Talk:Critical views of Wikipedia
From Wikinfo
Contents |
User:WHEELER's Motive for moving over
I am moving over because of the rampant vandalism, idiot savants, and am tired of the NPOV policy that idiot savants exploit. This quote from the main article explains my frustrations completely "forcing people of strong qualifications to answer to petty abuse from various parties of no particular qualifications at all,". I am tired of fighting these idiot savants who have no qualifications, have no expertise in their field, use no references, quote nothing and then think they can edit articles at will.
My philosophy is that an article is to be based on having a "sympathy" toward material. If one is not engrossed and in love with one's material, how can one not understand and truly know the essence of what he is speaking about. NPOV, the policy of Wikipedia, only ensures that people who hate the material get to edit with their prejudices based on hate into an article. I have lost my patience with these idiot savants. WHEELER 09:46, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Again from Wikipedia votes for deletion on the article banausos: Here is the reason for one Wikipedian's reason to vote for deletion:
- Delete. According to WHEELER, "The question is 'Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?'." On Wikipedia, the answer is "Yes, that's our policy." You've been around long enough to know this. You talk about the commercial ethos and the warrior ethos. Well, the Wiki ethos is that of open source. The theory is that, if we let a bunch of people without professional qualifications write and edit and delete pretty much as they please, a good encyclopedia will somehow emerge. I know you disagree with the theory and with the policy. That's certainly your privilege, and you have good company, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica pooh-bahs. As long as you stay here, though, you have to recognize that that's the way it works here. The MediaWiki software is available under the GFDL for anyone who wants to start a similar project but with stricter quality controls. By the way, to save you the trouble of clicking through to my user page, I'll admit right now that I'm not qualified as a classicist. JamesMLane 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I see your point. And it is very clear to me. This is in a sense "stricter quality control". Yes. But the "quality control" on wikipedia is Marxist and Fabian, Humanist and Modern. You have laid out very clearly to me that "who is in control here". The standards being that people who are ignorant of any subject but with a bias to protect can delete stuff off of Wikipedia. And that is not professional, academic, righteous (justice) or truthful. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I will not start another page nor work for Wikipedia (though I will transfer stuff here). I see clearly where this is going. I can do better and stop wasting my time here because surely I am. Thanks Mr. James MLane. You have certainly opened my eyes to the fundamental core of Wikipedia. And that yes, then Wikipedia is run by a cabal. And it is a fundamental lie that Mr. James MLane has exposed the fallacy "of free and open content". Wikipedia is not "an encylcopaedia" it's a "controlled information platform". The only standards on Wikipedia is "form" and writing, there are no professional, academic standards.WHEELER 10:04, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Furthermore, you have exposed the "hypocrisy" here. All evil is hypocritical as Cicero has pointed out. "Coherence" and "Consistency" are hallmarks of truth which is missing here at Wikipedia. If this is "Free and Open content" and "Open Source" then why is there a deletion notice on vanavsos and why did the Classical definition of republic get deleted? There is a major flaw in the system. Quite prescient of those who practise "dissimulation". You say one thing but do another and this is the sign of it. See, Consistency and whole heartedness coherency is the foundation of logic which is the foundation of truth. The illogicity of this vote on Wikipedia is prove of the rampant chaos going on.WHEELER 13:32, 14 Mar 2005 (EST)
- I see your point. And it is very clear to me. This is in a sense "stricter quality control". Yes. But the "quality control" on wikipedia is Marxist and Fabian, Humanist and Modern. You have laid out very clearly to me that "who is in control here". The standards being that people who are ignorant of any subject but with a bias to protect can delete stuff off of Wikipedia. And that is not professional, academic, righteous (justice) or truthful. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I will not start another page nor work for Wikipedia (though I will transfer stuff here). I see clearly where this is going. I can do better and stop wasting my time here because surely I am. Thanks Mr. James MLane. You have certainly opened my eyes to the fundamental core of Wikipedia. And that yes, then Wikipedia is run by a cabal. And it is a fundamental lie that Mr. James MLane has exposed the fallacy "of free and open content". Wikipedia is not "an encylcopaedia" it's a "controlled information platform". The only standards on Wikipedia is "form" and writing, there are no professional, academic standards.WHEELER 10:04, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)
expand page
Good work/arguments lately, folks. We need to turn this into a set of pages, using subpage fragments, like the cases in point, etc. Please review Forum:Any complaints about Wikipedia? for more. If you like, I'll move the relevant content to appropriate subpages and link everything up. -proteus 12:13, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
- Okay, did this. Continue editing on the subpages, give any feedback here. -proteus 00:33, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)
First stabs at EffK personal conclusions
Yes. For myself, I find I am unable to come to a conclusion as to even my own experience. Having entered to redress fact, to make a 180 degree turn, I throughout found myself sucked further and further into lengthy post. In itself a drag on the reader's time, and a bigger time for me. I like to think I remained both compos mentis and on target. The fact that I found such a hardcore support for the 180 degree opposite shouldn't be so surprising given our dualist politics really. However I scratched away at a dangerous area, where it now seems to me that I inadvertently found an enormous entry-point into a forbidden dimension.
