Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Is it useless duplication of existing work?

Article already exist like Wikipedia:Criticisms and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great So it will be third article doing the same thing.


Agreed. The content of the three articles needs to be merged. - RobK

Criticism of Wikipedia is best, most specific page. The others should be redirects. In my opinion this is the best page on Wiki. 63.226.28.130 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Whilst I am a great Wikipedia fan, this article is biased. Although it covers both sides of the story, it gives far more weight to the pro-W side than the against-W side of the argument. Perhaps some objective comparisons of articles (Wikipedia vs Britannica for example) might be a good idea. - RobK

I agree. Comparisons would be nice, and not just the "Wikipedia has more articles and more current topics" hype. How about comparisons of deep subjects -- the US Civil war, Einstein, The Crusades, Islam.

I too am a great Wikipedia fan. Regarding the issue on whether or not the 'Criticisms of Wikipedia' should be deleted, I would have to say absolutely not. The thing that makes Wikipedia better than all its competition is that it's not biased, and deleting a page that objectively criticizes Wikipedia would be a biased decision. I've been to other online encyclopedias and they're vulgar, unorganized, sloppy and worst of all biased. Stay pure, Wikipedia. -Anonymous

Response

  1. Wikipedia:Criticisms mainly tries to answer criticism done by ‘rivals’.
  2. Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great mainly focuses on user questions.
  3. Criticism of Wikipedia Attempts to give criticism on wikipedia in Encyclopedic way and give responses.

Main difference between (1,2) and (3) is that (1,2) are basically to answer criticisms raised. While (3) is informing about criticisms in an Encyclopedic Way.

Zain 09:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Project pages (ie those that start with Wikipedia:) are not articles. Fredrik | talk 14:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Redundant, duplicates Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How to treat ‘response’

But this article also has a response to every criticism. - Vague | Rant 10:06, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
It is (currently) written in a format, similar to Criticisms of War on Terrorism and Criticism of software engineering, in attempt to cover the topic in an ‘encyclopedic’ manner. If you think there is another format through which the topic can be covered in an encyclopedic manner, we will change the format as you suggest. (just by the way google bomb has no response and removing response can make it a potential canidate for NPOV Banner).
Zain 10:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be improved by stating the responses in the same paragraph as the criticisms, rather than in a separate section ("Wikipedia users have observed that <response to criticism here>"), thus making it appear less like a meta-page and more like an encyclopedia article. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 13:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have felt similar problems in Criticisms of War on Terrorism and Criticism of software engineering but there are many who are talking about deletion of this page. So I can't risk to make responses to look 'minor'. May be after one day or two laterz. When things get a little 'settled'.
Zain 14:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Back in January the "Criticism" section of Mother Teresa was split off into a separate Criticism of Mother Teresa article and I argued at the time that this wasn't acceptable under the NPOV policy; see Talk:Mother Teresa#Farming out criticisms, Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive1#Separate article for criticisms?, Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive4#Split article ?, and Talk:Criticisms of Mother Teresa. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should be treated differently than Mother Teresa (now there's a sentence I never expected I'd ever write :). Existence of God is another example, it used to be two separate articles for the "pro" and "con" sides and was eventually merged. I don't think having a POV declared right in the title of an article is a good thing, we should torture English if we have to in order to get it out of there. Bryan 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the page should be Criticism and support of Wikipedia, and present both sides? As discussed below, the pro side is difficult for us to write about while maintaining proper editorial distance--but it shouldn't be ignored. --EngineerScotty 17:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not useless.

This article is not useless duplication of existing work. The Wikipedia namespace does not have quite the same standards as the main article namespace, and this is quite a respectable encyclopedia article. However, if you want it to go then please list it on WP:VFD. I personally will vote to keep if this is done, but don't let this stop you! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A comprehensive but very negative external link should I add it? specially when it is for deletion

I have found a very comprehensive link on wikinfo.org a very long article. But looks like work of 'insiders'. not sure whether to put it or not. i am giving it here We should add it only after good discussion.

link is http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Critical_views_of_Wikipedia

Zain 22:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Improving article content toward NPOV

Now that the page is kept, how can we adjust the content? Text taken from the wikipedia: pages should be cited as we would any reference. The responses are that of "Wikipedia" not of the article. It should be that "Wikipedia counters this argument by saying..." This will just give facts as it is a fact that Wikipedia claims these things. The critics should be named if possible. Sarah Lane, newspapers, etc might be good sources. I guess we have to look at it like we're not Wikipedia members ... this is in the same way that we attempt to counter any bias on an article page. Just remember that Wikipedia: namespace articles are a POV source in this case and aren't interwiki articles.

The article shouldn't present these in the POV manner that is provided in the Wikipedia name space. When I can pull myself away from other pages, I may take a pass at doing just that. If anyone else wants to get started on implementing the content suggestions given during the voting process, please do so in the meantime. :) Any other thoughts? --Sketchee 18:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Only thing which kept me from changing a lot was 'Delete vote'. Now as the vote is over. We can treat it as any other Wikipedia Article.
Zain 21:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When will this article stop being pointless?

Usenet lacks at least two features that are absolutely essential to Wikipedia's success: (1) on Usenet, you can't edit other people's work, while we can here on Wikipedia, thereby encouraging creative and collegial collaboration; or more strongly, on Wikipedia, there's no such thing as "other people's work", because there's no ownership of information; (2) Unlike Wikipedia, Usenet does not have the possibility of enforcing community-agreed standards. Moreover, Usenet is a debate forum. Wikipedia is, very self-consciously, an encyclopedia project! This provides at least some agreement on What Wikipedia is not.

Why is this written from the first person plural? Because it's a copy-paste from stuff in the Wikipedia namespace. If anyone expects people to take this "article" seriously, actually make it an article instead of a glorified duplication. - Vague | Rant 11:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Edit-this-page-large.png - Fredrik | talk 13:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What reason do I have to edit this? I don't and have no intention of ever taking it seriously. - Vague | Rant 02:19, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Your personal feeling should be irrelevant when attempting to edit an article. You may think this article is pointless, but your contribution may be valuable to other users. You see a problem in the article, then take the time to fix it, rather than wasting the time complaining about how bad it is. Vanessa kelly 06:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Researching with...

Should this perhaps have a link to Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia? In any case, if this survives VfD, I will link from that to this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

statistics

It is cited that the article on Hurrican Frances was five times that on Chinese art, and the article on Coronation Street twice as long as that on Tony Blair. Yet now, the Chinese art article is twice as long and the Tony Blair article a fair amount longer. Should this be mentioned? →Iñgōlemo← talk 07:28, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

What should be mentioned, as when all numbers are mentioned, is the date of collation. Stick the date behind any subject-to-change information you provide and the information gains objective context. Oktober 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this was alread mentioned either above or in the article itself near the end, it stated the chinese art was considerably bigger than 2 years prior and the tony blair was twice as large as u said. The statement also tells the date between the 2 numbers to give some time span. (anon 7 May 2005)

Adam Carr

Also, Dr Adam Carr appears to be contributing regularly again. →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 07:28, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Move to Meta

This page survived the deletion debate. But deletion only renders a judgment on whether or not the article gets deleted. (VfD discussions sometimes also generate strong recommendations to transwiki but that's not what the process is really designed to decide.)

Having decided to keep the article, now let's have a serious discussion about where the article belongs. I believe that this article should be moved to the Meta: namespace. We have a long tradition that we don't write encyclopedia articles about ourselves. Wikipedia itself should have a deliberately short article in the main article space. That article should focus primarily on what outsiders say about the enterprise (good and bad). The meta: namespace was created as the proper place for this level of drill-down, response and self-examination. For anyone who may be concerned that we are "trying to cover up the criticisms", it is easy to cross-link over to the same article in Meta. Rossami (talk) 03:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. As a significant innovation in the concept of an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has become, itself, an important topic. I think it is important to make this as NPOV and sourced as any other article, but I think it is now of encyclopedic importance, and will only become more so with time. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be biased -- the "responses" seem to support Wikipedia. -- Stevey7788 05:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bias, the next episode

I have cut huge swaths of material that seemed to be plucked from thin air by people who like Wikipedia—that is, us. Then I tried to rewrite what was left as an integrated narrative. The criticism/rebuttal style was clearly biased towards the rebuttal. Some rebuttals even went so far as to elaborate on why Wikipedia is so great! If there is any article for which it is more important to maintain the neutral point of view, I'd like to see it. Let's try very hard here to adhere to our own standards, rather than seeing this as an excellent opportunity to prove our critics wrong. That's not what we're about.

I agree. Good job on the edits. Vanessa kelly 06:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

POV and arguing

As it is now it may appear rather flimsy. This has a very simple reason: most rebuttals were mostly POV essays bent on discrediting the criticism. This is not acceptable. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are Wikipedia supporters, for bleedingly obvious reasons; we cannot allow everyone with a good idea for rebutting criticism to put in a "some say".

I have left in "some have argued" style comments if I happen to know from personal experience that multiple people have indeed argued this independently. This is of course suboptimal, and only a compromise between having nothing and giving every Wikipedian a personal shot at rebuttal.

I've also removed ad hominem/red herring arguments. For example, in response to criticism of systemic bias, we wrote "A user on the Wikipedia discussion board noted that the Wikipedia entry on Tony Blair still was several times longer than the corresponding entry in Encyclopædia Britannica." So what? Is this supposed to make up for the bias? Then you had outrageous statements like "Pappas' dismissal of the suggestion that Wikipedia is improving is also completely unproven" in response to "the premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection; that premise is completely unproven". Can we at least get by without misrepresenting our opponents' arguments? Pappas never said Wikipedia isn't improving.

Where's the beef?

I have deleted the "criticism of technology" section completely, as it made no attempt at clearly explaining what the problem was with the single issue it mentioned (Google bombing), or whether it being "entirely a product of current circumstances in the Internet" disqualified it from something notable. Could we have some sources? This just reads like "I heard this somewhere and it might be a problem".

The Adam Carr story has been removed because it is neither a rebuttal nor a neutral illustration of the criticism that dispute resolution is difficult or even broken. The "prolific, high profile Adam Carr Ph.D." has "scaled down his contributions" "partly in response" to "battles" with "followers" of Lyndon LaRouche? Can we have a picture of him kissing babies to go with that? There's not even any mention of dispute resolution in there. I realize it's very hard to write neutrally and informatively on this topic, because nobody among us can claim to be unbiased or uninvolved, but this should be an incentive to try extra hard.

Links and references

I have converted external links to material that was quoted to references, which they are. I have removed links that had nothing to do with criticism or rebuttals to it (including all "Wikipedia is great" endorsements, as much as I like seeing them). The Red Herring article is too low-content to be of any value, containing exactly one sentence mentioning criticism ("as Wikipedia has become more important, critics have attacked the reliability of Wikipedia's system") and devoting the rest to soothing sounds on how quickly we revert vandalism. Plenty is said on that in the main article.

Mike Church's blog post contains a personal take on the community structure that might have value if the "criticisms of the community" section is expanded, but presently serves no function to the reader. For future reference:

Controversially (?) I have removed all mention of wikipediasucks.com. I can find no grounds for including this Sollog-created website, other than the snappy name. First, this does not deserve separate mention alongside, say, Britannica's criticisms, so I'm opposed to any inclusion in the main article text, unless someone can show me that this site is notable in the spectrum of criticism. Second, even an external link is supposed to refer the reader to some significant source of information on the topic not covered by the article. Wikipediasucks.com is just a collection of rants against "self-admitted pornographer" Jimbo Wales who has been "convicted of hate crimes", while the "forum" it includes has been deleted some time ago. Significant background information on Wikipedia? I think not.

I think the remaining links should have their information incorporated into the article and be listed as references as much as possible.

I have removed the "see also" section completely, to avoid self-references. Pages in the Wikipedia namespace are not articles, and should not be linked to. List specific revisions as references or external links, but not as additional material.

What remains

This article could stand to be improved. You can help Wikipedia by editing it. JRM 14:40, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

The "criticism" section in the main article...

...has a lot of overlap, and as it stands, calling this a "main article" of the section makes no sense. Should we merge this back? JRM 15:13, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) ...or should we merge the section in the main article with this one? Argh, I hate duplicate content. JRM 15:21, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Well, you personally may "hate duplicate content", but duplicate content of this sort is extremely common where there is an article on a general topic and one or more on more specific related topics. I see this as entirely appropriate: the higher level article summarizes in a paragraph or two what the detailed article covers at length. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
I know. I read featured articles too, you know. >:-) I don't think duplicate content is inherently evil, I was just lamenting melodramatically about the present situation, which is not at all what it should be. This article is not detailed, and the main article is not summarizing, and my own edits are partially to blame. I should have made clearer what I was moaning about. I know, {{sofixit}} and all that. No time. See you in a few days. JRM 20:48, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

circadian rhythms of spores

I recently removed a link from the article whose abstract would suggest that the article is about the circadian rhythms of spores. User:JRM reverted my removal. I guess I would like to have explained the following two items:

  1. what does an article about circadian rhythms of spores have to do with criticism of wikipedia?
  2. even supposing there is some link between this article and that, what value does it have to link to articles that cannot be viewed without a subscription. Will a lot of wikipedia browsers have the appropriate subscriptions?

-lethe talk 23:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

  1. The article was the first to more-or-less use Wikipedia as a reference. This is intended to provide counterbalance to the "Wikipedia is not credible in academic circles" (this is in the article, but since that's not linked with the footnote template, it may be unclear). I will grant you that it may not be appropriate as a reference in the sense of "source", but I don't know any other way of accommodating it.
  2. I do not principally object to removing the link if you think it's insufficiently accessible. OTOH, I don't see why the relative inaccessibility should be an argument for its removal either. Whether the link stays or goes is relatively unimportant compared to the reference information (volume and issue). JRM 00:20, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
    • It's a work published in print form, right? The standard is that the print form should be cited, with any link simply being there for convenience. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Merge from or merge to?

{{Mergeto|Wikipedia:Criticisms|date=October 2006}} would be preferable IMHO SV|t 19:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree--kizzle 19:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

But that would be a redirect from article space to Wikipedia space. I thought we don't do that. Anyway, this won a VfD fight, which should mean that is stays in article space. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, why isn't the content of this page appropriate in Wikipedia:Criticisms? --kizzle 19:17, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be appropriate to add this material to Wikipedia:Criticisms. I am saying that it would be inappropriate to remove this material from article space. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Yes the content may stay in this space, but I don't like the title at all. Our philosophy is to divide articles into different subject areas, not down lines of points of view. Hence articles with title "Criticism of.." stick out like a sore thumb. This one in particular doesn't read very well. Pcb21| Pete 07:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
We can always merge and redirect to Wikipedia. Though it didn't start off that way, this is now a sort-of-not-quite section split off from there (see the "evaluations" section). We could simply undo that—merge anything that's here but not there into the main article, redirect, and if we ever split it off, it can become Evaluation of Wikipedia, which is a title full of NPOVy goodness. JRM · Talk 10:24, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Recently added sections

I've done my best to clean up two recently added sections, which may have a point to make but do not make it well. I think I've improved them somewhat; they may or may not be salvageable. The second of the two does not have a single decent citation. I, for one, will not be bothered if they are just deleted, but I figured I'd do my part toward trying to make them useful -- Jmabel | Talk 05:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about citing sources

I took out this paragraph "Proponents of Wikipedia point out, however, that when facts are in dispute (such as in controversial passages), writers are encouraged to cite sources extensively to support these facts or risk having them removed by other editors; citation of sources may be more reliable than the knowledge of a "specialist" or the presumed "authority" of a print encyclopedia." because it replies to a criticism about unnoticed errors, not controversial ones. Kappa 09:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Editor laziness

This article doesn't include one of my biggest gripes about the Wikipedia, but I couldn't figure out where to put. Quite frankly, too many Wikipedia editors are lazy, so they write what they think they know is correct, rather than what they have verified as correct. It may take two minutes to write up what you think is right, but it can take sometimes take an hour or two to properly verify the information online (or an afternoon's visit to the local library if the information is not available online). BlankVerse ∅ 12:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Supposedly, the open nature of wikipedia is there to counteract this. Some editors are lazy, while others are willing to pick up the slack. Also, if someone writes an article that is half complete or done shottily then it will be deleted or flagged. While this may be a legitimate personal concern, it is pov. Perhaps find some stats? Vanessa kelly 06:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Warning: I intend to kill this page

I hold WP:BB in high regard, but it also says "be bold, but not reckless". After some deliberation and especially careful reading of Wikipedia#Evaluation, I am of the opinion that this article in its current form should not exist, on these grounds:

  • "Criticism of Wikipedia" is POV, implying that the negative evaluations of Wikipedia are to be emphasized. Humility is not our business, even if it may look good. "Evaluation of Wikipedia" is the neutral approach, and the main article handles that very well. Mind you, "criticism of X" is not unacceptably POV—you can report on criticism in a neutral way. For it to have its own article, however, the criticism needs to be very prominent, and too large to be completely included in the main page. This simply doesn't seem to apply here.
  • Even after all the editing, the sources in places are still haphazard. Compare this to the main article, which is referenced front to back.
  • This page is redundant. Anything in here is either on the main page already or is just unsourced vox populi generalization. It's now just a loose "see also" in the main article, but readers who come here will feel cheated, because there's nothing more to see.

Since there's probably been some cross-breeding between this and the main article (and since a third VfD is unlikely to succeed, because people just vote Keep on articles that survive VfD on prI'd like to merge and redirect this to Wikipedia, removing the links to it.

I intend to do this in, say, three days; the time for counterarguments would be now. (Of course my merge can also be undone, but since that's more work, I'd like to have it settled up front). Opinions? JRM · Talk 21:44, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

From reading your statement above, it sounds like you think that all the criticism that is needed for the Wikipedia article is already there, so what you are proposing is not a merge, but a strait redirect, and essentially deleting this article. What it sounds like is that you are disatisfied with the outcome of the VFD votes, and want to circumvent VFD by using the redirect. Before you do anything, I would suggest that you instead posts a notice of the intended change at WP:RFC, Wikipedia:Current Surveys, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to solicit more feedback. I agree that there are plenty of problems with the Criticism of Wikipedia article as it is currently written, but I don't agree with your "solution". BlankVerse ∅ 09:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ouch. I guess I have to start sounding differently, then.
Clarify: no, I'm not trying to be a nefarious deletionist treating this page to a unilateral VfD. The relevance of the earlier VfDs is questionable to begin with, as neither this article nor Wikipedia look like they did at the time of VfD at all. I do propose we merge anything relevant in here to Wikipedia, and we shouldn't delete this article to begin with, as some of it has arguably already been merged—deleting it is dubious in light of the GFDL. It sounds like you think that since the outcome of the previous VfDs was "keep", this article can never be merged with anything, since that would "essentially" delete it. This is ignoring the fact that many votes on the last VfD specifically were "keep and fix problems, not VfD material", reflecting the consensus that the material is suitable for Wikipedia, but not necessarily that the status of this information as a separate article has been beatified. Heck, I would have voted Keep on the last VfD had I been around, since a merge wasn't obvious at all.
I will immediately say a cursory examination doesn't actually suggest there is anything relevant not already there, but I'm sure we'll come across the odd bit in an actual merge—nothing big, though. If I'm wrong, please be so kind as to point out the added value of this article compared to the section in [[Wikipedia]]. The overlap is really quite glaring.
I am not going to use RFC or (God forbid) Current Surveys. If that's what it takes, I'm simply going to do nothing. I do not believe at all in escalating a merge/redirect decision on an article beyond its talk page—next thing you know we'll be holding a vote. I do not care about pushing through my "solution" (nice use of scare quotes there, incidentally). If you acknowledge that there are "plenty of problems", however, I'm interested in learning what you think they are, and what your ideas on fixing them are. JRM · Talk 12:02, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Don't do nothing, JRM, just do it. I totally support your proposal. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No. It was silly of me to talk about doing it in the first place; shame on me for not respecting WP:BB to its full extent. Now I really would have to perform some sort of survey or straw poll to find out how many people really (dis)agree with me, and I'm not going to sink my time into that. The key to Wikipedia is that all that is wrong will get fixed eventually, so I know one day someone is going to stumble across this discussion and decide independently to implement my suggestion—or does something else that is constructive. As John F. Kennedy said, "if not us, who?" The great thing about Wikipedia is that "us" is so big that it will always include "someone". JRM · Talk 12:47, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I disagree - I see a merge/deletion after two failed VfD's as inappropriate. Thank you for posting on talk first because I would see such an action without the talk as not done in good faith, and as bold and reckless. I see no reason to rehash the discussion on the VfD - although the vote was close- there was no consensus - so it stays. There are many articles here I don't think should be here and some a majority agree, but they are still here. Trödel|talk 12:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use the phrase "merge/deletion" as if these things were somehow perfectly comparable. They're not. A deletion means the complete removal of the information that was in an article, and a tacit acknowledgement that whatever was in there was wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. A merge is the structural issue that the information is better stored somewhere else, rather than in a separate article. Throwing them together and implying the VfDs decided once and for all that neither was appropriate is something I just don't see has happened. The outcome of the VfDs was not "no consensus", it was a sound and convincing Keep. If everyone will please let go of the idea that a suggestion is being floated here of ignoring two VfD discussions, I would be grateful. I realize I've done myself a great disservice by the wording of my original post, and I'm going to step away because anything I can say further will be tainted with those suggestions. JRM · Talk 13:07, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Sorry to imply that merge and deletion are the same, I meant merge/deletion to mean a merge of the content and then a deletion of this article. My quick review of the VfD didn't count the votes, I assumed that you were proposing the merge because the vote was close.
Substantively, I think an article on the criticisms against wikipedia is encyclopedic. It also is discussed outside wikipedia widely enough to deserve its own article, rather than only in the wikipedia space since being there implies it is an internal only issue. Trödel|talk 13:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia#Evaluations and compared it to this article? I think you're misinterpreting my intentions. This article started off as a carbon copy of a Wikipedia namespace page, that's true, but that's no longer very relevant, as it hardly resembles that anymore. See also the long semi-rant I wrote on that under "Bias, the next episode". What I'm arguing is that what we have in the main Wikipedia article is vastly superior to this, and that what we have now just doesn't warrant a separate article. If that section is to be split off, it would be to a new Evaluations of Wikipedia article. Of course criticism of Wikipedia is encyclopedic! All I'm asking is whether reporting on it is best done by "Wikipedia" or this article. I say the former. JRM · Talk 13:44, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I offer my complete support to JRM to go ahead and do the merge. Some reasons:

  1. Articles entitled "Criticisms of.." are not good. Articles should be split into areas of content not down areas of POV. (I call these "horizontal" and "vertical" splitting respectively but those two terms don't have wide currency).
  2. VfD is not a "higher court" than talk pages are policy talk pages. The primary purpose of VfD is to determine content inclusion thresholds. Merging and redirecting can be discussed outside that arena and often the quality of debate is higher.
  3. The Wikipedia article is better than this one.

