User:Glengordon01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Wikipedia experiment

I've been experimenting with this project since late 2005 for idle kicks. The experiment has now ended September 2006 where it is clear from my inspection of the logical problems inherent in the system itself as well as the experience of enduring ongoing vitriolic slander for a month straight by a proven troll that Wikipedia is a monumental failure of human engineering.

Due to Wikipedia's many layers of beaurocratic hell, its butchering of human language into meaningless anacronyms (ie: NPOV, NOR, and WP) which only druidic insiders are meant to understand, as well as the inescapable hatred for individual reason and academic authority, I'm reasonably certain that Wikipedia will never progress beyond the putrid bowels of the lowest common denominator, a collective which may musingly be called "Jebediah" for short.

I am equally convinced that this "Jebediah" collective will never be capable of comprehending why open-source projects such as these cannot produce quality products. In their ignorance, they will ironically be forever contributing further to a defective system like a hamster running in a squeaky wheel.

[edit] Interesting links explaining the continuing failures of Wikipedia to educate the masses

Includes short overviews of the Brian Peppers Debacle, the Ashida Kim Controversy, and the fallacy of "Notability" and "Neutral Point of View" as implemented in Wikipedia as it currently stands.

And of course, please read what some other critics have to say within Wikipedia:

[edit] My own critique of Wikipedia's problems

[edit] Logical Anarchism

Some accuse Wikipedia of anti-elitism although I think this is inaccurate. Humans are not Star Trek Vulcans, of course. They don't normally think with reason but instead with gut instinct (aka "emotions"). So Wikipedia has failed to foster desire in attaining useful knowledge but has pandered to the most reptilian emotions such as the lust for control.

When one scours places of debate online such as Yahoogroups, Wikipedia and other forums, there is a pattern of people ganging up on those most vocal. Although this may seem to make sense at first, this implies that those who are "meek", no matter how unknowledgeable they happen to be, are favoured by the masses over those that are knowledgeable but outspoken.

The end result is clear: a populist favouritism towards kneejerk emotional rhetoric over careful reasoning. This behaviour can be summed up as "anti-stoicism" or "logical anarchism".

[edit] "NPOV" or "intellectual fascism"?

Wikipedia's interest in neutrality is wise superficially. Neutrality is called "NPOV" here (neutral point of view). However, a growing perversion of the NPOV collective ideal seeks to impose it on individuals themselves who make up that collective.

However, a group of opinionless individuals cannot produce profound articles any more than a thousand typing monkeys can write a single sonnet of Shakespeare. Time and time again, it is only the staunchest iconoclasts that effect the greatest change in culture.

Individuals who are completely neutral have no opinions to offer Wikipedia by their very nature. By forcing everyone to this same impractical ideal, Wikipedia becomes a religion forcing intellectual fascism on its unfortunate members.

[edit] More obscure subjects, less integrity

As I've experienced on lesser known subjects like Etruscan language, there is a direct connection between obscurity of subject and integrity of information on Wikipedia.

When a subject attracts thousands, any vandalism by a wandering troll will be quickly undone by an honest contributor. However, this is not the case when a subject is only maintained by five people or so. The number of vandals outnumber them and the topic falls into disarray.

So as a whole, Wikipedia will continue to lack article integrity since it's obvious that obscure subjects outnumber popular ones by far. There's little that can be done about that because the problem is within the system itself, a system that allows trolls to add their nonsense in the very first place, even under anonymous IPs!

[edit] Published works avoid POV... and individual thought

In order to be truly neutral, claims Wikipedia, published works must be cited reflecting one's claims in the article. A wise concept... but again only superficially.

Not all published works are created equal nor with a high standard of quality. In my avid subject (Etruscan studies), the falsifiable nonsense of Albanian-obsessed Zacharie Mayani continues to be quoted by online amateurs who don't understand the gradeschool concept of caveat lector. In fact, many other books with sensationalist slants (eg: new age, Wicca, Atlantis, Christianity) are written about Etruscan civilization all the time because of a popular fascination with mysteries. You see, mysteries give flakes a reason to avoid the hard work of science and rational thinking.

Since anything published, even lunatic websites by schizophrenic authors, is encouraged by Wikipedia, it thereby condones a complete lack of bibliographical standards. When these low-quality published works are questioned by others however, the same rhetorical answer is lanced: "Wikipedia does not support POV".

Indeed, Wikipedia's irony is that it ends up becoming very much POV by failing to keep track of its own quality of research and the entire system becomes an empty bellyfeel for the masses.

[edit] Wikipedia and social rebellion

The problem is far more pandemic than Wikipedia or even the internet itself. Part of a current global phenomenon, it is an inherently unstable trend fighting against evolution through an anarchistic disdain for structure itself.

All structure, all rules, anything providing order (respect, behavioural norms, tradition, wisdom, intellect, etc) are now perceived to represent anti-freedom. With so much propoganda of late warping our notions of "freedom" and "security", it hardly seems to matter to most anymore that this very Order is what protects us from harm and enables us to progress as individuals, as a culture or and as a species.

An ideology that fights against Order is already given a name, nihilism, fueled long ago by empty capitalistic values replacing moral value with market value. By diminishing the individual, we diminish the larger society and by this process, Wikipedia has become the antithesis of evolution.

However, evolution is a lot older than any of us for a reason.