To give up the honesty that now Wkfo -I hope- requires as its due, I would have to own not to what is termed POV pushing-because I am still convinced that the history as I have shouted it(on discussions there) is the truth- so no , I dispute the WP Arbcom findings published. This was that I am a POV pusher. So, given those incompatibilities of POV/truth, the conclusions relevant to WP as an organism are not entirely the same as the conclusions as to WP as a tool.
I went into WP because I saw it being used as a tool, by clear interests who wished to have a given representation -their choice of representation. This was of minor importance in the present world-or so I thought. I therefore from the start saw WP as a tool for the imposition and control of thought, and was ,perforce, only marginally interested in its vaunted claims towards encyclopaedia-ship.
This former character of the organism, the propagandist one, since it demanded my reactions, it led me quite away from the more dignified editing that doubtless the majority of Users engage in. I worked on one or two quiet uncontroversial pages only, whilst the rest were battlefields. I found little difficulty in quickly discovering that discussions were where it was at. Editing with the 180 degree propaganda team there in my face, was no more than childish reversion, and we all know the 3 rr rule. Unless you can get a cabal of your own-forget it. Discussion , however, requires, if you are lucky, that the arguments you present determine the level of the response from the 180 degree opposite . Unfortunatley I did not understand properly the responses I should have kept to, and allowed the 180 mob , with great effort on their part, to finally evict me. Again though, I deny POV because of truth-and I mean verifiable truth, sourced , published, mass knowledge. To no avail, which is of itself fascinating in its contradiction of WP.
The battle that I still have with the organism, and it could just as well become this Wikinfo organism , or any interactive software , the battle still rages and is a battle for the heart and essence of the organism, which I have described in the words of Kant at several times and places
- Good action must not only conform to moral law , but be done for the sake of moral law . That good will is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition , and that the function of reason is to produce a will good in itself , for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination .
However I am by no means un-tainted nor perfect. I plainly weighed the outcome and knowing of the likely judgement of my fellow Users as to my immoderate continuance of my 180 degree concerns, fought all the way. In so far as no notice was taken, and in my view still is not taken-and I shall just now read a post to my last remaining editable location there , my discussion page , in this regard-but no. it is not ever the answer as to its relevant question. So, I weighed in with no shame in an effort to reef apart the curtains of extraordinary attitudes and garnered rather than the ability to enter the verifiable known history, no more than the qualification of me as an obsessive.
Nevertheless the organism as propaganda tool is by no means a judgement reached by me alone. I continue to every day be more certain in recogniising those to whom WP is precisely that. Like a giant common-room everyone becomes quite plainly apparent as to their political bent -if they have one. Big sibjects like Hitler attract multiple variations , indeed , we all know, nearly every person is adding their part of the balance, or more. Someones little is another more, and, someone else's too much , is too little for them. OK , this is not news to us here.