Pcb21| Pete 15:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring by Soda80

Soda80, please take your concerns to the talk page instead of automatically reverting. Please source your claims. Any editor will be quite justified in removing statements based on Wikipedia's own Deep Throat "Some People". You are also in danger of breaking the Three Revert Rule: if you do, you'll get blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to talk or revise any text, however El C reverted repeatedly with no explanation, despite the fact that revision should ideally be used minimally, if I recall correctly. It would be great if you could answer me the simple question of who is obliged to talk first -- the deleter or contributor.
The points were taken from the external links at the bottom of the page, which include this argument, such as this one: [1]. In case anybody hasn't read it, I think it points out an extremely important problem of fiefdoms controlled by special interests and fanatics:
"Numerous contributors complain that editing on Wikipedia is a very tedious excersise in futility in cases of conflict. They frequently note that "fanatic", even "kooky" contributors with idiosyncractic, out-of-mainstream, non-scientific belief systems can easily push their point of view, because nobody has the time and energy to fight them, and because they may be higly-placed in the Wikipedian beauracracy. Such wars can be highly academic, but nevertheless draining for all involved. Partly in response to his battles with followers of Lyndon LaRouche, one prolific, high profile contributor, Adam Carr Ph.D., stated in October 2004 that he would scale down his contributions to Wikipedia considerably because of, what he considers, the too open nature of Wikipedia. ...The edit battles rage on behind the scenes, and the most persistent editors usually win, often those who are entrenched within the Wikipedian community."
Soda80, I have replied to you on my page, since you wrote to me there. Please note that your source Wikinfo is a Wikipedia fork, so your reference is circular. Anyway, could you please take further material you wish to add to Wikipedia? Criticism of Wikipedia is about to go to join its maker, please see below and above. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notice: I am about to kill this page

Per the last two comments by JRM and Pete under "Warning:I intend to kill this page", which nobody has so far contradicted, I will go ahead and merge/redirect this page to Wikipedia. Crossposted from Talk:Wikipedia:

I have merged the unique content of Criticism of Wikipedia into this article and turned Criticism of Wikipedia into a redirect. There was striking overlap, so the unique content didn't amount to much, see Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. Mostly it consisted of fuller quotes from authorities already cited in Wikipedia, e. g., this well-known and telling quote from Robert McHenry: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." Anything like that has been tenderly merged into Wikipedia. The only things I've knowingly let fall by the wayside, as being too low-quality for a featured article, is unsourced grinching by Some People, for example "Some people predict that Wikipedia is going to end up as "just as a bunch of flame wars"" (some people seem to be quoting some other people here).

If anybody's planning to revert my actions, please give some thought to the issue of references, because the Criticism page did have something Wikipedia was in want of: an appropriate (if short) "References" section. Wikipedia had and has a very fine collection of references, but before my meddling, they were given only in a footnote section (confusingly titled "References".) Footnotes are not enough, the reader also needs an alphabetical list of the sources used. But won't such a list merely duplicate information already given in the footnotes? Yes. Well, isn't that a wanton waste of space? No, it's an essential reader convenience. The reader who wonders if Simon Waldman's Guardian article was used, or who wants the bibliographical information for it, needs to be able to find it on an organized list, as opposed to having to dig it out of a disorganized list, which is what the footnotes are. The alphabetical list can be dispensed with if there are only a few references—usefulness and what the reader really needs are the overriding principles—but the larger the number of references, the more important it becomes to have it.

I have made a start on a proper "References" section by importing the short References list (only three items) from Criticism of Wikipedia. I have also inlined references to these three sources in appropriate places in the text, where required. These references and their placement in the text were valuable information in Criticism of Wikipedia, and I have been careful of it. Oh, and I have renamed the footnote section "Footnotes".

I'm hoping somebody else will help with the work of adding all the other footnoted sources in alphabetical order to the new References section. Alphabetize by author's name where known, please, otherwise by article name or page name. If you like, feel free to list the sources without taking any trouble over formatting, I'll be dropping by to format them if required, and to add them myself if necessary. (I admit I'd like to see first if anybody's going to revert the work I've done so far. Feel free to be bold, as I was.) Bishonen | talk 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see this proposal before, but I disagree with it. This topic is substantial enough to have its own article. A full merge would make the Wikipedia article too big, and the merge that you did actually removed a lot of information, leaving only about a third of what was there. NoPuzzleStranger 21:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Whats your problem Bishonen -- are you unable to add anything constructive to the Wikipedia, so you try to remove articles while pretending you are doing us a favor? We have a Criticism of Wikipedia article; if you don't like it, don't look at it. Go ahead and improve the Wikipedia article if you want... but don't waste our time by deleting this article. Fredy3332

If Wikipedia really is too big an article to support this material it should be spun out to opinions on Wikipedia, not Criticism of Wikipedia. Dividing by opinion-type is never as a good a method of division as dividing by topic-type. Love your suggestion that Bishonen is unable to add anything constructive to Wikipedia, good comedy is always good for the morale. Pcb21| Pete 12:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My Goddess. If I'd known my modest proposal would attract this much hostile attention I would have gone ahead and done it and caught the flak myself. I will never, ever, ever discuss anything on Wikipedia ever again if the action is within the limits of what an ordinary user can easily undo. Instead I'll just do it and risk criticism afterwards. This is really so unproductive that it's not funny anymore. Go edit something, people. Somewhere else. Anything but this. And thank you all for teaching me the true meaning of Wikipedia:Be bold. JRM · Talk 21:20, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Is this really meant as a reply to me? Pcb21| Pete 08:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No. I'm sort-of puzzled how it ended up there. I probably typed a : too many. (As you observed, it's not replying to your comment at all.) JRM · Talk 22:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of recently added link

What is the relevance of this recently added link: Wikipedia and a possible Meta-Encyclopedia exposing gaps? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing at all. Title is misleading. Likely an example to show Wikipedia weakness in action. Removed. Pavel Vozenilek 22:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please keep this article

  1. I think as an encyclopedic article it should still exist in Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support keeping as a separate article, as the tone of an unified article can be different from a compendium. But if the voice changes into a bunch of separate themes, then that would be grounds for merging. For now, keep separate. Ancheta Wis 01:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Keep this article seperate and in article space. Yes, it is possible to have an article which discusses the criticisms of Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Silensor 23:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The self-reference thing

I'm sure Sunny256's recent edits were well-intentioned, but I think they are wrong. If the article is copied elsewhere, we want links out of the encyclopedia space to still work correctly. The way they were changed, they wouldn't. I used rollback to revert, because I have a slow connection. -- Jmabel | Talk

Systemic bias, Canada:Nigeria

In regards to, "[w]hile it has long been one of Jimbo Wales' goals to distribute Wikipedia in the poor nations of the world, the current Wikipedia would give them a product that does an inadequate job of covering their regions" I think this might be a premature statement. Our coverage is surely not perfect (in fact, it's more flawed than incomplete I would think) but the reasoning behind that statement might be off. We have (most) every little county's census data in the US. That means the US is going to be mentioned 1000s of times when it is not in any other major encyclopedia. We (because of lack of information and lack of manpower) have not done the same for smaller countries. We have thousands of obscure television shows, musical albums, etc. not mentioned in any other major encyclopedia. However, our main source of news on parts of the world not English speaking (or without media pervasive in English speaking countries) is Encyclopedias. We have limited access to English language material on Nigeria for the most part. However, we have unlimited access to English language material on American bands. So, I don't think we can conclude that wikipedia is inadequate in covering those regions (though it could be, and we could always use more), the conclusion is that coverage is really skewed. I just thought it should be reworded, or explained better... but, I didn't want to add original research of course :O gren グレン 07:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think adding US Census level of detail about places in another country would meet a considerable amount of resistance for various reasons. One of those reasons is that, as a mass, Wikipedian are culturally biased. This is a separate issue to that of availability of material. Pcb21| Pete 10:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The original analysis was done here. That was about a year ago. I'm not sure of the methods he used, but I think the situation has improved since then – partly perhaps because of WP:CSB. It would be useful to have a chart with time on the x-axis and the Canada:Nigeria and Belgium:Rwanda ratios on the y-axis, to see how long it would take Wikipedia to catch up with the other encyclopedias. I estimate about 10 years, which is a long time to wait.
We have limited access to English language material on Nigeria for the most part. - English is the official language of Nigeria.
- Xed 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Official language is inconsequential really, I mean, historical data won't be in English, neither will much of the cultural data. I'm sure a lot of it is in Hausa, etc. So, I do think we have very limited access to it. I'm also a little unsure of it it should be even. We have access to a lot more information about many European countries than we do Dr. Congo. gren グレン 18:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
All the major Nigerian newspapers are in English and have an online presence - Xed 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Grenavitar that my figures are a measure of quantity rather than quality. It in no way takes into account the fact that History of Rwanda is a better article than History of Belgium. At the same time, that there are many more articles at Category:History of Belgium than at Category:History of Rwanda makes the encyclopedia as a whole far more useful for someone studying Belgian history than Rwandan.

I just reran the relatively crude test I did a year ago. The ratios have improved somewhat, but we are still below the other encyclopedia. Belgium vs. Rwanda fell from 11:1 to 5:1. Canada vs. Nigeria fell from 27:1 to 25:1. We are making progress, but CSB is unquestionably a long term project. - SimonP 23:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It definitely is long term and I was just trying to make the point if it's a "disadvantage of wikipedia" or "advantage of wikipedia", and I just think that it's the latter (in an odd sense) since it's our ability (not paper) to have so many subjects that other encyclopedia don't have that makes the ratios so off, not the lack of subjects as much. Thanks for making those reports :) gren グレン 11:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact that we have loads of articles should not affect the ratio. Great we cover Canada in more detail than others, but ideally we should equally cover Nigeria in more detail. Pcb21| Pete 11:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it's a matter of how it's being framed. It's not ideal but, I guess I think of it as we have 1 piece of the puzzle, Britannica doesn't have either. The whole thing seems to be a complaint of having too much knowledge. I do understand the point though, it was just a matter of how to frame it. gren グレン 11:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd question, but how does Bangladesh compare to Slovenia? I ask because Bangladesh is also a large country and it's GDP is even larger then Slovenia's.[2]--T. Anthony 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Does Daniel Brandt's apparent personal vendetta really belong linked in the external links? Weird that he is complaining about the invasion of his privacy by the existence of an article almost no one would read if he just let the matter rest; and here he is publicizing it. Oh, and Mr. Brandt, if you want to add me to your list of evil Wikipedia adminstrators, go right ahead. Judging by who is on it, it would be an honor. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


Unfunny as a Criticism

I am of the opinion 1) that being unfunny is a fault and therefore the unfunniness of Wikipedia is a valid criticism; 2) Everyking removing my criticism was really funny. --68.255.163.63 05:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about "really funny", but mildly amusing. No doubt Wikipedia could also be criticized for not tasting as good as chocolate or being as physically nutritious as grain, being almost useless as a means of interstellar travel, and contributing very little to progress in the science of phrenology. Not only that, but you can't take it intravenously. However, none of these criticisms would belong in this article.
Perhaps you should start an article Wikipedia:Criticism of BJAODN? But it would probably just become part of Wikipedia:BJAODN itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge status

And why I am removing the tag! Firstly, pages in the Wikipedia namespace do not have to be as vigorous as the articles must be in the main namespace. There must be references to the critics on this page.

Next, the merge tag has been on the Criticism of Wikipedia page since August 6, 2005, and people have attempted to redirect even before the tag was added.

What I am doing, instead, is submitting this to AfD. I will section the AfD into the following sections: keep as is, delete entirely, redirect, merge and redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just pointless!

This is really pointless!! There is thousands of people editing articles, that is why it works. Thousands versus minutia. Sounds like the work of someone who has probobly been kicked out of Wikipedia. I hope they decide not to delete article, it would show the flaws of the people who dont have any social skills. JedOs 11:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see this as a pointless article. I have found Wikipedia very useful, I don't want its credibility to go down. By acknowledging the issues, editors can better resolve them over time. I'm a relatively new editor, this page was the reason I started to edit. Besides, Wikipedia strives to have information from every POV; removing or filtering the criticism out, would be exactly what Wikipedia is being critisized for! --QubitOtaku 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Sucks" links wanted

As part of my own wiki project, I'm interested in providing links (and especially reviews) to sites that claim to criticize Wikipedia. I say "claim to," because the more interesting (and sillier) criticisms usually boil down to this: "Waaahh! The bad WikiNazis won't let me edit my pet articles the way I want, so therefore they're censoring me!" So far I have three notable examples of this sort -- including Brandt's "Wikipedia Watch" -- but I'm definitely interested in more whining of this kind. If you're tired of folks like John Byrne coming in and threatening the folks here because they don't like what we say, then please send them in my direction. My Web site is http://www.modemac.com/wiki/Wikipedia_Sucks -- I'm not inserting a blatant plug into the article itself, because I'd probably be accused of promoting my own Web site if I did so. Feel free to drop by and take a look. --Modemac 13:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Register: There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'
Let me review this link by (I hope) sharpening what I think is an example of significant criticism in the aftermath of the John Seigenthaler Wikipedia Hoax Controversy. It seems to me that we have two separate issues to deal with. One is the theoretical limits of epistemology that Wikipedians must cite when defending errors in the Wikipedia. The other is the difference between an honest mistake and deliberately misleading content. The Register, I think, is correct to say that the former is no excuse for the latter.
So the real problem is not that the Wikipedia cannot achieve a higher level of factual rectitude. The real problem is that the Wikipedia has no facility to help novices establish the authority of an article of the Wikipedia. The best science can offer us [laypeople] is a bunch of journals that practice a complicated protocol (Peer Review)of anonymous referees from a select bunch of supposed "experts" in the journal's field. If you want to don the scientist hat, you can always try to replicate the results of someone's journal article. I leave it as an exercise for the reader, but plenty of crap, for various reasons, has slipped through the journals' sacred peer reviews.
The real problem here is that the Wikipedia puports to be peer-reviewed, but each article has its subscribers, and it isn't clear whether an article has been tacitly approved by innumerable readers, or quietly corrupted out of salutary neglect. This ambiguity is the real failing of the Wikipedia, but it should be easily corrected by applying something similar to (but NOT identical to) Slashdot Karma--just to show whether any editorial attention has affected any given article or not.
The real problem with the Register's scathing polemic is that it is just scathing polemic. The Wikipedia and the Register are apples and oranges. The authority of the Register's criticism cannot really be levelled with the Wikipedia, though its argument has a resounding us and them posture. The issue isn't a matter of which side is right or wrong. The Register conveniently ignores the wealth of good content in math and science and that traditional encyclopedias get historical biography just as wrong (Christopher Columbus is a good candidate for this research). So the punk teenager straw man at the conclusion of The Register's criticism could just as easily have been a fat, lazy armchair anthropologist in a Wikipedia defense to characterize the source of the revisionist version of pilgrims and indians in the 1970 edition of the encyclopedias I grew up using.
In the end, I think the Wikipedians are right. "The price of liberty is vigilance." The Register is also right. This is one thing that will happen if we're asleep at the wheel. However fiery the iconoclasty makes you feel, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? No. We take what we have and make it better. Whether explicit or not, all Wikipedia articles are qualified by a certain amount (or lack) of attention. This qualification is, at the time of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, problematically ambiguous, and that ambiguity will be fixed in a better Wikipedia.
This is the Wikipedia edition of discussion I posted on Slashdot.
aphor 01:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Duplication and waste of energy

Wikipedia's contributors have no authority on the subjects they speak. If they did, it isn't immediately clear who has what authority based on what experience. This lack of authority creates a clear problem, one that wikipedia alone cannot escape. Furthermore, if all this energy went into actual works and already existing works and projects, it would certainly have advanced each and every one of those projects further. Instead, information is being duplicated.

Wikipedia should position itself to provide an online version of currently existing encyclopedias, a front end, a user interface, that well-established authority figures can use to update content as it is discovered and so forth. Instead it tries to be the Linux of the encylopedia world. It tries to copy what others have done and in doing so wastes our resources needlessly. While access to an encyclopedia through a wiki interface is nice, the authoritative nature of the data is far more important.

Accessing this information on wikipedia, one often asks themselves "How do I know if this is valid, accurate, or true?". Or rather "how do I trust this website, from many other websites?". Wikipedia cannot provide an answer to any of these questions.

This is why the majority of articles include a section of external links to sites other than Wikipedia. If you're doubtful of the information provided here, you can a) look it up somewhere else in an information source you trust, and b) correct the information here if it is inaccurate. --Modemac 00:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition of section on "proposals"

This section doesn't seem to either fit the article's title or to be appropriate as an encyclopedia entry at all. I think it should be removed, but since it obviously represents some hard work and thought, I'd like to hear other people's opinions about that. DannyWilde 08:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely not encyclopedic material; I've removed it. We could theoretically document proposals people have floated to improve Wikipedia, but since we have no source other than Wikipedia itself, this is pretty much hopeless. We shouldn't act as a source for ourselves.
The diff containing the proposals is here. The author (Peter McConaughey) is free to rework this into actual proposals, but I don't think this belongs in the article. JRM · Talk 18:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter McConaughey apparently disagrees, so I've reverted my removal. I still believe this essay-style section is unencyclopedic, and I'd like to have more input on how we can integrate its contents in a better way. JRM · Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks JRM, I think it's best that we bring up solutions as well as problems. For instance, in this NYTimes article, not only are problems brought up, but Jimbo also has some interesting solutions that are worth talking about. The section I added for solutions was only meant to get the ball rolling. It would be great if everyone pitched in to change and add information to this section, but please don't delete it. Stating that a problem exists without also mentioning that there are proposed solutions for those problems, some of which we are working toward, doesn't paint a correct picture of the situation. --Peter McConaughey 04:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you try looking at it in a different way? Let's imagine the article is called "criticisms of the X Window System". If Wikipedia is going to have such an article, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to do so, but if it's going to have the article, do you really think it is also necessary for a section on "proposals to fix the problems"? The fact that the article is part of Wikipedia does not mean that it is necessary for it to contain responses to the criticisms by Wikipedians. That goes against the idea of writing an encyclopedia article. I actually wrote another article called Wikifiddler, currently proposed for deletion, about Andrew Orlowski's criticism of Wikipedia, but I would fight very hard against including "responses" in that, unless they came from some figure like Jimmy Wales, and were part of public statements. I'd definitely remove anonymous responses from "Some people" etc. In general my best suggestion for your material is that it should be put into another article called "proposals for improving Wikipedia", rather than this one. I'm not against your material or disagree with it, but I just don't think it belongs in this article. --DannyWilde 04:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we should include relevant statements from Jimbo Wales, as well as other notworthy editors, and a balanced spread of proposals from both sides of the issue. Our main objective is to write NPOV articles. An article that paints a picture of problems with Wikipedia that can only be solved with greater admin power is highly POV. A balanced article would show the other side of the coin as well, that there are just as many people, if not more, that think these these problems can be better solved with less administrative power. --Peter McConaughey 05:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not discussing the issue of "how to solve Wikipedia's problems". My point is that I don't think "how to improve X" belongs in an article on "criticisms of X". DannyWilde 05:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that solutions to a problem aren't relevant to a problem? --Peter McConaughey 01:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Only insofar as they have been suggested by other sources we can refer to. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Are you paraphrasing solutions proposed by others or running with them yourself? If you made them up yourself, it's original research. If you're paraphrasing others, how do you propose we cite sources? JRM · Talk 13:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Quality

Not much about quality issues on this page. - Xed 13:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just so no one thinks I am trying to slide this by...

