A Criticism of the Wikipedia

Now with 47 additional criticisms!

(last revised 6.10.07)

On 5.26.05... the Wikipedia cabal tried to shut this page down: with an illegal denial-of-service attack!

In early 2006, the Wikipedia added this legitimate criticism to the ‘spam blacklist’ – but they still claim to provide unbiased articles!

Visit The Wikipedia Review, which Wikipedia has also been censoring from their website!

The Wikipedia claims to be an "open-content encyclopedia"; which anyone, including YOU, can edit – however, such claims are quite deceptive... as the site is neither open, nor inclusive. Yes, the Wikipedia is a website where you generally can post information (and help create a free resource for all); however, even though the idea itself is wonderful (and its application has some merit), the site has shown itself unable to deal with the inevitable arguments which occur when one endeavors in academic collaboration – thus, the Wikipedia has become increasingly close-minded, biased, and hostile. As Corvus13 has explained, “There appears to be some personal thing there; where if you're not part of the clique, you're not welcome.” In other words, as the site’s owner (Jimbo Wales) has so eloquently put it, “Anyone who criticizes the site is a complete and total ass.” (2)

Jimbo Wales: Not an Ass?

This would indicate that my local librarian is also a complete and total ass; for, while helping me search for a copy of US Vice-President Henry A. Wallace’s essay Why I Was Wrong, which we eventually found archived at the University of Iowa, she stumbled across the Wikipedia’s article on Wallace... with a smirk, the librarian observed, “Well, the Wikipedia claims that the article is actually a book...” We then had a pleasant conversation, in which we discussed how annoying it is to have worthless Wikipedia articles (and their pornographic clones) clogging search-engine results. Indeed, am I the only one who frequently adds “-wikipedia” to the end of search queries; for how else can I kill the endless Wikipedia (and Wikipedia-related) links which spam up the first few pages of results? My librarian is not alone in disliking Wikipedia, here is a quote from another librarian, Michael White, “Wikipedia has become the McDonalds/Microsoft/Walmart of information. It provides reliably mediocre information at a low, low cost. This drives competitors out of business, reduces diversity, and lowers the standards all across the board. Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. It reeks of apathy and superficiality.” (4)

Anyways, some critics of the Wikipedia argue that the site’s primary problem is that it doesn’t have ‘central control’, that it is ‘anarchy in action’ – however, those people are simply wrong. The Wikipedia does have central control, but the administration is incompetent and unreasonable; as financial-columnist Warren Boroson has noted, “I was left with the impression that a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits are in charge.” (3) You might thus compare Wikipedia to Czarist Russia; complete with censorship, secret arrests, and an aristocracy. Indeed, the Wikipedia has achieved its marginal successes, only because an initial flood of volunteer assistance temporarily overwhelmed the inept bureaucracy; nevertheless, over time, Wikipedia’s management has been gradually asserting increasing control, and the result has been general stagnation whilst various factions fight over policy – they have a term for this process on Wikipedia; its called ‘wheel warring’, a concept which is rather reminiscent of car-tires spinning in the mud.

Wikipedia’s faulty ‘central control’ means that making serious efforts there is akin to attempting professional writing, tossing it into a wastebasket full of somebody else’s notes, and hoping that it doesn’t get thrown away by an ignorant janitor with power-mad delusions of grandeur. I’m not trying to imply that janitors are stupid, but there are people who see it as their ‘job’ to go around cleaning up Wikipedia; unfortunately, they generally don’t know much of anything about the articles that they are editing. In other words, as described by Fuelwagon, “I imagine Wikipedia more like a couple acres of pretty flowers... run by some guys on lawnmowers.” Now, its true that Wikipedia does a fairly good job of combing out swear words and pornographic pictures (a task which one could probably condition laboratory mice to do)... however, when it comes to the critical editing process, the people in charge are neither qualified nor capable.

Hey, I’m not trying to argue that central control is inherently bad; however, Wikipedia would clearly be better off without its current ‘leadership’. So don’t get me wrong... Wikis are a great idea; however, the Wikipedia has grown into a bloated failure. Until the administration is seriously over-hauled, editing is therefore an extremely inefficient usage of your time! You see, by writing this, I’m trying to do you a favor. ;o Yes, Wikipedia is making slow but steady progress, and thus you might want to ‘pitch-in’; however, if people would instead put their energies into other charitable projects, they could accomplish much more. If you are a Wikipedia editor; maybe you should get a life, and do something more productive with your time. Basically, the Wikipedia just isn’t all that!

Wikipedia’s major problems include:

· Censorship

· Conformity and Groupthink

· Google Bombs (Search Engine Spam)

· Lack of Authenticity

· Poor Leadership

· Problematic Software

· Rampant Unprofessionalism

· Sockpuppet ‘Democracy’

· Systemic Biases

· Tedious Debates

· Unnecessary Conflicts

· Vendettas and Personal Grudges

Conflict

In editing Wikipedia, the primary problem is not merely one of determining whether information is valid, although that is certainly an issue. For example: after an exhausting debate, in which I was repeatedly threatened with banning (and eventually was), I did finally manage to convince the wiki-cabal that Christopher Columbus was indeed involved with the slave-trade; likewise, I was also successful in arguing that DNA is a nucleic acid... despite the objections of a self-proclaimed expert. Yes, after a great deal of exhausting flame-ridden debate, the system certainly did accept my claim that the University of Urbino is an actual real-world academic institution; and so, as you can see, one can successfully convince the idiots at Wikipedia of basic and obvious facts – but is it worth it? You see, the difficulty in resolving such simple debates does not bode well for more complicated issues, such as: “Is Dan Waniek a Romanian iridologist?” or “What was the impact of the ‘New Imperialism’ upon World War I?” Whether the problem is some kook ranting about plasma tornadoes, or a high-school teacher with a personal vendetta against ‘that moron’ Wilhelm I, the editorial process is always the same; the ruling minority decides what will be included, how it will be presented, and where it will be located – they are often wrong, and its a time-consuming affair to correct them.

