User:Owdki

I was active for a while, but am just a bit too disappointed with the state of things to edit much any more.

--Picaroon

At the moment, there's a great deal of Wikipolitics, meta-type editing and far too much activity on WP:AN. Then you have people who want to increase trivia, but others who want to do such things as merge TV series, without gaining consensus to change guidelines. Did I mention that people are too busy commenting on AFD and writing essays to actually write articles?

--Ta bu shi da yu

Please help me identifying the much needed article for the Wikipedia jerk...need more details? well, he is hyperideologized (nationalists are an usual suspect), quite focused on using wikipedia to enhance their political views, checking his watchlist every 20 mins. or so (couldn't care less about the rest of wikipedia), self righteous and, often, loud (also stemming from this particular kind of idiot there is a specially lamentable 2.0 version: the wikilawyer).

--Mountolive

Because experts are not given recognition on Wikipedia and indeed looked on as somewhat suspect, editors that are ignorant or outright cranks are afforded way too much power at this site. I was blocked for reverting the actions of an editor who had declared that because people (which "people" these were was never made clear) use heat and thermal energy interchangably, Wikipedia should do the same. When I made good faith changes to conform to reality he reverted them without comment. What my allies say I should have done was find other editors to help revert him back and thus avoid 3RR. I think that this is esentially meatpuppetry and effectively a tactic that is also in opposition to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The fact is that there is no policy or guideline in place that enables quick and effective response to ignorant editors who should be treated similarly to vandals. People who haven't taken a physics class in their life shouldn't be editting physics articles for content. When they habitually introduce errors into the encyclopedia they should be reverted as quickly as someone would revert petty vandalism.

I appreciate the help that others give, but it should not be required that I recruit other editors to get around the three revert rule for fighting ignorance. I have come to the conclusion that consensus as it is explicated here is an extremely flawed ideal that essentially makes Wikipedia a community devoted to mob rule rather than the accurate explication of facts and ideas. Those who are committed to accuracy are effectively encouraged to create tight-nit, ever-vigilant cabals to edit war against the ignorant. It is an intolerable nightmare, one that the community refuses to address for fear of becoming "elitist". But elitism is only a vice when it is unwarranted. When you get Velikovskians writing articles on the solar system, you have accomodated to your detriment. Unless Wikipedia addresses this, devoted idiots will degrade the quality of the encyclopedia until quasars become laser stars, the Big Bang never happened, evolution is just a theory: not a fact, and the Parapsychological Association will be afforded the ability to demarcate between science and pseudoscience.

Disgusting. The community needs to de-yellow their livers and ban the lot of lunatic fringe editors who think that their particular woo-woo belief is what deserves accomodating.

--ScienceApologist 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)