I deleted what appears to me to be a long, POV essay. Perhaps this belongs in Wikipedia namespace, or on Meta, and I certainly would not delete it from there, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is a POV essay leading the reader to a conclusion that administrators need more power to control content. I guess the part that questioned that conclusion didn't serve your interests. Welcome to the Cabal. --Peter McConaughey 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
That sounds familiar. Wait—that's because you said the exact same thing to me. It may be more productive to answer the concerns that three different people have raised rather than implying the cabal is suppressing material because it has an agenda. No, I know it will be more productive, since nobody ever got anything out of blaming the ever-present cabal for things you do not agree with (that's probably because the cabal is almighty—in which case its unwise to disagree with it if you want to get anything out of anything).
If you have problems with what's there, point them out. Highlight the neutrality problems you are seeing in this article, call on it when statements are not factual but part of an essay. So far nobody appears to have noticed what you are noticing, so try convincing people rather than asserting.
As far as your proposal section goes, see Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. You can put your proposals to the approval and review of the community in any way you like, and I in fact encourage you to do so. But the readers of Wikipedia are not its community; they have different needs. Speculation about what might solve Wikipedia's problems is a worthy topic for an essay, but it should not be part of an encyclopedia article. JRM · Talk 01:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a cabal! And the leader of it has announced his plans! : "Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales 16:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [3] WAS 4.250 03:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You call that a cabal? Where's the secrecy? Where's the hidden goal? Isn't Jimbo a Freemason? Nobody's buying this for a second! JRM · Talk 03:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I think WAS was trying to point out that the secret plot of the cabal is the same as the overall agenda for everyone acting in good faith here at Wikipedia. I agree with WAS on that, and would only add that the methods are often different. The point of my "essay" is that the other "essay" in the first half of the article points to only one of many conclusions. In doing so, it is extremely POV. Since there is no definable difference between my essay and the pro-cabal essay, it is impossible to delete one without deleting both, unless of course, a group with an ulterior motive was doing it.
That ulterior motive would still be based in wanting to do what is right for Wikipedia, but assumes a very pro-cabal method for doing so. As such, the title of this article should be changed to reflect its content: Arguments for why administrators should be given more power. While espousing this extreme POV, the article does not reflect any alternative methods, nor does it allow for the possibility of any alternative methods to exist in the article. It reflects only the POV of the cabal and is not unbiased "criticism" of Wikipedia at all. In fact, most criticism of Wikipedia is centered around administrators having so much power that they are able to influence articles with their personal POV. One can argue that those who contribute more should be allowed to influence content more from a fairness point of view, but I think we can all agree that a top-down hierarchy of control will never produce the best articles. --Peter McConaughey 20:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's the problem, then: what on earth are you talking about? Where does this article say, imply, insinuate or strongly suggest that administrators should be given more power? If it did I could see some point to what you are suggesting, but I just don't. Where does this article deviate from presenting facts and opinions espoused by others?
This article is not about presenting "unbiased criticism". This may be the source of the problems. This article is supposed to report on external criticism of Wikipedia. Whatever outsiders have criticized Wikipedia for, and the response of the community (which is always problematic, since we can hardly source the latter independently). JRM · Talk 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I would think, however, that we should be able to (here, or elsewhere) report on external responses to such criticism; or external sources which praise Wikipedia. Problems may arise, of course, if Wikipedia editors engage in external commentary; it's preferable that any source that we cite here not be an editor; for obvious reasons. --EngineerScotty 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. As it is, there are a few dubious places where rebuttals to criticism are clearly being written by editors without regard for external sources; the rebuttals are mostly fact-based so it's barely acceptable. JRM · Talk 01:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks JRM. Someone outside of Wikipedia has been thinking of writing a follow-up article for Wired Magazine for some time. Don't be surprised if he calls it "Dancing in the Cabalroom: How a small group of self-proclaimed experts are shaping the largest and most googled resource of the future." --Peter McConaughey 03:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Good! We can add this to the Wikipedia article once it's written. JRM · Talk 04:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
We can put it in the criticism of the criticism section. --Peter McConaughey 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this is the place for me to introduce my neologism: OpenCabal™ (OK, I'm lying about the "™" part): the free-form cabal that anyone can join! -- 20:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Privacy Concerns section

...could use a little bit more attention: it seems to conflate two mostly unrelated privacy issues. Daniel Brandt agitates on both fronts, so mentioning him doesn't clear things up.

One issue is the desire for individuals, whom Wikipedia editors happen to consider notable, to not have biographical articles on Wikipedia. (One could divide this into the case of those who wish no biography at all, under any circumstances; and those who wish to have editorial control of their biographies, or failing that, remove it completely). It would be interesting to know traditional encyclopedias deal with this issue--if someone called up Britannica and demanded that the article on them be removed, how would they react?

In the US at least, people who want to be excluded from the Wikipedia probably have very little legal recourse, especially if the article in question follows WP:V. This isn't true in other countries (including several English-speaking countries, like Australia), where privacy laws are stronger (and in many case, trump freedom of the press).

The other privacy issue which is relevant is what Wikipedia does, if anything, with access logs. Nobody (save, perhaps, for a small number of administrators) can view what articles I read; but anyone can see what articles I've edited recently [4]. Hope there's nothing embarassing in that list. The latter is probably necessary for Wikipedia's editorial function to work correctly.

Wikipedia promises, in numerous places, to not make inappropriate use of its server logs; but several critics do not trust those assurances. Given that many organizations (mainly corporations, and some charities) are more than happy to sell customer databases and such to anyone willing to buy them--I can certainly understand why outside parties might not trust us; just because Wikipedia is non-profit, isn't a guarantee of absolutely pure motives.

--EngineerScotty 21:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I just now wrote the section. Be bold! Improve the section! I don't really see the validity of your points, but I bet if I could compare this version with your new and improved version I would clearly understand the validity of your points. Give it a try! WAS 4.250 21:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I just added the following

I just added the following to the wikipedia article: Wikipedia WAS 4.250 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism in general

Main article at Criticism of Wikipedia

Criticism of Wikipedia has increased with its prominence. Critics of Wikipedia include Wikipedia editors themselves, ex-editors, representatives of other encyclopedias, and even subjects of the articles. Notable criticisms include that its open nature makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable, that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias and that the group dynamics of its community are hindering its goals.

Wikipedia is criticised on the following issues:

  • Usefulness as a reference
  • Anti-elitism as a weakness
  • Systemic bias in coverage
  • Systemic bias in perspective
  • Difficulty of fact checking
  • Use of dubious sources
  • Exposure to vandals
  • Privacy concerns
  • Quality Concerns
  • Flame wars
  • Fanatics and special interests
  • Censorship

comments

I just added the above to the wikipedia article: Wikipedia WAS 4.250 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the anti Wikipedia sites and I MUST say Wikipedia covers criticism of Wikipedia better than anyone else! WAS 4.250 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Cult of the Amateur

This essay was written before the Seigenthaler incident became known. It takes several swipes at Wikipedia; however it deals with many other Internet fora besides Wikipedia and wikis. The essay is Nicholas Carr's The Cult of the Amateur, and it rails against the so-called Web 2.0--a term, coined by Tim O'Reilly, which refers to the current state of the web where forums, wikis, blogs, and other sites editable by the rabble, predominate.

Certainly, the article is worth mentioning at the bottom; though it's charges against Wikipedia specifically are already covered--except one: the notion that Wikipedia may put publishers of "reputable" encyclopedias out of business (an argument I consider specious; but then I consider lots of 'em to be specious).

What might be worth its own article, is the larger argument against the "editable" web. Does such a thing exist today on Wikipedia, or is anyone up to writing that? --EngineerScotty 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Could such material be added to the wiki article, perhaps? Whatever you do, don't split off a "Criticism of wikis" article, please. This article has enough trouble remaining factual and neutral as it is.
The "editable web" as a concept is not treated integrally anywhere, as far as I know; the thing is still in its infancy. It's probably not time for a Wikipedia article on the topic, but maybe World Wide Web could be extended. JRM · Talk 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote the section on Wikipedia crowding out professionals missed the point. The current quote isn't particularly compelling without the paragraph before: "Those despised "people in a back room" can fund in-depth reporting and research. They can underwrite projects that can take months or years to reach fruition - or that may fail altogether." The criticism is that a free resource like Wikipedia makes it exceedingly difficult for anyone to be financially rewarded for providing a professional-quality resource, or to move to a professional 'encylopedia writing' career; this means that there's no one developing these skills except as a hobby, and thus there simply won't be the skills around to improve beyond what we've already got. 05:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

List of external links

Is it the intent of the external links list to be a complete catalog of anti-Wikipedia articles, or is some degree of notability required? Certainly, articles in major publications should be listed, alongside high-quality criticism. But some of the articles cited are incoherent rants penned by insignificant nutbars. (The Rex Curry article, in which Mr. Curry takes Wikipedia to task for declining to host his largely unsubstantiated black helicopter propoganda, is a prime example).

If a complete catalog of such articles is desirable; I suggest it be moved into a separate page; and the links on this page be limited to a) those that support the claims in the article's text, and b) a sampling of other sensible or notable criticism. --EngineerScotty 20:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can come up with a citable definition of "nutbars" (as you diplomatically put it) at least not without access to their psych records and the files of the Planters' Peanut corporation. But maybe we should have two subsections of "external links" that would cover both these and clearly sane criticisms that simply go against consensus; the terms here may be too "inside" and I'm very open to other wordings, but how about "Inclusionist critics" (those who criticize Wikipedia for excluding topics or sources that they think should be allowed) and "Exclusionist critics" (those who criticize Wikipedia for covering topics or using sources that they think should not be allowed). -- Jmabel | Talk 20:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure most critics outside of Wikipedia fall on that axis. I haven't heard arguments from outside along the lines of "Wikipedia has an article on Pokemon (or some other topic the speaker consideres frivolous), how can we take it seriously"? Most of the complaints--including Rex's--have to do with article content: quality, bias. In the case of Rex Curry, I think it's rather clear that he considers NPOV to be synonymous with Libertarian doctrine--and is upset because Wikipedia has excluded his rantings. (Well-written Libertarian philosophy is acceptable--or other political views--when labelled as such). --EngineerScotty 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Wikipedia 2

User:FrankZappo added Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines on 2006-01-05, which I removed after reading the first few paragraphs — it looks like a strange attempt at humor. User:Pgio put it back on 2006-01-06. Comments on whether to rm or keep? -- Jeandré, 2006-01-07t15:27z

  • Keep I am enthralled by it. -- Zondor 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: if their is substance there, I don't find it worth wading through to find it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: It's potty-mouthed rubbish; with little of substance to say. Furthermore, the authors are not media critics, encyclopedia authorities, or anyone else in a firm position to offer solid criticism; instead they are pseudoscientists upset that the article on their particular pet theory, aetherometry, isn't ceded to their editorial control. --EngineerScotty 20:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm involved in aetherometry so I won't vote, but IMHO its not as funny as their anti-wiki version 1. There should be *somewhere* for recording things like this though - but where? William M. Connolley 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

  • Keep. The topic is Criticisms of Wikipedia. It's on topic. The End. "..., which I removed after reading the first few paragraphs..." Nothing could illustrate their point more succinctly. All the comments above will probably be in Antiwikipedia3. Dr. Connolley, go ahead and vote, everyone is allowed, and everyone is involved in various ways. I'm sure you'll be able to take your admitted biases into proper account and come up with the right answer. If there should be a place to record things like this, why not right here? GangofOne 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a poll. You ask, "If there should be a place to record things like this, why not right here?" Because it does not meet our criteria for external links. There is no reason to link this from Wikipedia. Plenty of things are vaguely on topic in plenty of articles, that doesn't mean we are doing our readers a favor by becoming a link repository. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"Because it does not meet our criteria for external links." Which criterion do you refer to? GangofOne 16:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion laid out in Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to. Clearly it's not the official site of the topic of the article, because Criticism of Wikipedia does not have an official site. It is not a reference for the article. It's not analogous to an online copy of a book, musical score etc. of a work that is the topic of the article. It does not represent a point of view otherwise unrepresented in the external links: we already have another link to a site by the same people. It certainly does not consist primarily of neutral and accurate material not already in the article since it is not by any means neutral. And it does not appear to me to be analogous to a textbook or review. Those are the categories of what is normally to be linked to.
Moving on to Wikipedia:External links#Maybe OK to add, I don't see any grounds there, either. The first criterion there applies only to articles about "albums, movies, books" etc.; it's not a web directory (one web per listing may be added, with preference to open directories). It's not a "major fansite". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment

moved from Wikipedia:Articles for creation

The content on this website is 100% participant created and is not checked for accuracy. YMMV. Have a nice day.

If you're a teacher, teach them to be skeptical to what they read on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.217.99 (talk • contribs) .

The internet, as a whole, is less biased than any other source of information. If we can keep the Cabal from controlling content, and allow all of those disparate opinions to act as filtering agents for the article, it will enable a single Wikipedia page to be as informative and balanced as researching all of the Google results on a subject. --Wikipedians for self-rulePeter McConaughey 06:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

Boycott Wikipedia
Boycott Wikipedia

The purpose of the "Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" would be to call attention to the systemic issues plaguing Wikipedia. This boycott would consist of refusal to participate in contributing to Wikipedia. Possible slogans for the boycott could be "Imagine a world without Wikipedia. That's our mission." Aspects of the boycott could include acknowledging that Wikipedia is an inherently flawed system that should be ended rather than amended, that Wikipedia can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations, etc, and that Wikipedia is based on false assumptions and ideals. Consequently, the boycott could seek to refuse to participate in contributing to Wikipedia as well as encouraging others to do so and to actively discourage everyone from using Wikipedia as a research tool. Participants could consist of Wikipedians as well as non-Wikipedians. Eventually, the boycott could consist primarily of non-Wikipedians. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Refer to http://www.bluwiki.org/go/BoycottWikipedia for details. --JuanMuslim 1m 12:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You got to love the irony of them refering to our article (this one) for reasons why Wikipedia is so rotten. They tell everyone to not use as a reference, but do exactly that. It speaks volumes for the integrity of Wikipedia that a Wikipedia article which criticizes Wikipedia is cited by a Wikipedia opponent as proof that Wikipedia is unsuitable as a reference. Or is that the point, and the whole boycott (much like the class action lawsuit) a joke? --EngineerScotty 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, feel free to not edit Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I am absolutly positive Ta bu shi da yu is not refering to EngineerScotty. WAS 4.250 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
So am I.  :) --EngineerScotty 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
So am I. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin abuse section

This section was added by User:SEWilco, who appears to have a few axes to grind with the arbcom. While I have little knowledge or comment over his dispute, or on his proposed "Bill of Rights"... I am certain that this proposal does not belong in the article namespace. If articles cite the Wikipedia namespace (which is appropriate when writing about Wikipedia); they should only cite official policies or guidelines; not proposals (or essays written by individual editors). Most discussions in the Wikipedia (or user namespaces), as well as arbcom actions, are not encyclopedic, after all.

OTOH, there are occasional allegations of abuse of power--Daniel Brandt frequently alleges such, and Andrew Orlowski has repeated them. I have no idea if any abuses occurred, or if those who allege such are simply unable to admit fault--and thus interpret an adverse action as bias or malice towards them. However, it is a frequent criticism of Wikipedia which has been noticed by the press--even if it's outright horseshit it probably is worth a mention here, cited appropriately. --EngineerScotty 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to:

A number of editors have denounced abuses of power by Administrators and the Arbitration Committee and have claimed to "quit". There is no way to verify if they "quit" because they can always return, act different, and claim to be someone different. There is no Wikipedia process that validates persons as being who they say (or more usually, don't say) they are. This leads others to claim the Arbitration Committee has in fact no real power to abuse in the first place. WAS 4.250 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone reverted the change, it appears. I'm trying to think of language which will make this section encyclopedic and verifiable. --EngineerScotty 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I just read this and wonder to what extent the "toothless" arbitration committee is conducting dry runs for when editors become converted to members whose identities ARE verified. WAS 4.250 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If I read the bylaws correctly, you and I are already members (of the Volunteer Active) variety--or we are eligible to be, given that we edit Wikipedia with user accounts. Is there something in the bylaws--or elsewhere--which suggests anonymity will be ended on Wikipedia? --EngineerScotty 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I know of no place that defines "member" or suggests an end to anonymous edits or editors. I am very mildly concerned as opposed to worried in any way. The ability to fork the content due to its copyright makes my concern never rise to the level of worry. WAS 4.250 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Does criticism mean only negatives?