While proponents of the site will argue: “of course, we can’t include completely absurd, trivial, and false information” and “naturally, while everyone is welcome; some people just aren’t willing (or able) to work within the guidelines of our community” – such spin blatantly obscures the fact that the website’s administration fails to make even a good-faith attempt towards the ‘fair and balanced’ reporting which it claims to strive for; as such, it also fails to take the necessary steps towards becoming an inclusive organization. In addition, not only is the Wikipedia academically impotent, it has also developed the flame-intensive hostile environment which characterizes many seedy parts of the internet. If it was ever a stronghold of intellectualism (the fabled ‘ivory tower’); Wikipedia has long since been breached by uncouth bureaucratic idjits, and they have become petty tyrants. Wikipedia is now just a large message board, with a lot of uptight moderators who edit just about everything (including your own posts, in order to make you look bad).

Essentially, the site’s authoritarian ‘leaders’ see little need for discussion; if you persistently engage them in a confrontational dialogue, they will just claim that you are trying to ‘cause trouble’ – in this manner, conflicts are not resolved by academic debate, but by political maneuvering and ‘mudslinging’. As former Wikimedia employee Larry Sanger has thus noted, “[There is] a certain poisonous social [and] political atmosphere in the project.” (1) In addition, former administrator Abe Sokolov has explained, “We have a dispute resolution process fetishizing increasingly rigid (and idiosyncratic) community norms, and customs, without reference to who's writing encyclopedic material, and who's not. As a result, far too much power and status is given to people who are... increasingly obsessive of process, [thereby] disregarding the public credibility of the project. Far too many [administrators] seem to get off on ‘patrolling’ conflicts [which] they do not understand. Thus, [one is forced to] spend [too much] time dealing with users [who have] no intention of writing encyclopedic content.” Why do people who know nothing about the subject, show such a keen interesting in influencing the website? It’s simple: Wikipedia is a major website, and people want power.

In theory, peer-review could correct many of Wikipedia’s validity issues; however, the unfortunate reality is that the site is undermined by a centralized group of users which repeatedly attacks those who attempt to improve the site – peer-review is thus only encouraged officially; in practice, it is absolutely stifled. This is done by adopting a rhetorical method of argumentation, in which complex matters are contemptuously simplified; meanwhile, those who persist in disputing an issue, are quickly blacklisted as ‘troublemakers’ (or, ‘trolls’). Jason Scott has added, “Woe be that your take on things is off from the majority. Even if you can prove something, you're now in the situation that anybody can change it. And while that's all great in a happy-go-lucky flower shower sort of way... you [will eventually] realize that the people who are going to change it could have absolutely no experience with the subject whatsoever...”

As User:Abagail-II has whined, “I've no interest in working on a system where people break down your work without discussing it...” Of course, some discussions are occasionally held; the administrators do so in private IRC chatrooms, on exclusive message boards, and on hidden pages of the Wikipedia – the point here, is that the common users are simply not accorded the respect due to them (since it is those same common users who do almost all of the actual work).

Incompetence

As Robert McHenry (a former editor-in-chief for Encyclopædia Britannica) has observed, “[Wikipedia users] may be lulled into a false sense of security.” Although this article won’t focus on the site’s factual errors; it should suffice to note that the Wikipedia has serious academic problems. Yes, it can be extremely useful, but that’s primarily only because the internet is full of even worse websites; you see, Wikipedia is kind of like the green peas in an elementary school lunch – it’s not the worst thing around, but it’s hardly ‘good’. And, I warn you, if you rely upon the Wikipedia as a serious reference source, you will inevitably get burned – Allah forbid, are professionals actually referencing the Wikipedia’s errors?? Yes, amazingly, they are; inept and lazy journalists are especially fond of using the Wikipedia, and some of them have even plagiarized it word-for-word – thats a real problem, since 90%+ of Wikipedia’s fact-checking involves an internet search; thus, self-perpetuating errors are undoubtedly already occurring! :<

But what about contributing to the site; maybe it sucks now, but perhaps you think you could make it better? Hey, do you really want to waste an hour updating an article on mathematics, only to have some high school student delete your equations – with his only explanation being that he felt they were too technical? Just how confident are you that the people ‘patrolling’ the site are capable of determining what is and isn’t encyclopedic? Will you enjoy making edits to controversial topics, only to have cranks, vandals, and fanatics undo your hard-work, and then muddle your way through a judicial system which is far more concerned with cliquish politics, than with basic standards of judicial procedure? Will you derive satisfaction by adding a list of historical mayors, to an article about some town; only to find out months later, that someone deleted it... without even bothering to tell you!? What’s the point of contributing to a site which doesn't even bother to encourage editors to inform others when their work is summarily deleted? As law professor Orin Kerr explains, “Unless [you are] willing to monitor [your edits] on a regular basis, there isn't much that can be done to [prevent damage] over the long term.” So basically, you can hope that someone else watches your back; but, they will be so busy defending their own edits, that they just won’t have time to help you.

And, of course, there is always the fact that Wikipedia (despite claims to the contrary) has a pyramidal government bureaucracy, such that you can spend 3 months wasting your life by adding information about South American birds (as one person did) – but, if someone who outranks you disagrees with any aspect of your work, for any reason (valid or not)... there will be no discussion, you will be asked to accept their decision – or leave. You’ve been warned! Such problems not only result in poorly written articles, which are limited by the incompetence of the highest-ranking administrator (ie: Jimbo Wales, a crackpot political theorist and former pornography distributor, who told me numerous times that he feels the US Democratic Party consists of ‘health-care fascists’ – and adamantly insists that depleted uranium weapons have no side-effects whatsoever) –such problems not only result in poorly written articles; but, this arrangement also inevitably results in censorship, particularly in articles of interest to the site’s ranking members (as discussed in the next three paragraphs).

