is far too common on Wikipedia. - Nhprman 10:36, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Rampant Deletionism

The Wikipedia article on Wikinfo was deleted from Wikipedia on May 22, 2008. After failing to delete it after five deletion votes, on the sixth attempt to delete it, enough Wikipedians were attracted to the discussion to force its removal from Wikipedia. [2]. This is a rather extreme illustration of the philosophy of rampant Deletionism on Wikipedia among users and Administrators that is becoming far too common there. Deletionism, defined as the drive to create LESS text, FEWER articles and cover LESS topics in the encyclopedia, rather than more. This has the effect of making the encyclopedia less, not more, encyclopedic and all-inclusive, which is in fact contrary to the spirit of the Founders' intent.

"Wikinfo exists" and is "at least as useful/relevant" as some of the wikis on Wikipedia's list of Wikis [3] (on which it should be mentioned, if nowhere else) - and more so than many of the "minor persons, places and characters from long dead films and forgotten books" that it has articles on. Whatever the threshold is, Wikinfo is above it - and given WP's policy on Original Research, a policy of collaboration/gatekeeping should be developed.

Anyone know where to make a noise about the topic? Jackiespeel 13:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Conflict of interest

The COI thing on Wikipedia (which, as a side-note, in Romanian is a slang word that means dick - fitting I'd say :P sorry for the language) is pretty aberrant. The way I understand it, if you have a relation with a subject, firm, person etc. you're not expected to have an objective touch on the situation. My opinion however is that Wikipedia has these all the time, which however can't be proven because they're just in users' heads. A person from a country can write about that country and if he gathers enough, can force a POV obviously detrimental to others in the area, while a person talking about himself or about a company he knows/works at etc. is forbidden. It's the same thing in both cases, just that they're treated completely different. Anime addict 20:13, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

So - how is anyone expected to write more than a dicdef/do basic proofreading and other corrections using "random page" and similar? Only people with an interest in a topic are going to develop it - and it can be useful for "persons with a connection to X" to start/contribute to the topic. Taken to its reductio ad absurdia - Patrick Moore, for example, could not write on any astronomical topics.

There is a case for "non-promotionalism" and "stating your connection to a particular person etc" so due allowances can be made - but even such persons can provide a certain neutrality.

And - given the use of noms-de-plume, there is no practical way of eliminating COI (nothing against Anime addict in this). Jackiespeel 17:39, 9 August 2008 (EDT)