Does the title of this article mean only "criticism" in the sense of "It has its critics" or in the sense of "literary criticism" or "film criticism"? The latter seems to me a much more encyclopedic topic and much less subject to inherent bias. Offhand, there is nothing in this article I'd remove, but I think it should contain much more about views, especially outside views, that have positive things to say about Wikipedia, and those positive views should not be present only as rebuttal. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to quote the last AfD on this one:
  • IMHO, "Critics" can be quite positive. Unless you mean "Criticasting", which you are doing now, if you ask me (not that anyone did) Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    With a dictionary in hand, you may be perfectly correct. Looking at the content of these pages, though, it's clear that most editors do not in fact have a dictionary in hand when editing. "Criticism" is a strongly negative term, regardless of what it can mean or ought to mean in a scholarly context. JRM · Talk 17:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    The distinction doesn't run exactly like that, please stuff the scholarly context back in the closet. "Criticism" and "critic" can be quite neutral, and with words like "bible", "literary", "movie", "theatre", or such in front of them, they are. "Literary criticism" is book reviewing, and "biblical criticism" is about analyzing the bible, not about pointing out weaknesses in it. But "Criticism of X" is negative regardless of context. "Criticism of the bible" would mean pointing out perceived weaknesses in the bible. Therefore, assuming nobody would want to coin a horror like "Wikipedian criticism", a neutral article would indeed need to be called something like "Critical evaluations of Wikipedia". Bishonen | talk 23:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The idea of giving this a new title ("evaluations of Wikipedia" or "critical evaluations of Wikipedia" or "critical assessment of Wikipedia" or whatever) that would make more sense in terms of NPOV is not new, but so far attempts to get it at a more appropriate place have gone nowhere. JRM · Talk 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems some people on here have nothing better to do than go around trying to edit and delete articles, and being very rude and condescending in the process. 24.65.52.82 03:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be placed there, not here. You're not the first one to complain about the process, though I don't think there's ever been specific criticism we could source. JRM · Talk 08:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User anti-anon

Discussion has been copied and moved to the Village Pump. Please continue discussion there. --Revolución (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

This article contains many link to articles in Wikipedia name space, they should at least be made into external links but may also indicate a problematic writing style. —Ruud 15:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

While it may be crap; we probably don't need to editorialize on this page, that it's crap. Anyone who wanders over there will see that it's crap.  :) --EngineerScotty 18:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can mention, in a NPOV way, that it is mostly a cabal of disgruntled banned users. --malber 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • *cough* --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's gotten better; I haven't looked at it recently. When I did last, it seemed to consist of folks (including a fair number of banned Wikipedia users, such as User:Lir) engaging in potty-mouth flames of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. I think that critics can be friends, which is why I participate here--Wikipedia is a project that, like anything, can stand improvement. (And some people won't like the improvements)--but many on Wikipedia Review seem to view Wikipedia as a lost cause which should be shut down, and aren't interested in constructive discussion on how to make it better. I distinctly remember one thread wherein different ways to vandalize Wikipedia were discussed, such as generating tons of bogus AfDs from throwaway accounts or anonymous IPs. Needless to say, that sort of discussion left a rather poor taste in my mouth. --EngineerScotty 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I always wonder why people spent time on being mad at Wikipedia? If you don't like it just ignore it. —Ruud 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
One reason they don't like us is because we are too free for them, they believe that we make it easier for people to use us for "web-scraping", and we appear too high in Google searches. They also don't like how those who mirror us appear in Google searches. However, this is not the fault of Wikipedia: this is something to complain to Google engineers about. After all, we have no control over Google, or our mirrors. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Some may feel they have been hurt by the project, and wish to get even. For others, I suspect--anger with Wikipedia is driven by the similar reasons as to why bigots 'round the world hate blacks, Jews, Muslims, Christians, gays, Americans, Frenchmen, or whoever else is demonized: Wikipedia is perceived as a fundamental threat to their sense of morality, of right and wrong. To some, it seems, the notion of an encyclopedia which anybody--anybody--can edit, does not compute; and is viewed as blasphemy, heresy, and/or grave moral corruption. In other words--something which must be actively opposed, instead of being merely tolerated.
And some, of course, have ulterior motives--quite a few in the mainstream (and traditionally-published press) view community publishing as a threat.
--EngineerScotty 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this forum even relevant? The most users it's ever seen were 56 on December 11, 2005. Hardly a hotbed of debate. This is a forum set up by one disgruntled 'pedia editor who has received an indefinite ban. --malber 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Facts are important. The forum was set up by Igor Alexander, but it is run by me. The forum has 127 registered users, although most of them registered an account but never posted. As with most forums, however, most of the members and guests don't visit it at the same time - being staggered in activity throughout the day. (ie, peaks of high activity such as on December 11 are highly unusual)
Also, the forum is not strictly "anti-wikipedia", either, and the FAQ was updated by Igor to reflect this. (I'd correct this error in the external links myself, but feel that this action may be considered biased or in poor taste, and would rather someone else did so).--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You mean facts like the mean spiritied comments on Raul's pictures of the St. Petersburg meet, or selina's nasty comment on SlimVirgin? Or how about the hypocrisy of your site's criticism of Wikipedia's blocking policy being arbitrary when your site routinely blocks critics arbitrarily? Are these the "facts" you're talking about? Moreover, does a site who's primary threads involve the aforementioned puerile material belong in the External links section? -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There are several mean-spiritted discussions, granted - the board's relatively open nature tends to encourage them, I intend to look over the more recent discussions as soon as I get an oppurtunity, and perhaps lock some of them. As for regularly banning "critics", nay. There are only three users who are banned currently (four if you count Ta bu shi da yu, whose ban I have just lifted). These are gammonned, Malber, and piedradesiglos (I assume the latter was banned because he appears to be a "sockpuppet" of gammonned, or vice verse). Malber and gammoned were banned for unrepentant trolling. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder that myself... - Ta bu shi da yu 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I just got banned from their board for being particularly outraged at their nastiness (they are having a go at people's appearance, even though one of their own admins said that they will attack the content, not the people). Considering they don't like it when they get blocked from Wikipedia, and because they aren't actually reviewing us or even giving constructive criticism I don't see the need for us to publicise the link on our article. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You were banned, but not by me - and I can't see anything worthy of a ban in your most recent posts, so the ban has been lifted. I'll have to discuss it with Qwerty when I get a chance. Tread lightly, please - I'm not in a position to readily access a computer. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've readded your sig (I think you used five tildes)... I appreciate the prompt response. Could I ask who banned me? Also, this doesn't sort out the problem of nasty attacks being made against people like SlimVirgin, which are really not necessary. I was under the impression initially that it was going to be a board that criticises Wikipedia, not make personal attacks against the appearance of our admins! Horrible. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a look at this site, and while there are many disgruntled banned users, there are also disgruntled non-banned users, and even some non-disgruntled users. There is no question but collectively they are quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia, and repeated deletion of a link to the Review makes it look like Wikipedia has something to hide. --HK 14:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of NPOV

Hi, I added some criticisms of NPOV to the page and they were removed "for being POV" a minute later (I actually made my best to try writing them in the sort of "purified", "strangled" and "apologetic" style of prose this site really likes). Here it is. If you think these criticisms are too harsh and unjustified, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.

Examples of criticisms:

Misleading redefinition of known concepts:

  • NPOV claims to have nothing to do with objectivity. However, a closer look reveals it to suggest that an "objective" presentation of viewpoints is a possible and attainable goal.
  • NPOV has been accused of consistently using doublespeak and euphemisms, for example: by "neutral point of view", it is actually meant "communally accepted perspective" or more severely, simply "common bias". By "minority viewpoint" it is actually meant "subjectively unjustified viewpoint importance" rather than actual quantitative inferiority within the general population.

Pretension of fairness:

  • NPOV shows a pseudo-democratic conception of fairness towards viewpoints (undue weight), which is considered misleading and insulting for the known concept of "fairness" by some critics.
  • NPOV professes to fairness towards viewpoints, but does not take fairness towards the article's subject into account, thus allowing articles to become strongly critical of the subject, if there are no prominent defenders of it. (however, this may be considered unethical in practice)

Overuse of vague viewpoint quantification:

  • NPOV actively exemplifies using vague and unscientific expressions like "some people", "most people", "many people" for the quantification of viewpoints. Critics see this as being generally unhealthy towards creating a supposedly accurate encyclopedia. (This actually conflicts with wikipedia's policy of verifiability). Another criticism is that these expressions consist of an appeal to popularity, thus are a form of rhetorical bias toward popular viewpoints.

Unsuitability:

  • Another criticism is that NPOV naively presumes all participants to be equal in power and persistence over the expression of their supported viewpoints, in order to attain its goal. Therefore it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia that features credited seniority of editorship and hierarchical administrative structure.

--84.228.107.148 11:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite people who actually complain about these things? If not, then I think it would count as original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, see clarification of criticisms --84.228.107.148 11:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the scope of this article

I was thinking we should expand the scope of this article, and rename it "Commentary about Wikipedia". This would include criticism and other commentary about the project. What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it has its own article because its so long and such a ripe section, even without other forms of commentary. The policy here is usually to split pages when they're this ripe for content.--Urthogie 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticize vs Criticise

I reverted a change from criticize -> criticise; it's generally considered rude on Wikipedia to replace one correct spelling of a word with another correct spelling of the same word, without good reason. (If the other editor had replaced a correct British spelling with a correct American one, I would have also reverted). See the Wikipedia:Style_guide for more info on this issue. --EngineerScotty 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, spelling wars. Ironically, this is one of the criticisms of Wikipedia: that useless edit wars cause good editors to leave. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Just be perfectly clear... I've made my one edit on the subject, and I'm done.  :) --EngineerScotty 07:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Copyright Problems

Might the copyright problems in Wikipedia be highlighted as a criticism? I was just reading through the article and noticed that there's hardly a single mention of copyright. Now, personally, I have no idea about copyright law, and I'm not sure that copyright violation is an angle that Wikipedia is externally criticised in.

But I remember, what a month or two ago? That the German Wikipedia had to get rid of a shedload of stuff because it was just copied straight out of a print encyclopedia? The fact that the stuff was there for so long was that it was in print and not available online. Any thoughts? Worthy of a paragraph? - Hahnchen 09:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge problem with regards to copyright violations. Most of the content here is not sourced, and reads as it has been paraphrased onto a site. Wikipedia shouldn't be named a Free "Encyclopedia", it should be called Free Peer based, ages 10 & up, cronyism, and systematic biased "Information "Database". I agree with that a "copyright" problem section in Wikipedia should be highlighted as a criticism. I also think the "Suitability as an encyclopedia" section needs to be expanded. Anakinskywalker 12:21, 01 February 2006 (UTC)

Well written nonsense

Vandalism is usually noticed right away but well written and scholarly sounding nonsense can have a long life on Wikipedia. The article on Larry King had whimsical references his flatulence removed January 26, 2006 that read:

Larry has quietly persevered for many years, with great dignity, both in his daily life and professional career, despite suffering, since childhood, with severe gastric infections otherwise known as IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) or Malabsorption Syndrome. Never the one to be embarrassed by life's peculiarities, Larry has often been said to have a bit of a flatulence habit while on air at CNN, which isn't curbed by having guests in the studio. A favorite moment of his, and an often repeated story, involved an interview conducted with former President Jimmy Carter who, after some length of time in studio, chided Larry & asked him to please stop, or he'd have to end the interview. Larry ever present in the moment adeptly steered the conversation to global warming and the effects of bovine emissions on the ozone.

The apocraphyl anecdote was online for over one month. The transcript from the show with Jimmy Carter has no such conversation. If nonesense is added in a scholary sounding way, no one notices. If it was written: "he farts all day", it would be removed quickly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bummer :( Pity we didn't notice this! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Another issue / suggestion

I noticed another issue that I guess it's not listed anywhere: when some articles start getting big and full of information, wikipedia users refrain from deleting weak or even nonsense parts. They believe it's good to keep all that (useless?) stuff, probably reasoning that some information is better than none. That's why many many articles get huge and are tagged to need the attention of an expert (who would hopefully clean up all the junk).

I strongly disagree with this behavior of keeping junk on the main page. I guess the editing system should allow two versions of an article: the main one, with the information that was agreed by everyone (intersection of information) and another, longer one with all the possible information for that subject (union of information). In this way people would not be so afraid of deleting junk because it would be stored on the second page, and the main article would always be a cleaned up version, which, if not complete, at least would not fail on quality.

Kapitalism.net removed for spamming

After catching banned user Lir spamming his own website [5] [6] as well as another Uni.edu one he's probably associated with [7][8][9][10][11] I've added Lir's website to the spam blacklist (with the Commitee's blessing). Sine qua non to this is that it be removed from this article, as it will cause the spam blacklist to stop all attempts to edit it. Raul654 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Right, but then you added the redirect, lir.wikipediareview.com to the spam blacklist - although there were no instances of spam to that address, and lir.wikipediareview.com links directly to Lir's wikipedia essay. Be honest with people, Raul - you added it to censor. Besides, two links added by users who *might* be Lir isn't spam. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 03:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I would agree with Blu on this one. Why can't Lir's website be added to this article? He's a critic, correct? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll have to agree too. Linkspam blacklists have a valid purpose in catching and suppressing the sort of rampant, indiscriminate, automated spamming of pharmaceutical, gambling, and porn sites that's the bane of all maintainers of blogs, wikis, forums, and guestbooks; but it shouldn't be applied to suppression of Wikipedia critics' sites, even if the site maintainer acts like a jerk sometimes. *Dan T.* 17:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • For the record, the site administrator is not the problem, it is the other editors that make it a less than stirling effort as a site to "review" Wikipedia. The name, incidently, is a misnomer: they seem to equate "review" with "attack". They were (and still are) discussing whether to block me because I haven't given any criticism of Wikipedia. Hardly review. Perhaps they should rename the site to "The Wikipedia Attack"? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • He was spamming his site to several other articles (while using sockpuppets to evade his ban). The blacklisting was a natural consequence of his action. That it might be considered a legitimate link from this article is unfortunate collateral damage. Raul654 17:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Again Raul, I could understand this and respect this if you simply blacklisted kapitalism.net and left it at that, even though the evidence for spam is shaky (two links) and it was blacklisted without discussion (in open venues, at least). When I pointed out offsite that lir.wikipediareview.com was a direct link to Lir's essay on Wikipedia, however, and mentioned as a compromise using that link (which would still effectively block any of lir's other articles from being linked to, but nonetheless prevent the collatoral damage to this article), you went and blacklisted that URL as well, without any discussion or reasoning whatsoever. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Perhaps the lir.wikipediareview blacklisting was a bit hasty. I've removed it, contingent on it not being used to spam. Raul654 22:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeda Review - why link should not stay

In case anyone is unclear why we don't consider Wikipedia review a source of constructive or illuminating criticism, please see the following post by Blissy2u:

Jan 31, 2006, 11:01am, tbsdy wrote:
Jan 24, 2006, 5:27am, lir wrote:
You can tell a LOT about someone by their physical appearance; and in particular, the way they smile. In this case, Snowspinner's pictures make it immediately clear that he is the archetypal geekish loser who is clearly power-tripping on Wikipedia because it gives him a sense of purpose in life. And Jimbo doesn't look very comfortable in the picture, although he would certainly deny that.
You can also tell a lot about someone by what they write. For instance, I can tell that you are a paranoid, unintelligent twit who must take swipes at a dreaded threat at every opportunity.
There... is my personal attack good enough for you? If you didn't like it (and I envisiage howls of protest) have a good look at what you wrote and apply it to what I just wrote.
This board makes me sick. That you must go so low as to have a go at someone's physical appearance says a lot about the contributors here.
TBSDY
I'll just quote the relevant bits again, for dissection:
"For instance, I can tell that you are a paranoid, unintelligent twit who must take swipes at a dreaded threat at every opportunity."
- At this point, TBSDY is using humour in a similar way to how Lir used humour, perhaps as an attempt to make Lir look stupid.
"There... is my personal attack good enough for you? If you didn't like it (and I envisiage howls of protest) have a good look at what you wrote and apply it to what I just wrote."
- TBSDY admits that its a personal attack, and it was more than just calling someone a "twit". It was calling him a "paranoid, unintelligent twit who must take swipes at a dreaded threat at every opportunity." That is somewhat different. Adding in "paranoid" makes it somewhat nastier, and adding in the rest makes it personal. Thus it is a personal attack.
"This board makes me sick. That you must go so low as to have a go at someone's physical appearance says a lot about the contributors here."
- This is a personal attack against every member of the board. In other words, Lir's memory was right. It is similar to the attack that Malber made against all autistics, using MSK as an example.
Now that I've seen the link (thanks Sannse for finding the search engine to help to find it) I think that I can say without question that it was a personal attack, and the issue really is that it demonstrates a willingness to destroy the board. Its not whether or not he called Lir names. Its fair enough to call Lir names - after all, Lir calls other people names too. No problem with it. But the issue is trying to destroy the board, and attacking everyone generally.
Anyway, I think that he probably shouldn't be banned for it though. Its just not severe enough.
However, I think that the link to here in the "Criticisms of Wikipedia" probably should exist. I mean, after all, it is the only forum criticising Wikipedia.
Remember that size isn't the only criteria. 5,000 members makes the forum big enough for inclusion on size alone, but being the first of something, or only of something makes it significant in its own right. So since it was the first forum criticising Wikipedia and the biggest, then that makes it notable. Okay, technically not the first since Lir had his own up beforehand, but certainly the biggest. Is it notable enough for its own article? I don't know. But its notable enough for a link from another article.

In case noone has realised where the problem is, here goes:

  1. I didn't attack Lir. I was, as Blissy2u stated, poking holes in Lir's argument. Lir believes that he can tell a lot about someone by their appearance. I poked holes in the argument by using reductio ad absurdum: if you can tell a lot by their appearance, then you can also tell a lot by what they do. I was making fun of Lir, pure and simple, to prove a point. Do they really think I think that Lir is a "paranoid unintelligent twit"? I think my point was made fairly clearly when I wrote "There... is my personal attack good enough for you? If you didn't like it (and I envisiage howls of protest) have a good look at what you wrote and apply it to what I just wrote.", the operative bit being "have a good look at what you wrote and apply it to what I just wrote". As I predicted, however, I received howls of protest from Lir.
  2. "This board makes me sick. That you must go so low as to have a go at someone's physical appearance says a lot about the contributors here." Yes, the board does make me sick, the user selina wrote horrible things about SlimVirgin and posted a picture of a grossly obese naked woman and implied that it was what SlimVirgin looked like. I should note that the board makes me sick in that it allows personal attacks. This is called "criticism". I'd like to point out that if Blissy2u applied his own standard to the Wikipedia Review then many on the board would be guilty of tarring everyone on Wikipedia as fools/abusers.

As such, I don't feel that this website has anything to offer to the average reader. If they actually addressed issues, then sure, I'd put the link back in a jiffy. As it is, it's not a terribly reputable site, as I feel my large quote from the site itself proves. Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Talrias, I removed the link again because it's an insignificant website with posts from a very small number of people, and it contains defamatory statements, at least one of which appears to be a serious libel. The people involved also believe the website to be insignificant:
"This is pretty lame. Every single page has a Google PageRank of zero. Do you know of any way to raise it? This board is so incredibly insignificant. Could someone please mention the message board on that recent Slashdot thread about Wales?" ("Any way to raise the PageRanks of the board?" Feb 11, 2006, 3:22pm by qwerty)
"More specifically, there have been over 6,500 posts, from about ninety different posters. Of the total posts, a shade over 5000, or 78%, have been made by the ten most prolific posters, and of that ten, over 50% of the posts were made by the most prolific three, Blissyu2 (User:Zordrac aka User:Internodeuser), BluAardvark, and Lir." ("Wikipedia Review: How significant is it?" February 13 at 6:48pm by electricray)
If one of the administrators himself says "[t]his board is so incredibly insignificant," and if over 50 per cent of the posts are coming from only three people, there's no reason we should take it seriously. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the rather twisted mindset of the Wikipedia Review participants can be seen here:

I simply posted a list of anti-Wikipedia links. I couldn't care less what axes they have to grind or whether they're kooks or not.
As long as they hate Wikipedia and cause trouble, I support them.
Hell, as far as Wikipedia goes, I even support the Scientologists, much as I despise them, because they're running the Wikipedes ragged trying to keep up with all their vandalism and censorship of Scientology-related articles. People are investing hours and hours of their lives in these revert wars, for what? All their hard work will be reverted in the end, because Scientology can hire minions to keep fucking with the articles from here to eternity.
-- caldecott

Despite all of this, I still actually favor including the link, given that some other similarly twisted anti-Wikipedia sites are also linked, and we don't want to look like we're censoring criticism. Our readers should be trusted to be smart enough to read criticisms and draw their own conlcusions. *Dan T.* 17:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see that, but I'm inclined to agree that the link should stay out- it's a small group of people propogating conspiracy theories and whining that they were blocked. I also removed the two links to the "books" by those aetherometry people, because they're, similiarly, a small group who are more interested in ad hominem attacks than anything else. I may be biased, however.--Sean Black (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
We wouldn't accept it as a link on a regular article. Most of its "criticism" is not in any case of Wikipedia but of some of the contributors to it. However, the aetherometry links look a bit more substantial, and the issue of antipseudoscientism is serious, because the NPOV policy, as formulated, is so clearly biased to SPOV. So I'd say make that the bar. Anything more unhinged or less constructive than that is out. Fair enough? Grace Note 22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm indifferent to the links inclusion or removal. I do agree that some of the personal attack issues are a real problem, which is why I have attempted a solution which I hope will at least seperate these types of discussions from the main criticisms, and make people aware that just because someone says that a certain user is a 500 pound whale calf, doesn't mean that we condone it or are stating it as fact. It's a bit too soon to say how well things are going or not going in that department, of course, but it is a start. Remember, of course, that the forum is exceptionally lightly moderated - very few posts are deleted, and very few users are banned. The few bans that have been instated have since been overturned. As an open forum, most of the contents are simply opinions of the individual user who posted it - the group as a whole may or may not agree with it. It is true that you do tend to find more substantial criticism in an essay - an essay involves an exceptional amount of thought and research, whereas a simple forum post does not necessarily. I do believe that the link is appropriate for this article, but again, I'm not going to be the one to add it, and I do discourage (in a sense) users on the forum from re-adding it. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought that in general we discourage linking to forums because they do not generally have cogent information that is useful to readers. Perhaps Wikipedia:External links has changed, because I no longer see a discussion of forums. -Will Beback 23:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't considered that point. This is generally the practice, and it seems like common sense to me. Obviously, there are exceptions, like Slashdot, but otherwise Will is on target.--Sean Black (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There's also the issue of libel. Wikipedia could be considered liable for linking to a site with information we know is potentially libelous, even though that information isn't actually reproduced in whole on any Wikipedia pages. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 08:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The "issue" of libel is an invisible red herring. There are some statements that are accusatory, defamatory, and just plain foul, but they are not being passed off as fact. Also, IANAL, but I don't believe that I, the adminstrator of the board, would be legally liable if, say, Selina posted an aggressively false and disgusting biography of SlimVirgin on the forum - and I certainly don't believe that Wikipedia would be liable either. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it meets the actual legal standards for libel is irrelevant; by now, it's quite clear that Wikipediareview is nothing but a platform for trolls - a significant portion of whom were thrown off this site for good reason - to make ad-hominem attacks against legitimate users. We will not be giving them any credibility by linking to them from this article. Raul654 05:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If this is the case, then why not remove the link to Wikipedia Watch? There is no real coherent criticism at that site; just an incoherent ramble that is more embarassing to Brandt than to Wikipedia. There is also the issue of his listing of personal information about admins without their consent. A link to his article in a "See also" section should be all that is needed. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Raul, respectfully, that is simply your opinion, and it is not based on any actual evidence. Sure, there are two occasions (TWO!) in which some of the forum members chose to make ad-hominem attacks against users, that is not what the board is for - and that is also why the third board was created, not to legitimize these types of issues, but rather, to provide a place for them to be aired where they can be safely ignored if a person chooses to. Yes, many of the forum's members were banned from Wikipedia for various reasons - but not all of them. The forum is a diverse mix and an open platform for any criticism of Wikipedia, either positive or negative. Some of these criticisms are not truly valid (such as the long-winded thread on Phil's teeth, which even I was offended at). Others are. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 18:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Not based on any actual evidence? It is full of personal attacks, some of them serious, the rest juvenile beyond belief. And the issue of how many boards you have is irrelevant: any link to the site takes readers to all the boards. For someone who claims not to care whether the site is linked to, you're certainly writing about it a lot. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I do believe that the site should be linked - I make no secret of this. When I say I don't care about it's inclusion or removal, what I mean is that I am not going to involve myself in anything further than talk page discussions. I will not, in any way, add (or remove) the link from the article, because I have a certain conflict of interest. There are personal attacks there, yes - mostly restricted to a single forum which states, quite clearly, that the forum contains offensive content. These personal attacks come from both sides, from critics and others. This is no secret. In addition, "all of the boards" are not viewable by anyone - at least, not unless they have taken an interest and registered an account (which anyone is free to do), although the main reason for this is to prevent search engines from caching the more objectional material. I can understand both sides of the coin, and the reasoning for the link's inclusion or removal. I, personally, believe that the forum is notable enough to warrant a link - but only in this article (not in Wikipedia or Daniel Brandt as I have seen it added to from time to time) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Blu, I like you and I think you try generally to take a constructive approach to Wikipedia's problems. However, your board is mostly just a whinefest for editors who mostly got what they deserved on WP. An awful lot of the content is bitching about particular users, rather than about any broader issues at Wikipedia. And it's of no wider interest. No one who posts to it is an outsider, that I can see. The posters are either the targets of opprobrium or their cadres, banned users who mostly want to bitch about how unfair it was, shitstirrers, what my friend Jay likes to call "problem users" (that's you and me, mostly, and posters such as laurels) and some cryptoNazis who recognise it as a good venue for Jew-baiting. It's nearly entirely concerned with wikipolitics, and consequently it's of little broader interest. Its entire potential audience already knows where it is and what it is. And its actual audience, as measured by post views, is very small. If this were any other forum, Blu, I'd be cutting it from the page, particularly on a big-ticket article. I don't see why your flame board should be treated to any different standard from any other elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus over The Wikipedia Review

When the cabal agrees, that is called "consensus". When the cabal disagrees, that is called "no consensus".