You see, Jimbo Wales opposed the application of taxpayer money to provide any kind of aid to the victims of the 2005 hurricanes; indeed, Wales went so far as describe such policies as “fascist”. Well, obviously such radical beliefs are worthy of being mentioned in an article about the website’s owner; however, when a user tried to include these truthful and unexaggerated facts, she was banned and the information was removed – Jimbo’s official and careful response was that although the comments were accurate, they weren’t “particularly interesting”.

Of course, the Wikipedia makes very little mention of Wales’ history in the pornography industry, which is also apparently equally uninteresting; furthermore, although the website currently hints at his involvement in pornography (largely because of the bad publicity associated with censorship), for quite some time Jimbo wouldn’t even tolerate the term “erotica”, and spinfully claimed, “[My] blog was not about pornography. It was not about erotica. It covered all manner of topics under the general topic of 'babes', including mainstream actresses, etc... [It was a] guy-oriented search-engine.” LOL! I’ve seen his site, and it was definitely hardcore porn; in fact, Bomis not only still runs a hardcore search-engine; but I’ve heard persistent allegations that Wikipedia has a pro-pedophilia bias – which is hardly surprising, considering that Jimbo is a free-market porn-promoter, who believes that child-labor regulations should be rescinded. In any case, further attempts to discuss Jimbo’s porn career have been blocked from Wikipedia, by a convenient (and unevenly applied rule) which states that Wikipedia will contain “No Original Research”.

In addition, as of March 2006, Jimbo refuses to let his biographical article mention that he is often referred to as the Wikipedia’s “benevolent dictator”. He innocently claims that the term is not used by the Wiki community (which is a lie, since he knows full well it is – as do I, because I was very much a member of that community); indeed, as you can see here, the term has been used since (at least) mid-2003. In another simpler example of censorship, the article on former Wikipedia administrator Larry Sanger’s page contained a link to ratemyprofessors.com (where he had a poor rating) – the link was removed, and the person who added it was banned. I will discuss some other examples of censorship, later in this document; essentially, the point here is that Wikipedia administrators are not able to restrain themselves from censoring articles.

Anyways, getting back to the question of general accuracy, I wanted to test Wikipedia’s fact-checking abilities, by inserting fallacious information (in the spirit of the so-called ‘Mike from Techdirt challenge’); and since I had been banned... I figured, “Why not?” – you see, another problem with the Wikipedia, is that they are simply unable to enforce bans. So, I decided to commit my first vandalism; I put something completely untrue in an article about a well-known subject, and it remained there for over a year; this was in stark contrast to the many times that my truthful additions were removed by some moron – for example, the time that my information about the Lunar Prospector was completely eradicated by a fan of the Clementine mission... but its not a big deal, since my paragraph was re-inserted several times, and has since remained there nearly verbatim for the past three years. So, the wonderful two-pronged point here, is either that good edits get removed by morons (and editing is a needless hassle), or that my horrid edits remain for years and years... take your pick of criticisms.

After my ‘Techdirt vandalism’ was finally removed, in December ’05 (perhaps by someone who was themselves attempting to vandalize the article); I went to ten new articles, and added ten completely random, untrue, and difficult to verify ‘facts’ – so far, eight of them are still there! Sure, in theory, with plenty of editors, the website will be self-correcting and such mistakes will be addressed; but the reality is that it takes a very long time for inaccuracies to be fixed, and things aren’t going to improve so long as the site is stifled by a lumbering bureaucracy – one which is mostly concerned with feeling good about its successes, and shutting up any critics who dare to interfere with the warm fuzzies.

Not only does the Wikipedia have trouble determining the accuracy of factual content; it really fails when it comes to stylistic content – just how exactly something should be written? For example, one writer might compose a concise and matter-of-fact article, and another writer might prefer flowery prose; but just who is right? Currently, the Wikipedia typically deals with such situations by holding elections and voting for the article which is most popular – the problem with this system, is that not only are the elections unfairly held, but (in many cases) a good article should have a little bit of both styles – Wikipedia’s ‘either-or’ philosophy is extremely detrimental, and leads to hostile in-fighting. In order to facilitate true compromise, editors need to discuss an article word by word, line by line, and paragraph by paragraph – which is simply not done on the Wikipedia (and, more importantly, is discouraged). Unfortunately, such critically essential editing cannot occur so long as the site is dominated by those who prefer top-down bureaucracy over grassroots community-discussion.

In fact, one might argue that Wikipedia is correct in claiming that thousands of editors, collaborating over time, will fix any errors and inevitably create brilliant articles – however, Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed, because the entire editorial process bottlenecks (through the admins, developers, and arbitrators) until finally it coalesces into the personal POV of Jimbo Wales... as such, there aren't thousands of editors, there is really just... as Daniel Brandt says... one “hivemind”. As such, its important to remember that Wikipedia is not growing into an objective NPOV encyclopedia, and it isn't growing into a website which reflects the POV of its contributors; its growing into a website which reflects the POV of the Wikimedia Board, under the personal leadership of Jimbo Wales. And, of course, some of us apparently see that as a problem; one which is only going to increase, as Wikipedia continues to write articles on controversial current events, about which Mr. Wales has certain strong opinions.

That’s no small website...

Tyranny

As with similar organizations, which claim to be moral (but are not); Wikipedia’s most important decisions are decided by feudal decree (rather than the consensus democracy which the site claims is existent). Wiki politics are dominated by personal attacks (rather than the “Wikilove” which proponents gush on about), and Wiki articles tend to be dominated by a narrow clique of self-proclaimed experts (rather than by peer-review, as the site proclaims). In essence, the Wikipedia is ruled by the tyranny of its owner, the former pornographer Mr. Jimbo Wales (who dishonestly accepts donations from the public, which trusts him to behave better); and via him, by a pyramidal group of his Freudianesque disciples. Now, on most websites this is not an issue; afterall, I am a tyrant here at kapitalism.net; but, and this is an important point, kapitalism.net is not pretending to be some new-age website of ‘freedom, learning, consensus, and discussion’. User: GrahamN sums up the situation rather nicely, “Wikipedia is now like a totalitarian nightmare from Kafka.”