I still have to say that if I consider there is a verifiable known truth, in history, that it is not propaganda to insist upon it as being that which it evidently is. Fortunately no one has provided 180 degree contradiction by such evident contrary truth as would be required for me to have to admit to being wrong or un-truthful and to being therefore no more than a propagandist . Were they to do so-then I would have to hang my head to Jimbo and his Arbcom. There is not, and hence the battle goes on. As far as it happens, the evident history , is , sadly, of rather greater importance than all of the online organisms put together, is in fact more important than the Internet. The internet is product of the particular evident truth rather than the reverse. forgive me if I say no more for the moment thanks, EffK 19:12, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
Wikipedia eats experts for breakfast
Wikipedia eats up, digests and spits out persons who are expert and knowledgeable in their fields. retention and rebellion both recognize Wikipedia's weakness in the area and this is an example. This new project is attempting to improve the situation by addressing a portion of it. But as long as Wikipedia allows anonomous edits, I don't believe the situation can resolve because the finest work, if unattended for a few hours, can be destroyed by any of our planet's 6.5 billion inhabitants. If all people were of good cheer, none whishing to destroy good information, well, then, it might be possible. But the situation on our planet is less. There are a few people who simply wish to destroy information and there is a larger group of people who wish to destroy any information except the information of their own beliefs. Wikipedia, I believe, is constrained to "popularity" and allows anyone to edit so popularity can be achieved. Its proposed "the sum of all knowledge" is an attraction for editors while it denys the same by refusing original research. Also, its WP:NPOV would have reliabile sources being used over verifiable sources while its WP:V specifically states, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, sometimes a direct counterstatement to its NPOV concept. This last element comes into play most strongly in controversial topics where archived information on personal websites is used widely, while less accessible but more reliable information is crowded into a smaller piece of article, as an example. The result is a sort of inflammatory newspaper report with a lot of hot controversy, but without a feel for the information of the article's title. None of those difficulties seem likely here. Terryeo 14:56, 16 Sep 2006 (EDT)
From A Fellow Wikinfonian Re: Wikipedia, which I will now call Wikidpedia
My unpleasant and sometimes deeply disturbing experiences with Wikipedia go back almost two years now (thank goodness for Wikinfo). Recently a Wikipedia User who goes by Zoe (zoecomnena) went way off the edge and branded me an anti-Semite (I am a spiritual Jew of mixed Jewish and other ancestry, mostly Sephardic) and, as if that were not enough for her and her sinister cabal, also branded me a racist! Mind you, as a Philosopher I do not judge people on account of their ethnic or so-called racial background or profile. Only relatively uneducated people treat other fellow human beings differently purely on account of their ethnic or so-called racial background or profile. Fortunately enough, I have a number of good people, some of them very prominent intellectuals and professionals from highly reputable institutions of higher learning, who will always be there to vouch for my humanistic and anti-racist Point of View and overall progressive identity. So, allow me to give every decent Wikinfonian and guest this friendly warning: BEWARE OF WIKIPEDIA; which has been sabotaged over the years by an assortment of irresponsible and even dangerous people, some of whom have formed sinister cabals whose main purpose is to distort facts, figures and information in general. I suspect that there are at least three major sinister cabals, with one in particular having an anti-Semitic Neo-Con pseudo-Christian identity! After all, what better way to divide and conquer humanity than by confusing it, obfuscating things and re-writing history and politically sensitive encyclopaedic entries!!! So, having said that, I hope you will prefer to be at Wikinfo, which prefers to give people the benefit of the doubt and work on the premise that NO ORIGINAL CONTENT can easily be taken out of context and abused by those whose agenda is not clearly stated and whose identity is relatively anonymous and hidden. Also, in providing the partial identity of User Zoe it is out of concern that this person may have actually ruined the lives of innocent persons and in the hope that someone reading this will come forth with substantial personnal proof that this person is not without malice. To what ends? Perhaps I will write a book about the many dangers of Wikipedia and perhaps the public will read that book and put pressure on Wikipedia's policy decision-makers to make the necessary ammendments and provide some form of mechanism for sane administrative action.-Mr.Infinity 20:14, 15 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Wiki manipulations for political reasons
I have recently heard that a Russian admin has manipulated the talk page of the article on Putin. He removed a critical report on Putin's visit in Germany from the talk page and also blanketed half of the page, but made it in the history look like as if the author of the critical report vandalized the page. Have you ever experienced something similar? - Mr Mancala
- No, neither here nor on the English Wikipedia. Fred 08:52, 30 Oct 2006 (EST)
RK
The behavior of Wikipedia user RK, quoted in the article, was partially responsible for the creation of Wikinfo. His determinedly biased editing, particularly of the article Chiropractic medicine, was in 2003 apparently uncontrollable. He was later briefly banned, but continues to edit. Fred 17:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