There Is No Cabal. *Dan T.* 13:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review redux

Pie Chart of Wikipedia Review posts as of 13 February 2006
Pie Chart of Wikipedia Review posts as of 13 February 2006

I've just spent a few days slugging it out with the folk at the Wikipedia Review. While I have some serious fundamental and practical issues with how Wikipedia is operated, and therefore don't consider myself any sort of lapdog to this organisation, Wikipedia Review lacks significant public uptake, and in any event shows very little in the way of balance, common sense, or sophisticated criticism. In a nutshell, this pie chart (taken from membership data on the site as of 13 February), gives an idea of how much "consensus" it represents:

Note that fully half of all posts were made by just five people: Blissyu2 (banned from Wikipedia); Blu Aardvark (administrator of the site); Lir (banned from wikipedia); Igor Alexander (banned from Wikipedia; founded the site) and qwerty (administrator of the site). 11 posters account for over 75% of all posts, and of those 11, at least two (Tony Sidaway and thebainer) are antagonists on the board and don't actually seem to agree with its point of view.

In short, the Wikipedia Review is largely the work of a handful of people who have an axe to grind. I don't think it deserves any mention in any encyclopaedia, even as a link. ElectricRay 23:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

When the forum got started, I would have argued that there is a clear cut case for linking to it: one notable critic, Daniel Brandt, posted there, and several Wikipedians also got involved. Today, the forum increasingly resembles a GNAA troll site, and some of the threads are certainly libelous. Brandt seems to be no longer active there, and it appears to have been unlinked from Wikipedia Watch.
Given that the forum still appears to be unique, and that several notable Wikipedians still post there, I would still argue for its inclusion at the present time. The fact that a handful of posters account for a majority of messages is not unusual and does not negate the presence of other content. However, if a Wikipedia user who has been affected by libel posted to WR makes a strong personal claim here, and WR refuses to delete the respective messages, I would be more inclined to support removal of the link. I remember when Sollog started making very personal attacks against Jimmy's family; this is the kind of line that should not be crossed.
If the link is included, it should be clearly labeled. I suggest "An open Internet forum critical of Wikipedia, including a dedicated subforum which permits vulgarism and personal attacks."
In any case, please don't edit war about the issue. Wikipedia will survive both the inclusion or the non-inclusion of the link for the next few weeks. Let's discuss the matter here.--Eloquence* 20:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that it was founded by a neonazi ;) Raul654 20:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That was never truly confirmed. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to record that I have not even edited, let alone contributed to an edit war. ElectricRay doesn't *do* edit warring. Having hung out at the place for five or six days I thoroughly disagree that there are any "notable Wikipedians" (whatever that means) actively involved there, and certainly none who have anything particularly interesting or novel to say. As for libel, that's a different story - it's pretty difficult to libel someone who's operating anonymously under an assumed "internet" name (like "ElectricRay"), as most targets of WR do - though "defaming someone's online persona" is no doubt fertile grounds for future development of the law of defamation, I don't think it's got there yet. The only objection I have to the link, which I think is a king-hit, is pure non-notability: the Wikipedia Review is simply a bunch of petulant adolescents with waaay too much time on their hands. ElectricRay 23:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The "don't edit war" was not directed specifically at you, but more of a general appeal. I would certainly call Sannse, Tony Sidaway and Ambi notable Wikipedians who are well-known in the community. They have responded in various threads on WR, usually to tell our side of the story.--Eloquence* 09:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then: the only "notable Wikipedians" (hmmm ... this is a new one ... would they qualify for their own Wikipedia articles?) involved are antagonistic to the Wikipedia Review, and are actually posting in support of Wikipedia. So how does that help to establish the notability of the Wikipedia Review as a critic of Wikipedia? ElectricRay 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
So what you are saying (hope I'm not misquoting you!) is that if notable Wikipedians (hey, I'm notable now!) stop posting there they may just go away? OK, I've stopped posting :P Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the smartest thing would be for Wikimedia to set up its own moderated forum for critics, and to keep the barbarians at the gates. ;-) --Eloquence* 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Now this I agree with. ElectricRay 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
A couple weeks ago I would have considered the idea that we should link to Wikipedia Review. Now that most of their threads are dominated by a neo-Nazi, I say forget it. Rational, civil criticism of Wikipedia is fine. The fact that they have failed to do anything about a user who believes Wikipedia is controlled by a "Jew bloc" destroys any legitimacy they may have. Incidentally, the same user also thinks that JayJG is deceiving people because he is not, in fact, a blue jay. Rhobite 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't present for the last week or so because I was in the process of moving and lacked internet access, but from what I have seen thus far, although this user does hold some irrational and even offensive viewpoint, he has at least been relatively respectful and has not attempted to impose these viewpoints on the community. So yes, I am explicitly stating that, unless this user engages in extremely innappropriate behaviour, I am not going to do anything about him. I don't agree with his viewpoints, and think that they are paranoid or just plain wrong, but it is, after all, an open platform. There are some sensible discussions, there are some paranoid discussions, and there are some flat-out flamefest discussions with no actual criticism whatsoever behind them. Such are the problems with an open forum, but I believe that all of these viewpoints should be allowed, even if they are offensive, paranoid, ignorant, or just plain wrong. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I challenge that there is a double standard, but I'm not sure if this is the propper venue to address these issues. El_C 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Fun fact: At least three members of the ArbCom are, in fact, blue jays. The things you learn!--Sean Black (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, the double-standard is that the WR management is very stern to act against criticism directed onto itself, but much less so against hate speech, which I feel I was subjected to there. El_C 04:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The user Blu Aardvark is defending is a vicious anti-Semite whose multiple sockpuppets are banned from Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not in any way defending him - I simply refuse to take a stance and ban a user from an open forum for thoughtcrime. If he was being particularly disruptive, I would, but thus far I have observed no such behaviour on WR. His viewpoints are offensive, and his expression of them is borderline, but I can see no convincing reason why I should take action at this point in time. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel that Blu Aardvark is defending him, by banning critics of WR yet allowing him to engage in hate speech against members such as myself. I caution all Wikipedians about the WR's double standards. El_C 04:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the case, I think that there are more appropriate venues for this conversation, so I'll ask that we scuttle this off somewhere else, perhaps email. Thank you.--Sean Black (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, that's the most transparent lie I've ever heard during my time on Wikipedia (and I've been on the arbcom for two years). You don't ban people like ignore Igor/Alex Linder and Jackwelsh for posting racist diatribes because they are "thoughtcrimes"? Ok, so what does it take to get banned from Wikipediareview? Do you have to commit an actual crime? No, of course not, because as we learned from Gracenote, blowing the whistle on the fact that WR was founded by a Neonazi is grounds for banning (twice). Posting the Slimvirgin picture (as Selina did) isn't grounds for banning, but saying unpopular things (Malber) is. Give me a break. Wikipediareview is proof that if you get a suffeciently high concentration of trolls, they'll do a wonderful job of discrediting each other. [12] I suppose in that sense, you've done us a bit of a service. Raul654 05:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I wouldn't brag too much about being on the arbcom for two years. That simple fact is a disgrace to Wikipedia.
Igor isn't Alex Linder - the evidence for that is virtually non-existant, and Igor resides in Quebec anyway. Jackwelsh didn't post any racist diatribes, although he does clearly hold some objectionable opinions. Had there been racist diatribes, I would not hesitate to ban. Gracenote was not banned for "blowing the whistle" (and it turns out that he was very likely wrong anyway). He was banned recently after creating an account (donkey), for the purpose of trolling. I do intend that ban to be temporary. Selina did post that offensive picture a handful of times, which (in part) prompted me to create the extra forum - not to hide the discussions, but to hide them from search engines and prevent them from being stumbled upon accidentally. She seems to no longer be in a crusade against SlimVirgin, however - likely she was upset at the time. Malber wasn't banned for saying "unpopular things", he was banned for being a troll. He has been unbanned, but I am rethinking that in light of his recent contributions. In a forum where the only rule is "don't act like a jackass", few people do get banned, except for those who lack the common sense to follow that rule. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You're excusing people for posting personal abuse on the grounds that they were "likely ... upset at the time." As an administrator, you've allowed me to be called an anti-Semite, along with what people think is my real name; as well as one of the "Wikipedia Jews," who lacks a mind of her own, edits only as part of a Zionist tag team, and is a grossly obese woman in her fifties or sixties, amid speculation about who would like to have sex with me. You haven't (so far as I know) taken the posts down, blocked, or even warned the people posting the abuse. Instead you block others who point out your hypocrisy, and call it "trolling." Well, likely they were just upset at the time, Blu. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not my intent to excuse their behaviour. Wikipedia Review does give an open platform for pretty much anyone to come and complain about anything related to Wikipedia. This does include, regretably, egregarious personal attacks and abuse on some of the contributors here. Also, I would request specific examples of posts that I have missed. I will make any effort to clean them up. (And please, Grace Note (nor Malber) wasn't "pointing out hypocricy". He was being disruptive. If a user came to wikipedia and started hitting dozens of talk pages with nonsense about carrots, they'd be blocked too. That's not hypocrisy. That's common sense)--06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It should be pointed out to Jeff that while the identification of Igor with Alex Linder was based on a misunderstanding, the evidence that he's this guy is solid. And isn't it curious that Jeff just doesn't mind people abusing SlimVirgin when they're "upset" but if I abuse the WR "cabal", I'm banned straight away (twice today!). Trolls, man, they're easy. If they were serious, there'd be no way donkey could have even made a dent -- donkey.
Grace Note, go to hell. Thank you, and have a nice day. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please ensure that you adhere to Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. El_C 07:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
We had an EC, El C! I was just reminding Jeff of the need to be civil in this forum.Grace Note 07:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. WP:NPA again, eh? Wikipedia is always good at throwing anacyronyms around instead of resolving conflicts. I've recieved not one, but five abusive emails from the aforementioned (personal attack removed), and although I was civil at first in responding to them... unh-unh. His post here was for no reason but to troll, just as his posts there were for no reason but to troll, and the five emails he sent to me were for no reason but to troll, and the thirty he sent to Lir. I ask you, who is the troll here? (Oh, but it didn't happen on Wikipedia! He's still an (personal attack removed))--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, and you are failing to adhere to policy. Please exercize greater restraint. El_C 07:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's like that bizzaro episode of Seinfield. On a forum populated and run by trolls, it's not considered a being a jackass to insult someone based on their race, religion, or whether or not they have bad teeth. On the other hand, I did see Sannse (who has been nothing but polite) called a troll a few times (by Lir, and possibly others). Raul654 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I so rarely get to agree with you, Mark, that I am delighted to have provided this opportunity to do so. When we have a page called Criticisms of the teeth of people on Wikipedia then perhaps Jeff's trollboard might be linked, but until that day, I'd suggest that it ought not to be. Grace Note 07:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Blu, I note that Donkey was blocked just as he was explaining to qwerty why the latter should stop posting what he believes is my name, which he does at the slightest excuse; and that qwerty was the one who blocked him. You should rename the board SlimVirgin Review or Jew Review, and be done with it, because at least then it would be honest. And please watch the personal attacks on this page. You're not at home now. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Qwerty was the one who blocked him, and I stand by qwerty's decision. If you would take the time to look over some of donkey's posts, it's quite obvious that there is no hypocrocy to it. And you are right, I was out of line with the personal attacks on this page. When I posted that message, I had recieved five emails from Grace Note full of personal attacks - and to be honest, I was more than a little bitchy about it. And yes, I do see also note that his last post (the one that wasn't in the Pit) was not objectionable, and quite appropriate. I do not, however, believe that this post was the reason qwerty banned; rather, after observing trolling and spam from Donkey, and observing that the account belonged to Grace Note, he felt a ban was justified. I just got internet access today, and had intended to remove that ban tommorrow, per some sensible discussions we had on WR. However, he saw fit to create another account, even after I told him such things, (Don Quay), and continue right where he left off - with spam. The whole purpose to it, apparantly, was to prove that we would ban a donkey but not a nazi (a straw man that makes excellent kindling). Oh, and the discussions are not all about you, so please don't delude yourself. In addition, if you want to give me some specific examples of abusive posts or threads, I will look into it at my earliest convienence. I do no believe the situation to be as egregarious as you appear to paint it here, but I also have note had the oppurtunity to review all of the discussions made in my absense. You will find that I am quite reasonable when dealing with reasonable people (and sometimes with unreasonable ones)--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It's too late, no one is buying this attempt at damage-control PR. Had you taken some responsibility for those whom you'd left in charge, they'd be a semblence of goodfaith left. El_C 09:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Qwerty was a big fan of donkey's until donkey opposed his revealing people's presumed personal information, which has continued with another moderator's doing the same. This is how the Wikipedia Review deals with its critics -- by attempting to silence them by posting their personal details and banning them from their forum. No one has yet been banned from Wikipedia for criticising it! Grace Note 00:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, some wikipedia admins have revealed the IP, even real life identity and banned many people whom they labeled as "vandals". Why did SlimVirgin ban Carrot Giver? a user who has not done any vandalism. To silence the critics of course! Robust Physique 08:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh

Sigh. This debate isn't helping anything, nor is it really about the article at all anymore. I understand where everyone is coming from, but I think we'll all be better off if we just drop it, please. Thanks.--Sean Black (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Say what? Here's an insightful thread authored today by the person left in-charge, titled: Haters of non-Jewish people (sic.) fuck off. El_C 11:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sean, you're not helping. We are explaining to an editor why we don't think the link is appropriate in the hope of creating a consensus. If you have something to offer in that effort, please do so. Grace Note 00:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I honestly believe that thread to have been primarly a joke (based in part on a related thread in the same forum), and it certainly isn't particularly objectionable. It's also off-topic, in the proper place for that. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blu has gone and made Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) a global moderator at Wikipedia Review. This is a person who has been blocked from WP no less than 33 times since registering in December 2005, the most recent block being one month for edit warring, personal attacks, equating Jimbo with Hitler, and vandalising policy pages [13]. This juvenile and immature user sees no problem with violating the privacy of forum posters, and has done this to SlimVirgin and Grace Note. I've taken the liberty of removing several of my posts to protect the IP information of one of the computers I frequently post from. This is further evidence that this forum is not to be taken seriously and certainly should not be listed in the article. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
First it's "Well, it's full of libel and personal attacks". So we do something about it. Then it's "Well, your forum is full of nazis and trolls". So we express that it is an open forum, and we won't ban members for having beliefs that are off-base, unless they are disruptive in some way. Selina points out a thread in which the user in question was disruptive, we remove the posts, and the user is banned. Now it's, "They made a user we blocked from wikipedia a mod temporarily! OMG EVILZ0RS!111". I do respect the privacy concern, particularly after the Grace Note incident (and I am still trying to locate all the threads she posted his personal details in), and she has been de-modded (I may re-instate her at a later point, but for now, we really don't need an extra mod. It was a spur-of-the-moment decision when I created a new subforum). Of course, now it will be back to "They're full of trolls!" until another excuse crops up. And SlimVirgin, may I suggest that you, like many of the members of the forum, also have an axe to grind? It appears to me as if you will look for any excuse to not link the forum. Again, it's not a big issue anyway - Wikipedia Review will survive and grow with or without the link - but it is an active, continually growing and developing forum, nearing 200 members (although maybe only half of those are or were ever active), that is quite vocal in criticism of Wikipedia, and quite informative to a user who wants to read about such criticisms. It is not a "trollboard", "full of nazis", "full of libel", and so on. It is an open discussion forum, to which many people have contributed - and yes, many of these users are seen as trolls in the eyes of Wikipedia, but many are not. There are some invalid criticisms, and there are some exceptionally useful ones. There are also personal attacks, and we are trying to keep those to a minimum. Also, as I have stated here (twice) and on WR - if there is any post that appears exceptionally objectionable, anyone is free to contact me, and I will look into it, and (possibly, depending on circumstances) take action. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not an open forum. You banned donkey for expressing himself. You allow trolls to defame respected Wikipedia editors with impunity but you do not allow criticism of your own members. donkey was welcome to post extremely crude invective until he questioned an administrator's posting of a respected Wikipedia editor's personal information, at which point he was blocked from your "open discussion forum". Nazis can post antisemitic rubbish but donkeys cannot ask your administrators why they are posting what they take to be people's personal information. --Grace Note.

Looks like this discussion is now moot. Igor Alexander, the board's neoNazi founder, has posted frank Holocaust denial to the board and banned most of the participants. Grace Note 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Igor is trying to prove a point - but he has disrupted and all but destroyed the board by proving it. We are almost done getting the board moved to an independent server, however; Selina is going to be the one running it, which could prove a problem, at least, to the interests of the elitist cabal. Well, it's only this article that will be harmed by it, so I'm not overly concerned. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 05:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Who cares if someone deny the Holocaust? Who cares if someone deny Nanking Massacre? Who cares if someone deny the existance of WMD in Iraq? They can deny it if they want to. Robust Physique 08:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's my viewpoint as well, which certainly hasn't earned me any brownie points here. I suppose people fail to understand why I tolerate Nazi viewpoints, but for me, it's pretty clear. What do people accuse Nazis of? Intolerance, hatred, and censorship. But how do we treat them? With intolerance, hatred, and censorship. I find this disturbing, and feel that when we act in this way, we become like unto the enemy. And so I refuse to act in this way, rather feeling that being tolerant and open is a better solution. Provided that they are not launching attacks on race, who really cares? --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of criticisms of Wikipedi

Critics include current and former Wikipedians, representatives of other encyclopedias, and subjects of articles. They certainly include those described, but what has been left out? Which of those was John Seigenthaler Sr.? I thought he was a ... oh, yes ... critics include members of the news media.

Maybe "omissions" should be added as a notable criticism, along with "disproportionate weighting of subjects".