In China, the neo-leftists have come to denounce what they refer to as ‘bogus Western democracy’; the Wikipedia exemplifies this trend of passing off a pyramidal republican cabal as some sort of democratic organization. Really, with all the hidden-agendas, propaganda, and reprisals against dissenters; the website has the atmosphere of a cult or totalitarian police-state, rather than that of an encyclopedia or academic institution. Of course, tools (of the regime) will argue that “there is no cabal”; yet, on a website dominated by an elite group (with special administrative powers); where dissenters are banned without warning; where there is no judicial review, legal representation, standards of justice, or even presumption of innocence (which the policy pages explicitly denounce); where the burden of proof lies entirely upon the defendant (assuming the defendant is not a member of the controlling minority); and where complaints against the ‘leaders’ are routinely moved, altered, minimized, and/or deleted – how can there be anything but a cabal? Once again, here at kapitalism.net, there is a cabal – I am the cabal. The issue with Wikimedia, is that they are making deceptive claims; they are pretending that there isn’t a cabal. They stand upon their soapbox and proclaim themselves to be a force of intellectual righteousness – alas, they are just two-bit power-tripping hacks.

Wikipedia is ruled by an anarchy of the worst kind, a fake anarchy in which there are rulers... rulers who do not believe themselves to be bound by any rules (but do hold their subjects accountable to a plethora of conflicting and deliberately unjust legal codes). It is a society in which there are two classes; those who have power, and those who don’t. To quote Ian Kershaw’s writings on totalitarianism, “Where legal norms suit the purposes of the leadership, they [are] deployed. Where they provide obstacles, they [are] by-passed, ignored, [and] dumped.” For example, I often suggested a change, only to be told that I must seek “community consensus” for such a change; however, in those cases where I managed to obtain an overwhelming democratic majority... I would then be informed that the Wikipedia is not a democracy! It is thus that the hypocritical upper-class turns democracy on, when it will manufacture the consensus they desire; and turn if off, when they fear that the public will be led astray by ‘undesirable elements’.

The Evil Wiki Logo

Injustice

In the words of Raul654 (Mark Pellegrini), who is one of the Wikipedia’s aristocrats, “I've come to a conclusion...making policy on Wikipedia is hard...because there are people who [disagree]. I have decided that it's better to shoot first and ask questions later ;) Seriously, [I] don't worry about making common sense policy...[I] just do things...and wait for policy to catch up.” He is a senior member of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee – an organization which has no interest in justice, rule of law, or reasonable procedure. Raul was ‘elected’ by only 42% of Wikipedia’s users to serve a term of one to three years (Raul decided to take the longest term possible, and has no intention of allowing mid-term elections); and throughout his reign, Raul has worked to consolidate his power, by banning users who disagree with his point-of-view. As Jimbo Wales explained to me, “Raul is kinda uptight!”

Big Raul, Power-Tripper

Here is an example of Raul’s debating style... The following is a discussion over the position of a picture in an article about a religious figure (Bahá'u'lláh) from a faith which is offended by his photograph being on the internet; rather than deleting the photograph, as adherents would like – a compromise was been suggested in which the photograph is to be placed at the bottom of the biography. The argument resulted in an edit war in which people fought over whether the picture should be at the top (or the bottom) – do you see what a tedious headache Wikipedia editing can be? Finally, a further compromise was reached, in which the picture was placed twice (at top and bottom) – such an arrangement was not intended as a permanent solution, but the idea was that people could stop fighting over it, and take some time to discuss their viewpoints. Note how Raul works to facilitate discussion and harmony, after people ask him to stop removing the picture from the bottom of the article:

Refdoc: Hi, I think it would be a lot better if you would discuss your edits on the talk page instead of appearing from time to time and reverting what others have done without taking note of ongoing debate. The two pictures on the article are there on purpose until a consensus about the appropriate position has been found. This consensus is not there.

Raul654: It is inherently stupid to have the same picture in the article twice. Articles with a single picture are encouraged to have that picture at the top of the article, right-aligned.

Refdoc: The current "2 picture" situation is not meant to be a solution but a basis for discussion and to let the remainder of the article continue to develop while the picture situation remains deliberately unclear. To call the current situation "inherently stupid" is pretty close to personal attack... Your rather abrasive way of dealing with this is not helpful nor friendly nor "encouraging".

Raul654 does not respond.

Geni: Well, here we have a reason to depart from the general case.

Raul654 does not respond.

Geni: is anyone going to object to my analysis?

Tomhab: Not from here...

Occamy: I agree with your analysis too.

Raul654 does not respond.

Of course, Refdoc, Geni, Tomhab, and Occamy now have to worry that if they continue to go against Raul; he might try to throw his weight around... Anyways, as a personal example of the corrupt judicial process, I was banned for a month by Phil Sandifer (User:Snowspinner) who was the head of Wikipedia’s ominous “Association of Member Investigations”. In January 2005, he briefly went on ‘vacation’ – apparently, this was because a number of users (see here) began some sort of protest against Sandifer, after he became obsessed with deleting innocent little ‘user affiliation’ graphics (such as this one and this one); however, apparently the vacation is over.