Also, others say Wikipedi is functioning well as an encyclopedia. The world's first encyclopedia that "functions". hmmm... What did Britanica and Encarta do? It's been so long, I forgot. Oh, yeh.... that's it.. They SERVED as an encyclopedia. Service... now that's a rare concept around here, where we are doing something "undoubtably good" (sic) as the godking said when he recently blanked a talk page. Funny, "wikipedia edit war" gets twice as many google hits (467) as "wikipedia serves" (231). Shurlock 09:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Weasel words

"Proponents of Wikipedia point to such statistics to show that systemic bias will diminish over time. Opponents point out that these articles drew attention from the Wikipedia community because they were specifically mentioned by Hoiberg, and this increase in size was not universal." And just plain worng! I am a proponent, but I would point out the latter issue! Rich Farmbrough 22:03 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Oh, just a little point the word "Criticism" can include positive criticism. Rich Farmbrough 22:12 25 February 2006 (UTC). 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WR (again)

I happened to notice the beginnings of what looks like another edit war looming over this articles history whilst perusing Special:Recentchanges. In the interest of encouraging discussion rather than blindly reverting, I am making note of the dispute here, so it can be discussed. Personally, I believe the site should be included, but only because I feel it enhances this article, but also recognize that a) I am blocked, and b) I am involved with the site. Nonetheless, discussion is preferable to reverting, so let's try that :). If the edit war I thought I was seeing has now ended, well, feel free to disregard. --72.160.70.218 23:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Blu Aardvark. I have an alternative idea -- if people continue spamming Wikipediareview (as Selina-cum-Bob, just Bob was doing today) I will consider adding it to the spam blacklist. Raul654 00:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems Mark/Raul presumes bad faith on the part of those who consider a Web site critical of Wikipedia to be relevant to criticisms of Wikipedia. Maybe he could explain exactly when it is okay to assume bad faith and to personally attack people by dehumanizing them as "trolls". ReViewer 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Those people adding the links to Wikipediareview you mention are, by and large, the same people who have already been blocked/banned from Wikipedia. Insofar as they are concerned, you are confusing cause with effect. I am not assuming bad faith due to the fact that they inhabit wikipediareview; they inhabit wikipediareview because they were kicked off wikipedia after demonstrating their bad faith.
Furthermore, your claim that Wikipediareview contains relavant criticisms is simply untrue. If I want to read about Snowspinner's teeth, or see shock-pictures labeled as SlimVirgin, or read conspiracy theories about how jews like "Jewjg" are going to take over the world, I'll check Wikipediareview. On the other hand, if I want to read legit criticisms of Wikipedia, I'll go elsewhere. Raul654 07:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I read some of that site too Raul. You are clearly picking and choosing the most outrageous examples of poor behaviour. It is clear that other bits of commentary on that site are much more legitimate. I think we should just include the link. At least it stops the ding-dong battle, and by getting involved and then doing the protection yourself, it adds grist to their mill. Pcb21 Pete 08:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Will someone explain what's wrong with linking to Wikipedia Review in an article about Criticism of Wikipedia? Also, I'm a bit irked that you got involved and were the protecting admin, Raul. --Golbez 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is not notable in any way, and it's using Wikipedia as a medium for advertisting. Jayjg (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Notability is used to decide whether we have an article on something. We have a lower threshold for external links. All this talk of course is better advertising for them than a poxy external link in a long list of external links would be :). Pcb21 Pete 16:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Notability is also important when deciding which links to include. Wikipedia is not a link farm; if I put a page which says "Wikipedia stinks", would that necessarily be included? Regarding the talk itself, the bigger issue is Google ranking; members of the forum are apparently trying to insert as many links to the forum as many places as possible; i.e. a Google bomb. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The criteria for sources are defined at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Clearly, WR doesn't meet the criteria--in general, many public online sites (blogs, forums, and wikis--including Wikipedia itself!) are considered questionable. WP is probably at the upper end of the scale--the large amount of peer review which goes on here makes us more reliable than the average Joe's blog. (At least we hope). Likewise with a number of well-known blogs/forums/wikis with large, established communities of experts and/or hosted by well-known experts; WP frequently links to MeatballWiki, WikiWikiWeb, etc.
Wikipedia review? It doesn't meet any of the criteria. No peer review goes on there whatsoever (forums are generally not a revieable-media like wikis are--what gets written is generally not modified afterwards). Other than Daniel Brandt, nobody who notable posts there. Nor is the site particularly well-read or popular. And I haven't even begun to comment on what gets posted there, much of which is juvenile flames from disgruntled ex-Wikipedians, containing little more content than "WP sucks". It's just another random Internet forum. Just because it offers a dissenting view to the opinions of the Wikipedia faithful, doesn't mean that WP has a duty to link to it--we do link to many sites containing notable criticism of Wikipedia. WR, sadly, isn't one of them. (As an aside, it might be useful if there were a public forum for legitimate WP criticism, outside the editorial control of the cabal, that didn't dwell in the sewer quite as often as WR frequently does). One that attracts authorities on the subject, not just a collection of banned WP users and the occasional tabloid tech reporter.
--EngineerScotty 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Wiki

I have been looking for alternatives to Wikipedia. More specifically, there was one called WikiInfo or InfoWiki that had a lot of open source content from Wikipedia but allowed POV without heavy editing found on Wikipedia. I've tried all sorts of searches on Wikipedia and google with no success. Does anyone have a link to this page? Vcarless

You were so close. It is called Wikinfo, we have an article on it (though perhaps we shouldn't because it never really took off) at Wikinfo. Their main page is at http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?. HTH, Pcb21 Pete 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC).
Depends what you mean by "never took off". It's still running you know! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Elitism of Contributors

In the section entitled "criticism of contributors" the article absolutely needs to include the complaint that seems to be one of the most prominent criticisms leveled against wikipedia. That the contributors are elitist in determining that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes them. This is not acceptable when it's an article about a website that gets tens of thousands of regular viewers. Dozens of very popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to the internet traffic tracking service, had articles about them deleted by wikipedia.

In short, any website, blog or webcomic that a decent number of people may come to wikipedia to learn about deserves to not have the article on that website, blog or webcomic deleted and thus have nothing turn up from their search.

Wikipedia is fantastic in that it lets you find straightforward information about any topic. Wikipedia's contributors shouldn't be deleting articles about blogs and webcomics that recieve a decent amount of traffic just because they personally don't know about them. This is the definition of elitism. And it also weakens wikipedia's ability to serve as a useful straightforward reference on virtually any topic.

The single greatest strength of wikipedia is that it contains so much more information than brittanica and every other encyclopedia could ever hope to contain. This is a strength that should be emphasized and encouraged, not actively undermined by elitist "contributors" who decide that just because they personally haven't heard of a blog or a webcomic, means that the thousands that do don't matter, and that the dozens of visitors who stumble onto the blog or webcomic anew and who turn to wikipedia for information about it deserve to have nothing come back on the search.

I can't mention how many times I come to wikipedia nowadays to learn about a new site with a lot of users and contributors only to have no article come back because an elitist editor decided that the article on that site/blog/webcomic wasn't important enough to be included. Pushy elitist editors deleting articles left and right, this is a problem that's worse than ever.

I regularly contributed to wikipedia since it's inception. But I've stopped contributing as a result of this and have actively encouraged others to do so as well. And that's going to continue until wikipedia changes it's policy on deleting articles left and right.

People who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site deserve to find it. That's the entire point of wikipedia, to provide information on things that brittanica was too limited in scope to cover. Wikoogle (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you got a source for this criticism, or is it more based on your own experience? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This is pretty much word-for-word the same criticism that you wrote in deletion policy, so I'll give you the same answer here that I gave you there.
The reason why there should not be an article for every blog and webcomic that has a few thousand visitors should be pretty obvious: Wikipedia does not exist to promote anyone's website, products or services. I've tagged a few articles about webcomics for deletion because they failed to assert their notability in any way. Actually, I usually tag garage bands that have never toured, signed with any record label, or had their music played on any radio station outside of their hometown. Then there are small businesses that have no significant national or international sales, and have received no media coverage. Then there are the biographies of a living person who has no notable accomplishments. I've tagged a number of articles about people who currently have a job, some kids and a dog. So? I've even seen articles about people in their teens and early 20s whose primary accomplishment in life so far has been graduating from high school or university! Whatever the case, the article is usually created by the owner/artist to promote themselves, since basically no one has ever heard of them. There are six billion living people, tens of millions of small businesses, millions of bands, and thousands of webcomics. If a webcomic becomes famous enough that its content starts to be quoted or imitated, fan sites appear, and merchandise starts to be sold in stores, such as Homestar Runner, then it deserves an article. If a webcomic is only read by you and other people who go to the author's university, its scope or appeal is too narrow to merit an article on Wikipedia. If we lower the requirements to allow a biography of any person who has ever had a family, or an article about every blog, comic, band and business that operates out of someone's basement, Wikipedia could easily have 100 million articles by 2009! That would really mess with search results, and make it difficult for readers to tell which businesses/bands/blogs/comics have national or international appeal, and which ones have an audience mostly composed of people who live in the artist's dorm.
Wikipedia policies sometimes need improvement, and everyone is welcome to participate in that discussion. As for claiming that articles about webcomics are being deleted by elitist Admins... don't you think it's a bit elitist of you to think that you can determine which webcomics are notable enough to deserve an article? If you're an expert on webcomics, please feel free to contribute content to the webcomic article. Maybe you could add a list of "popular" webcomics that might have appeal to fans of the genre, but aren't notable enough to deserve their own article yet. As for your perception that the articles are being removed at the whim of individual Admins, that's probably not true in most cases. With the exception of articles that are so obviously frivolous that they qualify for speedy deletion (patent nonsense, vandalism, etc), articles are proposed for deletion, usually by regular editors (since Administrators represent a tiny, um, elite fraction of all editors), and everyone in the world has at least 5 days to state an opinion. If, after 5 days, no one has made a strong case for why the article shouldn't be deleted, then an Administrator is free to delete the article because the people have spoken. What I'm saying is that articles are generally deleted at the will of the people, not the whim of a single Admin. If you feel that an Admin has acted inappropriately in deleting some article, please bring it to the Admin's attention, and if you're not satisfied with his or her response, then bring it to the community's attention. Maybe you're right and disciplinary action should be taken. But remember, an Admin isn't a vandal just because he deletes an an article that you think is notable! If they really are in the wrong, the rest of us are smart enough to come to that conclusion. There are more checks and balances on Wikipedia than there are in any government. Where else can absolutely anyone have a say in virtually any aspect of policy? There are some aspects of policy which I think could be more democratic but, for the most part, this is as good as it gets. DOSGuy (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I’m more inclined to think that the increasing toxicity of the community, coupled with power-drunk admins and people obsessed with the bureaucratic way of getting things done has finally gotten to the point where it drive more people away than come in.

There was a time when I logged over 1000 edits a month. Now I rarely bother to visit - not because there’s less work to do, but rather, because so much of what goes on there is unpleasant crap.

Ian

Fanatics and Special Interests

Why are we using the word "fanatics"? Calling people involved in criticms of Wikipedia, especially the Christian Post article and Conservapedia, fanatics, is pejorative, insulting, and amounts to little more to substituting childish namecalling for any response to the points made by these people. StaticElectric 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that fanatic is too strong a word and per Wikipedia policy is most likely a word to avoid. I renamed the section with the new title "Strong point of view editing," not sure if this is the best title for that section so feel free to change it to something more appropriate.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIAJIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kidding lol. this article seems like its criticizing itself just to let ya know. --Storkian aka iSoroush Talk 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Query about wikipedia data backup/recovery plans if wikipedia main server crashes

In Wikipedia Signpost interview dated 10 September 2007, WS asked question to wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales: 'As a follow up, does the Foundation have data backup/recovery plans in place should a disaster occur?'.

In reply to this question, Jimbo wales replied: 'Ask User:Brion VIBBER. I am not really qualified to answer detailed technology related questions' [1]

According to Jimmy Wales, User talk:Brion VIBBER is competent to answer the question. But User talk:Brion VIBBER may not read this question on his talk page and can be contacted only by email. And emails are not reliable source according to wikipedia policy. Hence whether wikipedia foundation has data backup/recovery plans is unclear.

I just want to whether wikipedia has such plans in place. If yes, please answer it here with reliable source. If no, please allow me to post single line that, 'whether wikipedia has data backup/recovery plans in place if disaster occurs to wikipedia main server is unclear'.

I believe I am commenting on very important question by giving reference to interview with Jimbo Wales.

I politely request wikipedia editors/administrators not to push me too far. Otherwise unfortunate situation may arise and wikipedia will have to block three IP addresses. And that is like blocking one billion peoples and cellphone users in almost all countries on earth.

I politely request you to either answer my query or allow me to post single line.

I've tried to explain on your talk page that original research, unsourced personal opinion, and unsupported speculation can't be included in Wikipedia articles. I am restoring sourced, accurate information about what Jimbo said in his Signpost interview and about WP's periodic database dumps, which are made publically available to help insure against catastrophic data loss. Please stop inserting your speculations and opinions into the article with no support or sources. Thank you. Casey Abell 14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Casey and I apologize for my frequent edits.

When I figure out this database dump, I will write article for average reader and Jimbo Wales.

But I have figured out that google, yahoo catch almost all wikipedia articles every week or so. Hence nothing to worry about data loss.

You may remove my addition to 'prediction of failure' section if you think it is unwarranted there. If I remove it, someone may consider it as 'vandalism'.

Thanks very much.

abhishka 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of Articles

In my opinion this is a key criticism of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN Antony272b2 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

I would like to see some of the dated external links (those that are news articles posted on a particular day) to be folded into the main text as inline references. I think that this should be done even if it requires that new assertions be made in the text. The process is simple: read the external article, read this article and find a home for the link. Again: if the external article makes an interesting and relevant claim not in the Wikipedia article does not, then add a new sentence to the article and add the link as an inline citation and remove from the external links section. Maybe we should have a template that suggests such.--Mightyms 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I screwed up.

Could someone please delete sub-page Criticism of Wikipedia/Criticism of the concept. I mis-read the guidelines. --Cat Lover 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres(t.l) 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia peaked?

Please take a look at the graph at the blog here. I think it is because of developing negative internal dynamics and the inability of the administrative staff to keep up with the growth of users. The project is far from complete. Should something like this be addressed in this article?--Filll 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The slowdown in growth is definitely a possibility for the article. You can find a balancing viewpoint here. All sorts of caveats, though, especially because the slowdown finding is based on a (large) sample of articles rather than complete stats on all articles. And it's only a supposed slowdown in the rate of growth, not a stoppage of all growth or an actual shrinking. The encyclopedia is still expanding at a brisk pace – there has definitely been no peak in the total size of Wikipedia. Also, outside media haven't picked up the story much, so maybe we should wait a little to see if it develops into anything major. Casey Abell 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have realized that this comes from a very interesting page on Wikipedia. If you click on the image, you get directed to pages of User:Dragons flight with a lot of interesting discussion about this:[14] I hope it turns into an article especially if we can find someone outside who picks up on this so it is not OR.--Filll 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion on the talk page of the analysis. Several people are challenging the declining rate of growth argument, and there are some graphs which show that the rate of growth has actually increased recently. Again, all this looks like premature OR for the article right now. Casey Abell 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is too early, particularly since it has really received minimal interest in secondary sources so far. But it is quite interesting. I am quite interested in the subject personally, so I will keep an eye out for any further mention outside of WP.-- Filll 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Humorous Critcism

Encyclopedia Dramatica is not an attack site. I see no harm in putting a link to the site there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.59.46 (talk • contribs)

There has been a broad consensus for quite some time that ED does not meet the requirements of WP:NOTE, nor of WP:EL. If you wish to argue for its inclusion, you would be best advised to do so in terms of those guidelines. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to WR?

Some editors have been edit warring a link to Wikipedia Review into and out of the external links section here. I don't think that site is a source to which we should link, per WP:EL. Until consensus can be demonstrated that its value as a source is sufficient for us to use, I propose that the link not be used. Accordingly, I've removed it from the article, and I've created this section to facilitate discussion of the site's merit as a source. Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that site is extremely meritorious of inclusion here; it's the best-known of all the critical sites, is actually fairly well moderated, has interesting discussions, and besides, every damn administrator here who's worth his or her salt reads the site. Should definitely be mentioned in the article (as they say, whether you like the site or not). +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I neither like nor dislike it; besides, my feelings about it are irrelevant. Apparently I'm not worth my salt, either. Thanks for the input, anyhow. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Um... reinserting the link "per discussion" means that you think a consensus has been demonstrated. That takes more than one posting. I won't edit war with you, but... do you seriously believe that link has consensus support? :( -GTBacchus(talk) 08:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, ex post facto. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you please unpack that answer a little bit? I don't know how something can have "ex post facto" consensus. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES strikes again. The top page of Wikipedia Review contains nothing offensive in any way, unless a critical attitude towards Wikipedia is considered offensive in itself. I often read the forum to view criticism of Wikipedia that is unavailable on the encyclopedia itself. A couple threads have been personally critical of me, but I can live with that. Among other notable items, Wikipedia Review help break the Essjay story. The BADSITES crowd censored linking to the site on Essjay controversy. Now they want to banish all mention of it here. This is typical of a scared, silly, censorious attitude. Instead of selectively removing links to threads on the site which may be unacceptable, the BADSITERS rise up in holy horror at the entire site – which makes Wikipedia look like a timid old maid from the 1840s.

Yanking all links to Wikipedia Review is disruptive, unnecessary, and unjustified by policy or ArbCom decisions. Now the article has been protected in its scared and silly form, where we can't even mention one of the leading criticism sites. More BADSITES insanity. Casey Abell 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Not BADSITES. I'm questioning the appropriateness of this link in this article per WP:EL. ArbCom said that the inclusion of such links is a matter for sound editorial judgment, and that's the question I'm trying to raise. The article was being edit warred without any accompanying talk page discussion. This is where we should be discussing, not each others' motivations ("scared, silly, censorious attitude," which is ad hominem and unnecessary), but we should be discussing how this link does or does not meet the criteria laid out in WP:EL. Is there any way we can discuss that? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
In particular, from our external links guideline:
Links normally to be avoided
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.
12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
I question the suitability of the link to Wikipedia Review per these guidelines, not per some misguided "attack sites" policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, of course it's BADSITES. The users removing the link have been among the most prominent supporters of this nonsensical non-policy. As for the EL argument, Wikipedia Review has often been dead-on in its factual accuracy and citation of relevant diffs from Wikipedia. I mentioned the Essjay controversy, and a major contributor to the site was also a key player in the Siegenthaler incident. If a site that often offers accurate and important criticism of Wikipedia can't be linked in Criticism of Wikipedia, what can be linked? If a specific thread from Wikipedia Review is objectionable on EL grounds, then remove the link to that thread. But removal of every link to the entire site is exactly BADSITES, and it exactly resembles censorship and Victorian-old-maid silliness. Casey Abell 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never supported that policy, and I'm the guy you're talking to now, and all I'm willing to talk about is WP:EL. That's what ArbCom charged the community with doing: exercising sound editorial judgment, per the consensus-based wiki model. I'm trying to determine whether there is a consensus that WR meets EL. That's all.

Now, you ask "if WR can't be linked, what can?" That's easy to answer; look at WP:EL. We can use sites that are reliable sources, offering notable views, and which publish responsible, verified information. Is WR one of those, in the case of this article? That's my question. I'm not "removing every link" to anything; check my contributions. If you think I have any interest in "Victorian-old-maid" silliness... heh, heh... you don't know who you're talking to. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're concerned about EL, then apply it on a link-by-link basis, as any policy on references should be applied. If a link to WR or any other site violates EL criteria, remove the link. But blanket removal of every link to Wikipedia Review is silly, censorious and an exact example of BADSITES. The link to the top page of WR does not mislead anybody or violate any other criterion for referencing material relevant to this article. We already reference in this article many criticisms of Wikipedia that I think are unfair, misleading and downright dumb. (That asinine image from Encyclopedia Dramatica is the groaner of all time, for instance.) I haven't removed those links because I believe the reader should be given the right to decide on the validity of the criticisms. I only wish that other editors would stop removing links merely because they don't like the site where the link resides...which is the exact definition of BADSITES. Casey Abell 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have I removed more than one link? Have I even removed that one more than once, ever?! You tell me to apply the policy on a link-by-link basis; that's precisely what I'm trying to do here, and you, instead of paying any attention, are accusing me of supporting a policy of which I'm one of the most vocal opponents. Now at what point will you be prepared to put the ad hominems aside and talk with me about this particular link in the context of EL? Why do I have to beg for this?

I have been extremely frustrated with the purges of which you speak, and that is precisely why I am trying to refocus the discussion on policy, one link at a time, patiently and with application of "sound editorial judgment", as ArbCom requested. Now... can we talk about the policy already, or would to make up some more bullshit about me first? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with GTBacchus in this respect. If the link is to be included, there needs to be a value judgment about the encyclopedic value of the link with respect to the article, from the perspective of a reader of an encyclopedia, not a player of inside-wikipedia baseball. What value does that link provide? We do not (currently) link to creationist claptrap sites when discussing the Piltdown Man. MOASPN 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
(after EC) Thanks very much for noticing what I was actually saying, MOASPN. What's really annoying about Casey Abell's reaction is that I'm attempting to model correct practices here. I removed the link one time, posted immediately on the talk page (which previous removers neglected to do), and I cited policy, without making any kind of remotely personality-based or ILIKEIT-style argument, and he jumps down my throat for some mass action of which I've never been a part. I'm sorry for venting; I'm finished now. I entreat all of us to try to refrain from jumping to conclusions about each others' motives. If I've made the same mistake without noticing, I guess that would be typical, and I'm sure someone will point it out to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think GTBacchus is getting some of the flak from people frustrated with the whole BADSITES business, which is not really fair since he's one of the more reasonable and thoughtful people out of the group that is generally against such links. I still disagree with much of his position, but if everybody in the debate was as fair and reasonable as him there wouldn't be nearly the level of heat and acrimony that there's been. Now, back to the real topic: while links to forums are discouraged as sources, that's not how the link in question is being used; it's explicitly there as a link to a prominent forum for discussing Wikipedia criticism. As such, I think it belongs here. *Dan T.* 02:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess when pro-BADSITES people think I'm anti-BADSITES and anti-BADSITES people think I'm pro-BADSITES, I must be doing something right, yeah? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a broken record, but "What value does that link provide?" Stating that "it's a very prominent forum" doesn't even take a step there - there are lots of very prominent things that linking to provides no value to our readers. Reading this specific forum as a non-player of inside wikipedia actually misinforms our readers - it is like linking to a creationist claptrap site on the article about the Piltdown Man. There are many good criticizers of Wikipedia - is the goal of linking to this rubbish to discredit real problems? If so, I suggest said strategy is backfiring, and leaving our readers stupider. MOASPN 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I strongly agree with GTBacchus here. WR does not pass muster with WP:EL, whether you consider it a GOODSITE, a BADSITE, or an UGLYSITE. ah-AH-ah-AH-aahhhh wah-WAH-wah... :) - Crockspot 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not know about WR until I read these lines. Why were admins so concerned about linking to this web site? It seems very interesting to me. 128.227.27.99 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Novus Ordo Seclorum

Four out of the five people who removed the link make comment that make me suspect the believe some policy REQUIRES the deletion-- they are clearly in error about this. But GTBacchus clearly states that's NOT his concern, that he considers the matter to be something to be decided by consensus, and that he's not acting out of a blanket purge mentality-- and I believe him on all counts.

Furthermore-- as much as I would love a nice test case to prove to everyone BADSITES is dead once and for all, I think I have to actually agree with GT on this. This article is about "Criticism of wikipedia", not "Critics of wikipedia". Looking over the article, it seems like we have no shortage of good secondary sources, so we should be able to satisfy WP:V without resorting to a primary source. WR, as a forum, isn't a very good EL, since it presents its content in threaded conversation instead of static prose. If it were a different article and WR merited mention in the text, I think NPOV would say we'd have to link to it. But honestly, given the current article, it looks just kinda tacked on at the end, just sort of hanging there. If it were notable enough to have its own article, or it there are enough news stories to support an article about the "critics of wikipedia", that might make an article, but I'm skeptical that subject is sufficiently notable to have enough reliable secondary sources.

But this is the beauty of living in a post-BADSITES world. We get to actually decide these things based on what's best for the encyclopedia. We get to talk about it, share our views, swap ideas, and form a consensus-- rather than having the answer dictated to us.

When the link was first removed from this page, I took it for a blind "vandalism-esque" deletion based on BADSITES-- I would have instantly reverted it, and fought to defend it. But now that we're being encouraged to actually form consensus again, we wind up having a discussion. And GTBacchus, invariably one of the most reasonable people in the room, has made an excellent point, eloquently explained it to me why this particular link isn't a very good one, and changed my mind anyway.

So for those that doubted-- let it be seen. The revolution was never about promoting our critics-- it was about improving our encyclopedia. :) --Alecmconroy 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we'll leave out the link. I think it's silly that we can't link to the top page of a forum which has often provided valuable and accurate criticism of Wikipedia - criticism which was hardly "claptrap", to use one of the nouns tossed around. Some people might not like the role that WR played in the Essjay incident, the Siegenthaler incident, the media attention to plagiarism on Wikipedia, etc. But that doesn't mean we should censor all mentions of the site. I'm in the minority here, so I'll bow to BADSITES. But I'll put on record that I don't like the censorship. Casey Abell 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
{{fact}} MOASPN 12:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact tag is kind of funny. I could provide the requested references to threads on WR that discussed Siegenthaler, Essjay and plagiarism on Wikipedia - but I'm not allowed to link to them! The BADSITES catch-22. Casey Abell 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I could create a blog with discussions on Siegenthaler, Essjay and plagiarism on Wikipedia that state that the blog was the source that broke each of those. If there are reliable third-party sources commenting on this forum's activities, please present them. Forums, as self published sources, are not reliable. MOASPN 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, try Essjay controversy for WR's role in the Essjay mess. But you probably wouldn't consider that reliable, either. I shouldn't even point out the reference, because it will probably now get scoured from the encyclopedia, as many other mentions of WR are disappearing. I couldn't disagree more that BADSITES is "behind us." Renamed in an Orwellian fashion as MALICIOUSSITES (principle 15.1 of the ArbCom decision) the policy is being used to get rid of links to WR throughout Wikipedia. See JzG's contribution page if you don't believe me. But as I said, I've surrendered on the issue. This will be my final comment on the matter. Casey Abell 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
{{Verify source}} - source does not state anything about Wikipedia Review. I've flagged it for review. MOASPN 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia 'review' is still quite clearly a bad source of information. Brandt's well connected to the LaRouche crackpots, and the ArbCom decision is still highly relevant to that can of worms. 123.255.55.62 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the recent blind-insertion of the innapropriate external link, I question the initial comment. While it appears those in support of a BADSITES proposal were focused on encyclopedic value, at least some of those in opposition were certainly not. MOASPN 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It does little good for the discussion to characterize people on either side as "blindly" doing things or as "not focused on encyclopedic value". *Dan T.* 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think EL covers this one in the main space, we don't need to invoke BADSITES as it doesn't pass muster as an EL or a reliable source. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Casey Abell for finding so diligently these sources. After our flurry of edits over the last couple of days, the article is better sourced and more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the very kind note. Maybe I shouldn't say it, but this article has to be one of the easiest to source in the entire encyclopedia. Type Wikipedia NPOV or Wikipedia sources or Wikipedia just-about-anything into Google, and you get a flood of stuff. The Internet is loaded with criticism of this encyclopedia. Casey Abell 23:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Jossi is right that the sourcing is improved. Separately, I see that there seem to be several blogs in the "external links" section. WP:EL says:
  • Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
  • Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
Are there recognized authorities on Wikipedia? I know some grad students have published studies on it, so I suppose they'd qualify. Anyone else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Since there's no response I'm guessing there's no defense of the inclusion of blogs in the external links. I'll be bold and remove them. If anyone wants to show how individual blogs are written by recognized authorities on Wikipedia then I'd be happy to see those restored. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article deletions

Wikipedia article deletions are affecting our donations to the extent that it is notable news about Criticism of Wikipedia. If we created the article Wikipedia article deletions sourced with those news reports we could at least have a place that mentions and says something about stuff that does not otherwise warrant an article and redirects could be created pointing at that article. Might help with fundraising too. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea. Anyone care to give it a shot? WAS 4.250 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof that Wikipedia is being used for spying

See this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Begantable (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nifty graphic. All the info shown there can be gleaned from information available to any wikipedia user. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we can't even mention Encyclopedia Dramatica

I'm not going to revert any more on this. But I'll put on record my objection to attempts to eliminate even a mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica from this article. Like it or not, ED is now a very popular parody of Wikipedia, and efforts to hide this fact are, in my opinion, foolish and counterproductive. One thing's for sure, I never want to hear "Wikipedia is not censored" again.

And by the way, a backhand reference to ED remains in the article. Casey Abell (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a mention of ED cited to its mention in a New York Times Magazine article. If they thought it was important, it certainly merits four words in one paragraph at the end of the article. 75.175.3.211 (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm just appalled that there is not an article on ED on the wikipedia. That is just the most fascist f'd up behavior for what I thought promised to be an uncensored collection of human knowledge. How childish and what a waste. I'm really floored and have lost a lot of respect for something I thought was really great. Cyclopsface (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Um... if Encyclopedia Dramatica had received non-trivial converage in multiple independent sources, we'd have an article on them. It's not fascist; it's consistent with our policies. We don't keep articles on other websites that don't meet WP:WEB. Should ED be an exception just because... what? Are you arguing that Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information, with no regard paid to WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:RS? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith and take your response seriously: ED is more popular then the Uncyclopedia and is very very much more popular than the many webcomics (for example) and other smaller websites featured in Wikipedia. I understand that Alexa rank (for instance) is not the only measure of signifigance, but I think you would have a hard time convincing a reasonable and unbiased person that the hundreds of smaller websites, including the Uncyclopedia, warrant inclusion in Wikipedia while ED does not - especially as it is mentioned in this very article. I don't care about the Encylopedia Dramatica at all (its a silly place like YTMND and 4chan - both of which have articles by the way), but I do care about the integrity of the Wikipedia, which seems to have turned into to be a somewhat silly place itself.Cyclopsface (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of the Uncyclopedia article. It has several instances of non-trivial coverage in independent sources. YTMND and 4chan are also both referenced to multiple independent sources. Are there such references for ED? If so, I haven't seen them, and I've paid pretty close attention to the debate for over a year now.

The simple fact is that ED doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. The fact that a lot of Wikipedians don't like ED may create the appearance that we deleted the article as a grudge, but we actually deleted it because the site is not notable, per our usual standards. The notability guidelines apply to all website articles, and I'm not defending any article that sits here in contravention of them. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Open Source Software Preferential Treatment

Maybe it is in the nature of the two systems but there appears to be a preference for open source software on Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles about open source software which should is questioned as far as its notability while commercial software is not found even though it is widely used in a particular profession. The commercial software is possibly deleted because it could be an advertisement. 98.195.185.125 (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia

I just stumpled across conservapedia and felt a little sick, they spout hatred, thank the lord (oh dont worry that`s not me being conserative) for intelligence here on wiki. Realist2 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By their fruits ye shall know them.--Filll (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Conservapedia is indeed frightening. What's their motto again? "All the information that we want you to read" ?Epthorn (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

original research?

"There are indications that academics' view of Wikipedia may have improved during the last few years. There has been an increase in the number of citations of Wikipedia in international scientific journals, though this may be at least partly the result of the greater prominence of the project."

I do not like the section that starts like this. "There are indications [...] may have improved"... this sounds very vague. I find two words in that sentence that are very vague and are leaning more to weasel words than referring to a source.

The section goes on presenting some statistics over some site ScienceDirect. Where is the source for this? This looks like original research.

This section just states some claims that might be correct, and doesn't ever refer to a source. It should be removed.

Besides that, I love Wikipedia and do not agree with most of what this article has to say... so don't you think I'm criticizing this section because I'm some Wikipedia-basher... PureRumble 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki-deathstar.png

Image:Wiki-deathstar.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Register article about the November 18th block

While I am sure that this probably needs a paragraph or two, it seems that (a) you are cribbing almost directly from the Register article, using mostly direct quotes instead of actually writing a Wikipedia article and (b) at least one of the editors identified by user name is not actually identified by any name in the Register article, so including his user name is original research. This particular article is way too much of a battlefield for me to play around with, but I just want to point out that we *do* have some quality standards here, and it would be nice if the criticism article would uphold them. Risker 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed all the direct quotes that weren't comments from people. Cla68 is linked to from Charles Ainsworth in the article. --arkalochori |talk| 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I mean Giano II. He is not mentioned by name in the article at all, just as a "rogue editor." We all know it is Giano, but the source has not chosen to include that information. Risker 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it did link to his page when it said that Wales' scolded the "rogue editor" in question. --arkalochori |talk| 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, good point, I had not specifically noted that, although I assume it was to quote Jimbo rather than "out" Giano. This may require some additional input from others. Risker 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No I think you were right. The article specifically detailed Cla68, Kelly Martin, and Dan Tobias, while never referring to Giano by name. I assume there was a point to that decision. --arkalochori |talk| 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is primarily a bunch of gossip and rumors. It is just fodder for people who confuse criticism of Wikipedia with malicious bad will and disruption.--Cberlet 03:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Before restoring the text, can we discuss why rumor and gossip deserves so much detailed text? It is bogus.--Cberlet 03:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any rumour or gossip in it. It is remarkably factual, although not necessarily good publicity. Since it is from a reliable source, and the author is not historically a Wikipedia critic but rather a journalist of some repute, let's leave it alone where it is and talk about it. Risker 03:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The text that was written was entirely POV from an anti-Jimbo anti-leadership POV. There was very little factual material in the text. I rewrote parts of the text to make it less hysterical and less POV. The article itself is a good example of bloated hype. Most Wikipedians never heard of the incident, and most who did probably thought it was a silly mistake and quickly dealt with. I think a discussion of cyberstalking, bullying, Testosterone Madness Syndrome, and aggressive anti-Wiki disruption is long overdue. But no matter what I think, the text was highly POV, negatiove, and breathless.--Cberlet 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are even discussing a tabloid here? I have removed the material. In any other article, such material would not survive 5 minutes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Jossi, you better get to work...here are the first 1000 links to The Register[15]. Have a good evening, I am sure you can find others to help you. Risker 04:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not give a hoot if there are 10,000 links to The Register. A tabloid is not a reliable source as per WP:V#Sources, in particular when it relates to living people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you're the admin here, Jossi. Since you've made that determination, it's up to you to fix the problem or find others to help you. If you aren't interested in cleaning up the other articles yourself, you could always just make a post at WP:AN, and I am sure everyone will help out, just as they would if there was a CSD backlog. Risker 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you are an editor, same as me. Adminship has nothing to do with it,. If something is broken. fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think The Register is a pretty reliable source, if a bit over the top in this case, and so do hundreds of other editors who have used it, as there are 1835 wiki-links to it. You're the one who says it's a problem, Jossi, not me. Risker 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I did fix it, in this article. Feel free to fix it in other articles if warranted. A source may be OK to use in one context and not OK in another. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
*singing* You just don't wanna admit there's a cabal; you don't wanna admit there's a cabal. *puts down karaoke microphone* Seriously, I called it, over a year and a half ago. You're just sore that admins have actually been caught doing the things we've all suspected 'em of doing behind the curtain for a while now. (Yes, I did log in for the first time in months just to gloat. Yes, I don't know you personally, but unfortunately I have to assume that all admins are out to get me and people like me, who were once interested in edit quality instead of edit quantity.) - Corbin Be excellent(TINC) 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"We"? Who is "we"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/04/0333252 , for starters. A handful of people from my LUG, and at least fifty or so from LUE. Not a lot of people, perhaps, but still, we once were editors, and we once were valued members of the community. - Corbin Be excellent(TINC) 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The Register piece is almost entirely fabrication and conspiracy theorising. The supposed facts on which it is based have been contradicted many times, but a very small numebr of editors prefer to believe evil conspiracies than simple incompetence, and appear to have decided to use the Register to spread the meme. It is a straw man, not a valid criticism of Wikipedia. It's completely unacceptable to take an on-wiki campaign, plant it in the press, and then come back and cite it as if it had some objective merit. It doesn't. Both the Register pieces are clearly polemical, the followup parrots Bagley's lunacy completely uncritically and taken together they demonstrate a strong agenda on the part of one journalist, rather than any credible critique of the project. We might as well dispense with the pretences and say that according to long term contributor UserChickenLittle a 75 minute block of one user by one admin represents the storngest evidence yet that the sky is definitely falling. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You're throwing out the original research thick and fast, can you find a source that verifies your statement? Sometimes A Great Notion (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The supposed facts on which it is based have been contradicted many times, but a very small numebr of editors prefer to believe evil conspiracies than simple incompetence, and appear to have decided to use the Register to spread the meme...It's completely unacceptable to take an on-wiki campaign, plant it in the press, and then come back and cite it as if it had some objective merit.
Please assume good faith. — goethean ॐ 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lengthy discussion of this on wikien-l. The facts are as stated in the Durova arbitration: Durova sent an email, mistook silence for assent, and blocked a user without giving any of the recipients of the mail a hint that this was what she intended. The list was not some sort of super secret ban cabal, it was a list constituted to discuss the stalking and harassment of editors, and was merely the formalisation of a lengthy email cc chain. The list did include arbitrators, Jimbo, admins and non-admins. every single person who was originally a recipient of Durova's emaiol has said the same thing. A tiny number of people in the wikien-l thread have persisted with the assumption of bad faith, and two or three of them decided to hand it to Cade, who wrote the piece on a basis of assume bad faith and extrapolate form there. Cade's subsequent decision to publish without apparent question the Judd Bagley view of the naked shorting dispute further underscores the fact that Cade is not a reliable source here. The source for this piece is polemical, not reliable, and the criticism is unfounded. If you genuinely believe Jimbo would take part in a group such as Cade describes then you need to find another project because you will never be able to trust this one again. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted, JzG. The problem is, however, that you're not an acceptable source (original research) and the Register is. Check the policies. Cla68 (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record JzG, since you've declared that you're involved in the secret list and other aspects of this episode, it would be inappropriate for you to make any edits or revisions to the main page of this article concerning this subject, or to undertake any admin actions related to it such as blocking an IP or any other editor who had added material in relation to the same subject. You haven't done that, have you? That's a yes or no question. Cla68 (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I find that nicely ironic, since my information is that you are one of the primary sources for the Register piece. So let's do what Wikipedia does: look at secondary sources. Please cite the analysis of this case in reliable secondary sources - not primary sources (the Reg), but secondary sources. Not that the Reg is reliable in the context of Wikipedia anyway, it displays a clear agenda here. So: where are the sources that discuss the dispute, including both sides, not just repeating the claims stated to be false by every single known member of the mailing list and every single known recipient of the Durova email? Guy (Help!) 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
JzG, you didn't answer the question so I'm going to bold it to ensure that you see it. Did you use your admin tools in connection with material in this article related to the Durova controversy? Cla68 (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea. I do not know what you would consider "connected" - judging by the piece you planted in The Register your definition might well be different from mine. What I did not do was to block anybody based on anything Durova said, in any context. It's not in any way relevant, anyway; you are here arguing for inclusion of a piece that was largely down to your own interview, and that is inappropriate. In my view it was also wildly inappropriate to say what you did, since there are so many things in that article which assume that the only people telling the truth are the ones assuming bad faith; another one of those perfect leak-free conspiracies that are so very common in real life. Not. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! This is the last edit I ever make here. I'm sick of this crap. jericho4.0 (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the two Register articles belong here. They are unquestionably "criticism of Wikipedia", and they are notable, given that they were both Slashdotted, Digged, and heavily blogged. Mentioning and linking them does not mean that we're saying the articles are accurate or objective, only that they were notable criticism. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally, JzG has a clear conflict of interest and should recuse himself from this article rather than edit warring. — goethean ॐ 16:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think, given how much he clearly cares about this project, JzG really ought to consider recusing himself from a number of areas in it where he has proven unable to engage in serious discussion without resorting to emotional rhetoric, guilt by association, fallacious arguments, and other things that only serve to make critics and attackers more convinced of the rightness of their own positions. He is doing Wikipedia a grave disservice. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
My "conflict of interest" is restricted to knowing that the people who gave the register their information are wrong in what they assert about the mailing list. I know this because I, unlike them, was party to the list's creation and was an original recipient of the Durova email. Dan, on the other hand, is one of the sources for the "black helicopters" article and Cla68 is identified as the main source for both. In what way is knowing the truth a conflict, but being a major contributor to the article not?
I've suggested above that we do the Wikipedia thing here, whihc is step back and look what the reliable secondary sources say. The Register piece is clearly not reliable, being clearly polemical and including only the far extreme of one side of the dispute. So what does the New York Times say? Guy (Help!) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone with a conflict of interest will himself deny it, while the rest of the community repeatedly points it out to him. This "let's wait for the New York Times" attitude is almost exactly identical to what happened in the Essjay controversy. Lo and behold, it wasn't long before the New York Times was writing about it. I see above a user active since 2004 has quit the project thanks to one of Guy's comments. Really, when will those who enjoy some level of respected power on this project finally give Guy the lengthy time-out that he needs. Has Guy spent one minute checking (and, if necessary, deleting) any of the other 1,800+ links to The Register that Wikipedians have found useful to include in various articles? No, he is more interested in focusing on a reference to a "private, invitation-only, but not certainly not 'secret'" mailing list that he himself was a part of. No, there's no deranged conflict of interest there, folks. Move along. Get back to editing the encyclopedia while the controllers and manipulators decide the light in which the project shall be painted. -- ZD Netman (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, Cla68 was the named source for the first Register piece, Dan Tobias and Cla68 are quoted as sources in the second. Their conflict is obvious here, what's mine supposed to be? I don't see you criticising Dan and Cla68 for agitating for their own criticisms of Wikipedia to be included in the criticism of Wikipedia article, which is what they are doing. As it happens I also know for a fact that a very substantial part of Cla68's criticism, as quoted by The Register, is pure hokum. So I'm doubly sure that we should be waiting for reliable independent secondary sources. Ones that, you know, actually bothered to ask people on both sides of the story. Or even mention that there is another side, that would be a good start. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The best thing to do is clearly state that the register says it, then people can decide for themselves how much of it to believe. Some of their wording is a bit over the top, so it would be a good idea to quote it and again let people decide. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, the issue is that Guy is pushing pure original research, none of what he has said has been published by a third party source. Also it was not just the Register that covered this, the Guardian, PC Pro, and SiliconRepublic all did as well. Additionally it is unacceptable to use a self-published blog in an article, and ridiculous to even suggest so. The reason they might not be "covering the other side" could be that it is a fringe view only held by a dozen people, i.e. the members of the list. 75.175.2.38 (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Er, no, I'm pshing WP:RS. The Register pieces make it plain that they are a restatement of one or two editors' view of a controversy; a brief look at the extended discussion on wikien-l shows that these two have chosen to completely ignore the fact that every editor known to be on the "secret list" has rejected their interpretation of it, and that list of editors includes Jimbo. To allow editors to plant a story in the gutter press and then drag it into Wikipedia as a "criticism of Wikipedia" sets an extraordinarily bad precedent. We should look at what reliable secondary sources say, especially those sources which review both sides of the argument, since any one-sided view for which no contrary source exists will necessarily violate WP:NPOV. It is quite normal to reject attempts to include partisan sources in Wikipedia articles, especially where those partisan sources are used to advance a controversial and disputed view but where the argument is sufficiently trivial in the global scheme of things there are no sources whatsoever even attempting to cover it dispassionately. You accuse me of original research, but the first Register piece is Cla68's view is nothing more than a restatement of what Cla68 thinks, and what Cla68 thinks is provably wrong in many respects, as recipients of the original email and members of the list have pointed out. It would be easy to cover this properly if there were any analytical sources covering the dispute, but so far none have been presented, only a polemical piece by a journalist displaying a clear agenda in a publication of no provable authority in these matters repeating as fact one side of the story without any attempt to cover or note the other side. I can't think of any other area od Wikipedia where any editor in good standing would even think about including such a source.
The idea that the list was not a secret banning cabal is hardly a "fringe view" since the list includes arbitrators, non admins and Jimbo. The list is precisely as has been stated many times: a result of a long email trail between people who have been harassed and stalked, formed to discuss ways of handling that problem in the face of - in particular - people like Dan Tobias reflexively reverting any removal of any link to harassment as "censorship". Dan does not believe that harassment is a problem, he has made this perfectly clear. That's one view. Another view, held by a number of people who've been phoned at home, stalked, had their personal details published, had people call their employers and so on, is that it is a problem. And there is a pressing need, as far as these people are concerned, to formulate a way of handling harassment that presents the victim with more than the current two options, which are to leave it or to have the anti-BADSITES activists make it massively high profile. Any properly reliable and analytical source will discuss both these views. The Register fails to allow that any view other than Cla68's exists. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia review