Well, when he banned me, Snowie alleged (amusingly enough), that I was pretending to be me; and therefore, he decided to ban me. He had no legal right to take such action (technically, according to the website’s procedures: administrators are absolutely forbidden to take unilateral vigilante actions, except in cases of ‘clear-cut’ and large-scale vandalism); and of course, I certainly maintain that I am ‘not guilty’ of pretending to be me. It is my firm belief that Sandifer banned me because I voted against him (both in his election to office, and then later in another poll... which occurred within a day or two of the banning, and was essentially the only thing I had done for some time). Now, by the time the issue went before Raul’s court, it had become obvious that Snowie knew it was me all along; his official reason thus became that I had failed to login (although, the Wikipedia Introduction page stated: “On Wikipedia you can edit pages whenever you want, logged in or not”). In any case, he only knew that I hadn’t logged in, because when I voted against him (in one of the many elections where ballots aren’t secret), I had signed my name (as required).

Snowspinner, hot air lolb00nz

Let me make a comment about Snowspinner’s Association of Member Investigations; originally, he held the highest ranking position there, and was known as the “Dictator” <--- his official title!!!! Now, having realized the negative connotation which liberal ‘whackos’ associate with that term; he, desiring better public relations, later changed his title to “Intern”... which was still the top rank in that organization – LOL! Ain’t that some kinda public-relations bullshit? Lest you think that this position had conferred no real power on Snowie, here is Raul’s official arbitration ruling in a case between Snowspinner and Everyking: “Everyking voluntarily agrees to avoid commenting on, second guessing, or otherwise alluding to Snowspinner or Snowspinner's actions anywhere on the Wiki. Everyking will, in short, pretend Snowspinner does not exist. If this agreement falls through, we can reopen [the case].” Anyways, before I continue with my story about how I was banned... let me further interject a recent conversation I had with Snowspinner, in which he didn’t realize he was talking to me.

Lir: Did you ever have a disagreement with Lir, over the content of an article?

Snowie: I don't honestly recall.

Lir: Because his email is on his site, so I emailed him, and he sent me this long rant... but the gist of it was that you hold a grudge because he didn't support your promotion – and I’ve been looking through the edit histories, and it doesn't seem like you had any other contact with him. I’m sure you must have had some valid reason to advocate he be banned... did he vandalize an article or something? Even in the trial to ban him, I can't find such a claim!

Snowie: I hold a grudge because he accused every administrator of being out to get him, power-mad, corrupt, etc.

Lir: Damn, well he deserved to be banned then – he is like one of those Democrats, thinking that the Republicans are out to get them. My teacher said we should put them all in jail, just like McCarthy said.

So basically, Snowspinner had no legitimate complaints against me... he simply felt that anyone who wasn’t happy with the Wikipedia leadership, should be banned. Of course, I never accused every administrator of being ‘out to get me’... and I went on to ask Snowspinner to clarify when I made such a claim, which he could not do. In fact, I get along with several administrators (some of whom were themselves threatened with being banned, simply because they suggested that the evidence against me was rather flimsy). Lets not forget, that a few months before my ban, there was an election to select new members for the arbitration committee – and in my ‘campaign statement’, I stated that certain members of the cabal should resign their positions; amazingly, I received 8% of the vote... yet, when I was banned shortly thereafter, Wikipedia’s corrupt admins claimed that there was ‘consensus’ to support my removal from the site. Well anyways, since I had not committed any crimes, I naturally decided to appeal my case to Raul654’s kangaroo court – the result was that no mention was ever made of Sandifer’s abuse of power, nor did any of the arbitrators ever exchange a single-word with me (in order to discuss the issue)... I was simply banned for a year!

One of their cited pieces of ‘evidence’, to support this expansion of the ban, was that I supposedly vandalized 198’s personal page; certainly, that might be valid – if only that same user had not attempted to testify on my behalf (see here), explaining that he didn’t feel my edits constituted vandalism and, in fact, that he had requested I edit the page (his testimony was totally ignored by the committee)! Lest you think the edit was something vulgar, it was merely a note that Jimbo Wales had logged online, which 198 had asked me to leave him. Another complaint was that I had ‘admitted’ to having multiple accounts (despite the fact that users are expressly allowed to have multiple accounts, the arbitrators decided to make an issue of the following statement: “yes, fyi i have nearly one hundred sockpuppets. That includes 23 sysops, 3 developers, 2 arbcom members, and a member of the board in a pear tree.”); a third (and fourth) piece of ‘evidence’ was that I asked some of them to resign – see what I mean about banning users who disagree with them? Of the eight pieces of evidence against me, none of them involved an edit to an article; nor were any of them inappropriate!

I am not the only one who believes that Raul & Friends are incapable of administering fair justice; on his user page, Paul Beardsell laments that the Wikipedian power system cares more about who you are, than what you say. In this next conversation, Beardsell tries to remind Raul of their earlier disagreements, and suggests that it would only be fair if Raul assign a less biased judge in the case against Beardsell (notice how Raul cites my case, as a precedent for harassing other people).

Psb777: You have given an indication that you intend to make known your opinion in the Tkorrovi vs Psb777 dispute. I [remind you of] a recent disagreement between us over the Johannesburg... debate where I criticized you. I ask therefore that you simply do not voice an opinion - I believe any juror would excuse themselves in your position.

Raul654: I'll recuse if I think I'm prejuiced in favor of or against you, which I do not believe I am.

Psb777: It [doesn’t matter] whether an arbitrator is prejudiced; but, whether the appearance or suspicion of prejudice is possible or reasonable.

Raul654: No, you are wrong. You have no choice in who will be arbitrating your case, nor does your happiness about it matter in the least – the matter is entirely up to the arbitrators themselves. Arbitrators are expected to judge for themselves whether or not they are prejudiced. Previous cases that established this were (off the top of my head) the Lir cases, the first Netoholic case, RK, and 172.

Psb777: [You are obviously] unable or unwilling to address an argument cogently put. I have no confidence in your ability to judge fairly the dispute I am involved in and so I [again] ask you to withdraw.