Since wikipdia review links here, I thought i should point out the following quote from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia

The secret dossier was leaked, and turned out to be a deeply flawed quasi-profiling purportedly establishing the suspected contributor as, paraphrased, a sleeper agent for an enemy cell (that is, from Wikipedia Review) bent on disruption. Yet official actions were taken to stop the leak from being posted in Wikipedia discussion under the pretext of "policy and violating copyright" (tinyurl.com/ytj9qo). Of course, the material was immediately available on Wikipedia Review (tinyurl.com/2sjrmj) and another site, Wikitruth.info, thus giving those sites redeeming value, whatever their flaws.

This is just something I think we are wise to remember every time the subject of these 2, by some referred to as WP:BADSITES, pop up. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the irony is staggering. On the one hand they castigate us for failing to guard the privacy of people they like, and on the other they laugh at us for addressing privacy violations targeting people they hate. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia is broken.

I actually wanted to post this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Weiss , but couldn't.

I adored the Wikipedia when it was first launched and I contributed to a number of articles, some extensively, and always anonymously. The Wikipedia then was a riot of contributors, each adding bits and pieces to the articles they were familiar with, with nary an admin or editor in sight. The Wikipedia was about articles and contributors. It was a fascinating source of information and the talk pages were often incredibly informative. You could have honest to god discussions there! You could build up an article with two or three anonymous contributors on the talk pages over days (or sometimes weeks). The Wikipedia WORKED.

The current Wikipedia is a very different beast--hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" who are more concerned with personal politics, the bureacracy of the beast, and minutae like "wikification" than contributing to articles. Nowadays the Wikipedia is all about the Wikipedia. Articles and contributors are caught in a vast bureaucratic clusterfuck. Articles in particular are "turf" to be fought over, to the great detriment of the people who actually contribute to them or use them. Edits are about notches in your belt, not adding content. Knowing an admin is more important than knowing your subject. Making an edit nowadays prompts threats and frequent reversions (or lockings) for no damned reason. It doesn't have to be controversial. You can correct the spelling of a species name and get chewed out for it. The talk pages, far from being about building consensus and putting togethr good articles, are bully pulpits for admins and connected editors. The NPOV and common courtesy have gone right out the window on talk pages, as shown by all the hyperbolic and downright paranoid rantings by admins here shows. "Hate site"? Please. I've seen hate sites, and Bagley/Byrn ain't it. "Jihad"? You must be joking.

Nowadays the Wikipedia community seems obsessed with the tangental side of the wiki: voting up admins, arguing about (usually pointless) policy, locking and unlocking articles, and pointless editing to enforce editorial unity ("This article has a trivia section--triva sections are discouraged because they're fun and interesting. Please consider rewriting the article to bury all these nifty facts under an avalanche of stilted faux academic prose in the main body of the article. Failing that, just delete the trivia, since traditional encyclopedias don't have trivia sections and we're bound to follow a fifteen-hundred year old dead tree paradigm, never mind that we're a twenty-first century hypertext website.") and stylistic monotony. The Wikipedia DOESN'T work. The Wikipedia is broken.

Justreg'dforthis (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true. Wikipedia is broken. And the sooner the cyber-bullies, cyber-stalkers, agressive trolls, and gerneral jerks are banned, the sooner that people across the political spectrum who actually reached adulthood (no matter what their chronological age), the sooner we will fix it. Feel free to go elsewhers to engage in Internet posting. We are building a different culture here.--Cberlet (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of the worst bullies around here are the people who claim to be "building a different culture" by calling people "trolls" and threatening to ban them. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Democracy includes sanctions for bullies.--Cberlet (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Democracy? Have you dealt with bullies here? I mean, you're right in a way, but it can take, like, years. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Cberlet, I understand the appeal of what you say, but that idea contains dangers you may not be aware of. Who will watch the watchmen? Remember that the person deciding who is or isn't a "cyber-bully, cyber-stalker, aggressive troll, or general jerk" also is human, and has flaws, and a limited point of view. If we're building a different culture (which I support wholeheartedly) then it will begin with the cessation of name-calling, not with our getting down into the mud in our effort to show people that mud-slinging in wrong. Don't we become our own enemy in the moment that we pronounce moral judgement on another person? Surely the way to build the new culture is to set an excellent example, and let others hang themselves on inevitable policy violations. Furthermore, the less we indulge in irrelevant accusations of bad faith, the more credibility our policy-based arguments have, because we're clearly staying on-task, and refusing to get personal for any reason. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It can, yes. Querulousness is also notoriously difficult to deal with on Wikipedia. But that's not really relevant here; what we are dealing wiht at present is an uncritical repetition of the most extreme anti-Jimbo perspective on the Duroiva case, combined with a presentation of the most vehemently pro-Bagley interpeetation of the Weiss dispute. The self-evidently polemical tone means that neither piece can be taken as a reliable source here; what we would have to have is a reliable secondary source contextualising the thing. I've not yet seen one, perhaps because the Register pieces are so fatuous that nobody's deigned to comment. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Making more "guilt by association" against critics does not contribute anything useful to a discussion of their ideas. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the ad-hominem. So you think The Register piece is reliable? Guy (Help!) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Describing your argument as "guilt by association" is not technically an ad hominem, because it's a criticism of your argument, not of you. As for querulousness being notoriously difficult to deal with, I think it's easier than you think. There's ways to deal with it that make it more or less difficult. As for the "Register pieces", I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>When I see this sort of criticism, I am struck by how unrealistic it is. People expect there to be "one right answer" and "one truth" that agrees with their own personal opinion. If Wikipedia does not agree with their own personal bias, then they complain. Bitterly. Loud and long.

For example, if a contributor does not believe that men landed on the moon, this contributor will complain bitterly if the article about the moon landings on Wikipedia is written from the viewpoint that men actually landed on the moon. If articles debunking the moon landing deniers are linked in or mentioned, this will be viewed as evidence of a secret plot of the evil global media / Jews/ Americans/ Bilderbergs/ Council on Foreign Relations / Vatican/ Masons/ etc.

If Wikipedia is not written from the viewpoint of a given contributor, such as a moon landing denier, then all kinds of charges of bias and unfairness will be levelled. Of course, if Wikipedia acquiesces and allows the moon landing articles to be written only by moon landing deniers, then another group will charge that Wikipedia is biased etc.

The same is true on just about every issue. For example, the Miquelon and St. Pierre article discusses the origin of the name Miquelon. Several scholarly texts discuss the name "Miquelon" as being of Basque origin, which was mentioned in the article. There are also many other pieces of evidence that the early visitors to the island were Basques. This is standard knowledge that appears in many reference books and is taught in many schools. I was taught this in school growing up and required to memorize it.

However, there are people in Spain who are sensitive about Basque nationalism and Basque separatist movements. So an editor from Spain was highly incensed that our Wikipedia article should suggest that the name "Miquelon" was of Basque origin, but had no references to suggest that Miquelon is not a name of Basque origin, but instead is Spanish. This turned into a minor dust-up, and I am certain the Spanish editor went away positive that Wikipedia is biasd that they would take the word of textbooks and scholarly publications over his own personal say-so.

As another example, I have encountered several Polish editors at Frere Jacques who claim that it is well known that Frere Jacques is supposed to be a pilgrim on the Way of St. James who has not woken up his fellow travellers in time. They had no references for these claims. I looked and looked but could find none. The references they suggested were in foreign languages, and when translated, did not support their claims.

On the other hand, I had dozens of other references in scholarly journals and other sources for the identity of Frere Jacques which did not agree with their theory. However, the Polish editors were positive that it should be obvious to me and everyone else that their own personal theory, unsupported by a single reference, should be the correct one and should be the main or maybe even the only theory discussed in the Frere Jacques article. And when I did not give in, they went away furious and fuming about the "bias" in Wikipedia and the terrible unfairness.

After dealing with a few of these situations, and then reading the complaints of people about the bias and unreasonableness and errors in Wikipedia, I am struck by how silly this is. How many left wing extremists think Bill O'Reilly is unbiased? How many right wing extremists think that Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter was a good president? Have any of these people complaining actually read the articles in World Book Encyclopedia or Encyclopedia Britannica? This sort of complaint is just pure nonsense.--Filll (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a place to discuss the article about criticisms of Wikipedia, not a place for essays about what you think of the critics. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but not a place for you to advocate inclusion of articles where you state your own criticisms of Wikipedia and which repeeat it as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. And your posts above would be a good example of this principle?--Filll (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not broken. It's just going through a natural course of all things that reach prominence. It started out with a vision and much of the content was written while still in obscurity. By the time it became a top 10 website most of the major content of the truly encyclopedic subjects had been written. Now it is really a matter of improving and maintaining the current articles which is more of a management function than a creative one which is not as much fun. There are still some kinks to work out and the more contentious subjects will take longer to develop so it would be best to give this project at least 10 years(from its inception) to fully develop and then come up with an evaluation of the success or failure of it. MrMurph101 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Due to excessive edit warring this page has been protected for 5 days. Someone should reinstate semi-protection when the full protection expires. Please discuss as opposed to slow revert warring. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems I protected this page at exactly the same time. I think it better to keep this page locked until agreement is reached - I suggest everyone comes to a compromise here and then requests unprotection at WP:RFPP. If you are having difficulty reaching agreement you may find Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanism of help. WjBscribe 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editing the protected article

Can an admin please reverse this? It's not NPOV, it's a content dispute. I don't care about sides, but I thought this wasn't allowed? Lawrence Cohen 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit - minor wording change

For what it's worth, I think it was a good edit. The Register articles does indeed allege material, as the neutrality and accuracy of their reporting is in question. Saying that the article discusses the use of a private mailing list for the purpose they describe is begging the question. Since JzG's edit has been reverted (to the original protected version of this article) is there any opposition to putting up an {editprotected} request to make a consensus change to the more neutral wording (discussed → alleged)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the change, I just was thinking it would be best to do it by the book since so many people are fighting over this mess. Lawrence Cohen 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
And remove the link, per WP:RS and WP:EL, we should not link to biased and polemical sources which state falsehood and uninformed opinon as fact and represent only one side of a story, especially where it's a single editor taking an on-wikipedia dispute to an external source in order to try to gain an advantage in that dispute; there is no independent coverage cited, and we can't put the other side of the story - most importantly, the true nature and constitutions of the list about which Cla68 so egregiously lied, becaise there is no source for that at all. A dispute which has absolutely no reliable sources whatsoever (which this one does not, at this stage) does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Oh, incidentally, two wrongs don't make a right. Viridae's pointed reversion of actually a pretty uncontroversial edit is almost as despicable as undeleting an article created by a banned user at that banned users request, the request being posted in an attack thread on Wikipedia Review. No doubt Viridae's WR friends will be duly proud. I would tell you what I really think of Cla68's piece of shit Register story, but I'd probably get blocked for it. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the pot calling the kettle "biased and polemical". You're engaging in original research and violating NPOV in your dismissal of the article based on your personal beliefs, and bringing in irrelevant prior disputes. Incidentally, I support the change to "alleged" (which is similar to a change I made myself before the protection, but you reverted), but not the complete removal. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's an accurate description of the source. Of course you agree with the source because you are one of the sources for the Register pieces yourself, but that does not mean it is wrong to call it biased and inaccurate, which it is. It's utterly useless as a source because it presents a highly selective view of only one side of the dispute, based on the assumption that every single known member of the list is lying about it and the only people telling the truth are the ones who were not recipients of the original email. If I was trying to insert a source that put only my side then your comment might have some merit, but I'm not, so it doesn't. What I'm actually asking for is a source which is analytical and reliable, rather than simply stating as fact one or two editors' version of events, especially since I know for a fact that said version is wrong in several important respects, as was pointed out by every single member of the list that posted to the long thread on wikien-l, including Jimbo Wales. I fail to see how that is an acceptable source. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted both of your edits because they were edits made to a protected page without first gaining consensus on the talk page. Gain consensus for them, then instate them or use {{edit protected}}. Do NOT use your admin tools to continue to edit when other can't. Other than that I have no opinion on the matter, having not looked closely enough at the page/wording. If you have a problem with my other actions, my talk page is quite easy to find, as is dispute resolution. However before you start to attack me, think about this: I do not edit on anyones behalf, and will only make an edit/perform an action if i personally think it is the right thing to do. That someone at WR would like my edits, does not make them any less valid. ViridaeTalk 02:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you reverted them because you dislike me - and the feeling is mutual right now. I've read your comments on WR, remember. Don't worry, though, I won't be dragging your sorry ass to ArbCom yet, although do please tell the WR people that hiding the thread where Kohs asked you to undelete his article and you acceded has not helped because Jimbo and some arbs have already seen it. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No I reverted because you shouldnt be editing a protected article. Simple. I would have done it had anyone else performed that edit. Hiding threads? I did no hiding, I post to WR in full knowledge that you and other read it. Paul August recently said "We should judge an article on its content not on the motives of the creator. Paul August ☎ 03:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)". I my opinion, you (or anyone else) going through and deleting a perfectly well written article because it is by a banned user is petty and pointless. The readers (who this encyclopedia is for) do not give a hoot who it is written by, so that is why I undeleted, not at any request from Kohs, but because I thought it would improve the encyclopedia. Fault that logic, I dare you. Thats why I cited IAR. ViridaeTalk 06:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Er, it was a well-written puff piece for a client of a banned user written by a banned user using a sockpuppet account while banned, WP:CSD#G5. And you undeleted it by request of the banned user in a thread attacking a Wikipedia administrator on Wikipedia Review. If it were any more recent I think your sysop bit would be history. Also please show me the clause in the page proteciton policy which allows for reverting protected edits if you disagree with them; the edit from "reported" to "alleged" was in response to a request which I thought was valid in context and whihc semes ot have some support here - after all, the Register did not so much report the event as allow Cla68 a platform to restate some things which, actually, he'd been told were false, but preferred to continue believing the worst instead of assuming good faith of notorious POV-pushing trolls like User:Jimbo Wales. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Religious and Similar Bias?

I don't think this kind of bias is discussed anywhere on this page, but it's something that's troubling me.

I recently added an NPOV tag to the "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" page. The problem here is that a well-educated group of people who care a lot about having a page reflect the beliefs of their religion are able to cite a great deal of apologetics in favor of their point of view while burying research that might contradict their beliefs. I'm sure these are honest and sincere folks who believe what they are saying, but even though I'm no archaeologist (heck, I'm not even sure how to spell it) I'm equally sure that mainstream archeology finds a lot of what they are defending laughable (e.g. Native Americans descending from Jewish tribes, horses, wheat, sheep, and iron in Pre-Columbian America). I also suspect that it will be a lot harder to get mainstream archaeologists (who could cite reputable sources to contradict the weak and erroneous text cited) to spend their time keeping an eye on the page than it will be to get church members to dig up all kinds of backup for their holy book. Every piece of evidence that contradicts scripture ,therefore, gets disputed by a lot of references to (often church-funded) research that casts doubt on the archaeological evidence.

I have no axe to grind against the LDS church. In fact I have a feeling that this is not exclusive to Mormon religious beliefs. Perhaps someone else could point out similar problems elsewhere (articles on male circumcision overwhelmed by pro-circumcision evidence posted by Jewish people? Articles on contraception being overwhelmed by information posted by Catholic and fundamentalist believers? I haven't looked at either of those articles). Probably there others I haven't even though about.

The problem here seems to be that of a fairly large minority with fervently-held beliefs being able to "outpost" a smaller group of experts who can cite the justification for the viewpoint best supported by the evidence. In particular this is likely to happen when one viewpoint is held by scientists, for whom all knowledge is tentative and subject to contradicting evidence and the other viewpoint is held by religious believers, who feel they are starting from the truth and must discover evidence that supports it and find fault with evidence that contradicts it. It will be particularly bad if the religious group has the numbers, time, and resources to counter every argument from evidence.

This problem may not be exclusive to religious believers I'll even bet there are biases like this in articles about sectarian branches of Marxism -- please don't make me read them, though.

If I'm right, how should Wikipedia handle this? The Neutral Point of View page suggests that "partisan screeds" can eventually be "...cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and impartially" but I doubt this can happen in the circumstances I've described

If I was the Emperor of Wikipedia I would suggest a variation on the NPOV tag that says something like "The neutrality of this article is compromised by an imbalance of evidence supporting religious beliefs that contradict widely-accepted or scientific evidence"

Sorry to be so wordy. Comments from more experienced Wikipedians?

  • I think this has probably been brought up somewhere before. I'm pretty sure I've seen this criticism elsewhere...although, maybe it won't hurt to make a specific section on "Ideological biases" or something like that? Shnakepup (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a tricky one; LDS people are notoriously zealous in ensuring their view is reflected. Have you tried an article RfC or peer review? Guy (Help!) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)