Raul654 does not respond.

More recently (in May 2005), OvenFresh felt it would be appropriate for my Wikipedia userpage to include a link to this page, so that users might hear my side of the story; after he added a link, Raul began threatening to veto OvenFresh’s application for an administrative position, and stated that his primary complaint was that OvenFresh had added the link – such reprisals are quite common on the Wikipedia. Raul whined, “[You tried to link to his] longer, nastier, and more personal anti-Wikipedia rant!” Later, in February 2006, despite this page’s popularity (deserved or not) Raul took it upon himself to remove the link to this page from the Wikipedia’s supposedly ‘unbiased’ Criticism of Wikipedia article; his explanation was that this is all ‘spam’. ; o

Meanwhile, Raul and Snowspinner have been steadily expanding my ban... claiming evidence of ‘fresh vandalism’ – for instance, the first link on my user page, is now to some pornographic ‘clitoris’ pic, which I never uploaded to the site... quite simply, they are trying to make me appear like a vandal, after the fact, to support their ban. Of course, they don’t bother to demonstrate that I made the edits in question. I’ll admit, some of the edits were made by me (for example, in one of them, I left Raul a note that I felt his recipe for eggnog contains too much sugar)... but, an awful lot of the edits weren’t made by me, which is an indicator of how inept they are at determining guilt. Not even all the ‘recipe’ edits to Raul’s talk page, were made by me; it seems, that I’m not the only one who has figured out that Raul gets upset when someone asks him for a recipe. Even more recently (December 2005), some people have apparently been attempting to add a link to this page, from the Wikipedia article about itself (NPOV?) – those people are being banned, and my ban is being extended, even though I’m not self-promoting. Frankly, I’m amused that the Wiki admins require no burden of proof, when asserting that I have done something (or, anyone else, for that matter). I do edit sometimes, because for all their hoopla, they can’t enforce their bans; and I even make good edits – but, of course, I never let them know about those edits, because they’d just remove them, as part of their immature vendetta.

Unfortunately, several users have been banned or harassed, as part of this campaign... because, supposedly they are me! Maybe they deserved such treatment; but the point is, not only are they not me, but no evidence has been shown that they are (because the Wikipedia doesn’t believe in basic tenets of criminal justice) – undoubtedly, their IP addresses come from another part of the country (or even the world)... in one case, a user was nearly banned (for being me) until somebody was able to demonstrate that the individual was in Australia (and I wasn’t). And what happened to User:-Ril-; didn’t people try to say he was me? After all: Ril, Lir – see the similarity? Well, anyways, in order to avoid such unpleasant tasks, such as determining whether a defendant is even the wanted suspect, Raul does not feel he is required to show any evidence to support his accusations – that way, it becomes much more difficult to prove his judicial incompetence. According to Raul, I’m simply a cyber terrorist; so its acceptable collateral damage, if a few innocents get hurt as part of his war against me.

Lack of Accountability

The problems at the Wikipedia are so pronounced, that I attempted to address the petty tyrants with a Sysop Accountability Poll. Essentially, I asked, “Should [users] be held to the rule of law? Should [users] be required to respect due process? Should they be required to understand the burden of proof, and agree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?" Should [they] face administrative discipline, when they break the rules governing their action? For instance, should [administrators] face justice when they ban a user who hasn't been creating clear and obvious vandalism; in a situation where consensus cannot be found for the banning... should such [users] be admonished, or should [the cabal] feel free to continue with their vigilantism – despite [existing] rules against such behavior?” I thought that surely such a ruling would be seen as non-controversial, since it was merely an affirmation that rules exist to be followed; nevertheless, a horde of cabalists came to oppose it, with Snowspinner claiming that, “Admins are above the law!” My poll was later deleted; more recently, in early 2006, User:Karmafist has similarly created his own Seven Theses – needless to say, he has been largely ignored by Wikipedia’s ‘leaders’, although his support from the commoners has been fairly strong.

Not surprisingly, Wikipedia’s authority figures soundly denounce such actions, which they claim are ‘divisive’ – in response to my poll, users such as Snowspinner literally responded that they are “above the law”. Although my poll did garner several advocates, it has long since been deleted (to prevent it from receiving any further support). Meanwhile, several administrators attempted to obscure the issue, by acting as if their opposition to the poll was based purely on technical and semantic grounds (they thus tried to pretend that while they oppose the poll itself, they still oppose all forms of tyranny... not that they concede any such problems exist at the Wikipedia). I found these arguments to be rather similar to those used by the United States Senate, in its refusal to pass legislation condemning torture (January ’05) – essentially, their idea is that since (in theory) the Wikipedia does not have any problems, there is no need to pass frivolous legislation condemning those non-existent problems. One admin added, “I can tell you've never taken a journalism class or studied the Theory of Knowledge. By your definition, not [following the rules] means a multitude of negative and horrible things. It's a loaded question and it serves only to get the answer you desire. [We’re] seeing through your motives. They are quite flimsy, I must say.” by that nonsense, he apparently hoped to obfuscate the issue. My derogatory response was: “I can tell you've never taken a class, at all!”

Needless to say, anyone who feels that authority figures should be above their own law... such people ARE a multitude of negative and horrible things. So, that is my critique of Wikipedia – Jimbo Wales (a self-proclaimed “libertarian”) should be ashamed that he has not worked to resolve the problems at his website, and has instead embraced totalitarian rule. And so, unfortunately, you are only welcome to edit the Wikipedia, so long as you conform to the groupthink espoused by the Wikipedia’s core constituency – which wouldn’t be a problem, except they are a major encyclopedic website, which claims to be ‘Fair and Balanced. Those who deviate, or espouse fundamental changes to Wikipedia ... they are persecuted. The rulers of Wikimedia claim to want volunteers to come provide them with ‘peer-review’; but, when people actually do suggest changes, they are generally ignored – when individuals ‘unilaterally’ make such changes, they are confronted by hypocrisy and ego.

Forty-Seven Additional Criticisms (can you find the majority viewpoint?)

Recent Additions: NCarr, Vaughn, Sapp, Donny, Somey, NathanR, MarcusAurelius

Anonymous: Wikipedia is like a high school student senate gone horribly wrong.

Ark30inf: I have found that if you are not here to do battle then nobody will listen to you. Thats not what I am about. I tried to stick to just editing Arkansas articles to avoid stupid conflicts. It’s an area that nobody appeared interested in at all. Then I got jumped on for the way I categorized my articles and all of them reverted before I even was given an opportunity to discuss the way I categorized my articles. I stepped on someone's pet peeve and they didn't feel like waiting to hear what I had to say. It was somehow URGENT to revert all the Arkansas categorization for some reason. Screw it. Thats my LAST attempt at Wikipedia.

Arthur: What I realised - perhaps it was the mention of Scientology - is that Wikipedia... shows all the outward characteristics of a cult... There is a quasi-religious fervour surrounding the ‘rightness’ of Wikipedia... The cult's members write its ‘truth’, and defend it to the very last gasp of their keyboard... the other side might... be right in their criticism [of the Wikipedia].

Bauder, Fred: You just don't get how knowledge works.

BluAardvark: Part of the reason my talk page ended up protected and blanked, was because I stated that Wikipedia's most valuable resources weren't the "established editors", but the new editors who come by, submit content, and leave. I also stated that when Wikipedia finally collapsed, it would be from abuses from those who THINK they've contributed the most. Really, Wikipedia doesn't benefit much from a bunch of uptight fucks who sit and revert war over trivial nonsense such as the fact that Darwin and Lincoln shared a birthday, or who wheel war over the deletion of some crappy templates.

Boroson, Warren: I'm not contending that all of Wikipedia's entries are without merit. Some of them, I grant, read as if they had been written by a bright high school student. [Nevertheless], I was left with the impression that a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits are in charge.

Brenneman: (to Snowspinner) I just want some simple, objective guidelines... with logical coherent discourse... [Alas], it's ok by you... to contaminate the process as long as you get what you want.

DannyWilde: I feel like there is absolutely no measure of gratitude from anyone in the Wikipedia community for all those edits; instead, after all that contribution, I just got harassed and bullied by a series of fairly irrational administrators. I was also accused of all kinds of nutty things like "vandalism", even after I'd spent a lot of time reverting vandalism.

Donny: Just wondering what others think of this: I've noticed that the overall readability of articles on Wikipedia often reduces after multiple edits. Few Wikipedians think about overall readability, intended audience, or use of jargon. When they write articles, the articles seem to get worse... rather than better.

Donkey: It's a rock that lots of editors who take WP seriously crash themselves against. They think that justice will prevail, that their being right will work for them. They think the policies will be adhered to and they will be okay in a dispute process. They're wrong. They'll be groupthought into oblivion. You will not win any dispute with someone who is connected [to] erm, well what can you call it if you don't call it a cabal -- group of longtime, trusted users and their hangers-on? [Anyways], there are plenty of fuckwitted users who will fight it out over stupid bullshit. And there are plenty of dissenters who are often right about things but get squashed by the establishment. I've given up having content disputes with anyone I know is connected. I know they won't listen to the arguments, and I know their friends will revert for them without discussion.

E.Brown: AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH... goddamnit! This... is just stupid. This is worse than oppressive dictatorship, this is idiocy... These jerks (*understatement*) are using that stupid "private organization" thing as an excuse to deny people's Constitutional rights because they want Wikipedia to be an emotionless, soulless vat of information compiled by people who they don't give a crap about. I've worked my ass off for Wikipedia and what thanks do I get? Some dick snapping at me that I have no rights on Wikipedia and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. I would expect to hear those words from Joseph Stalin not an administrator on an online encyclopedia based in a democratic nation. My true feelings are fury that is many times what you see here.

Ed Poor: (to anyone that would listen) I think Lir should be disciplined for referring to himself in the 3rd person --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ellison: Wikipedia is a time-wasting, totality of CRAP... don't keep bleating like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a variorum text... It is a WASTE OF TIME. [Only] those... who enjoy playing ‘Telephone’ [might like it].

Everyking: (to Snowspinner) Do you know any means of dispute resolution other than... bullying people and trying to control the project forever?.. It's basically all you do, all the time. Why don't you go edit some? You know, articles. Give us a reason to want you around. Your article editing is very, very little compared to the enormous amount of "contributions" (to use the term loosely) to arbitration and policy issues. It's wildly out of proportion. There's a tendency to see your presence as simply harmful with very little redeeming merit. That makes it much harder to stomach your antagonistic attitude and general harshness. It is hard to understand why someone would be attracted to Wikipedia primarily for the purpose of trying to get restrictions imposed on its editors. The only good explanation I've ever been able to think of is that it's some kind of power thing you're into.

Fuelwagon: Don't criticize an admin in any way. Don't criticize their content, don't criticize their behaviour on talk, don't tell them they're breaking policy. They'll get their other admin friends to rally around them, they'll start attacking you, and they'll block you for some non-existent policy violation. Whatever you do, do not criticize an admin by using the dispute resolution process. It doesn't matter how legitimate your complaint is. The old-timers support a system... that treats newer editors with a hammer, and old-timers with velvet gloves. This is a bunch of kings arguing for "divine rights".

Gottrop: Wikipedia is turning more and more to hypocrisy. That makes me sad.

Grace Note: (to Raul654) There was an "agreement"... [only] because you blocked and harassed editors who didn't want it... You didn't address the arguments that were put forward... is that a good way to resolve issues? Is your aim simply to win, regardless of the bitterness caused? I guess it is. I've never seen any sign that you actually welcome solutions that are inclusive... You can yell all you like about censorship, Mark, but censors work in all sorts of ways. You've made it so no one who disagrees with your stance... can be heard.

Guanaco: “Wikipedians are too prone to... groupthink.”

Julius, Anthony: It's not terrible. But then I wouldn't have thought of using Wikipedia as a serious reference source.

Lindsay, Robert: I started spending a lot of time on there editing articles. It was fun. Yaay! I loved Wikipedia. There was something kind of weird and cultic about it.

Lir: Guess what, fixing stuff leads to arguments, which leads to accusations of trolling, which leads to bans – see how it works?

Kross: The admins have a serious bug up their ass.

MarcusAurelius: Sounds like wiki bullshit to me, did I get drunk and write that?

Martens: Wikipedia has... shown itself to be a senseless, inexplicable project censored by the few, for the few. It seems that the encyclopedia [is] nothing more than a... monopoly.

McHenry: It is a school essay, sketchy and poorly balanced...

NathanR: This is the internet, and there are people out there - most of them good people, but not all - trying to make their careers over things like this, and not caring in the slightest about who gets hurt or embarrassed in the process. So forget the pretense of fairness or dignity - get out of there while you still can.

NCarr: Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," was a nice experiment in the "democratization" of publishing, but it didn't quite work out. Wikipedia is dead. It died the way the pure products of idealism always do; slowly, quietly, and largely in secret – through the corrosive process of compromise.

Nobs: According to the Wikipedia’s article on the Ford Edsel automobile, the product’s “spectacular” failure was the result of weak internal support by corporate executives – Nobs argued that Wikipedia suffers from the same problem, and added, “They must sooner or later decide if they want to be a reliable source, as per their own policies... or just another propaganda mouthpiece... dominated by a nomenklatura [(ie: a cabal) which only claims to be objective]... [Meanwhile, by] persecuting whistleblowers who expose the abuses of Wikipedia’s privileged elite, [Wikipedia is] not setting off on the right [path].” For Bauder’s response, see above.

Norton, Ryan: After over six months of being an admin... I resigned yesterday. I use to do it all, deletion, blocking, history merges etc.. I think I did a decent job, especially for the price!!!! As an admin I often felt I was dealing with a lot of irresponsible teenagers... other admins often wouldn't just ignore... rules, they wouldn't follow any of them! I saw some cases where admins would delete pages people... worked a year on. [Another] problem... is with blocking, as sometimes people would block other people for "personal attacks" when it was really the lightest criticism possible... I'm not sure if I'd call it a "cabal", but there is definately a certain kind of groupthink there... from the outside, one might think wikipedia is mostly run by a bunch of professional administrators, when in reality it is quite different.

Radiant: This is disgraceful. The way blocks are carelessly made over matters of opinion, or in retaliation. The way people are attacked for disagreeing with the boss about whether or not a newbie is a troll. The way admins are made an example of, not for extraordinary actions, but for being noticed at the wrong time. The way the already controversial clerk office is misrepresenting or editorializing evidence. And the way the ArbCom has become an instrument of punishment.

Sapp: I noticed that Jimbo is trying to get everyone to vote for his favourite candidates in the upcoming Wikimedia elections. Of course, people would be bonkers to vote for his yes-men. He and his chums already make up 3 out of 5 of the board, on a permanent basis. That Anthere is useless and unstable! Angela had positive aspects (so no wonder she resigned). Jimbo wants 5 out of 5 of his chums on the board, so he can carry on with his secretive practices like not giving any of his conference appearance fees to Wikimedia. Jimbo is a crap leader for what could've been a great project. I hope people with voting rights at Wikipedia will vote for people who will fight against Jimbo, and make Wikipedia as good as it once promised to be.

Schneider: Among newfangled Wikipedians, the fetishizing manifests itself in an unwillingness to step back and ask, "Now that we have invented Wikipedia, how do we make it an information source people can trust?"

Scott: Wikipedia has a large contingency of users who play the Wikipedia Rules of Etiquette and Procedure like they were Role Playing Games and function within them causing havok and personal gratification at the expense of moving the project forward.

Shulman: Broadly speaking, it's inaccurate and unclear.

SJC: While a worthwhile project, [Wikipedia] is now so wrapped and warped by policy and little cliques that it barely qualifies as a wiki in any meaningful sense of the word.

Snowspinner: I think that major work does need to be done on the overall administration of the project... All we are saying is give jackbooted fascism a chance... The Wiki method in all of its nice forms has spectacularly failed. Unfortunately, this requires the intervention of the less nice forms.

Somey: Why do the work yourself when you can get young, energetic volunteers to do it for free? Hey, that's what Wikipedia is all about!

Stude62: I... think that people get hooked on Wikipedia because it acts on the brain like a slot machine. Every contribution could be a winner!

Tycho: Why don't I go edit it myself? ...because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. [Furthermore], any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. [Proponents contend that] the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. ...What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.

Vaughn: Wikis Are a Waste of Time. Collaborative work, no matter what the softwarebehind it, simply doesn't come easily to most people.

Vibber: (realizing, more than a year too late, that User:Tim Starling abused his admin powers, by listing various users according to their passwords) – “This list was at best borderline with respect to our privacy policy... I'd been under the impression it had been deleted within hours of originally being posted... the site admins here on en.wikipedia.org didn't remove it, that's a group failure and I'm rather disappointed.” –Brion Vibber, Chief Technical Officer, Wikimedia Foundation. 22:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I told them about the page repeatedly.

Whistleblower: There are two ways you can get a policy or guideline made "official" on Wikipedia. #1: Firmly, but calmly insist that whatever you're saying is correct until those who disagree with you just give up, sometimes taking months or even years. #2: Gather a group of people and intimidate... those who disagree with you... I have seen literally dozens of people leave the project because of abuse by others... I fear I can no longer [participate] in any good conscience.