Slashdot Mirror

As Wikitruth and the Wikipedia Review forums have shown hundreds of times, Wikipedia is full of inaccuracies and edit wars on all but the most mundane topics. More insidiously, there is tremendous pressure for particular viewpoints from groups of administrators with special interests, sometimes reflecting the bias of Wales or employees.

So, the idea that there will be an organised effort by a particular group to push a particular agenda (that of a particular dept of the German government) is nothing new. The idea that it will spoil some honourable volunteer effort where all points of view "balance out" is, alas, a complaint about a horse that has grown wings and a horn and blasted through the stable roof.

Sure. It's mentioned in the first post at the top of this page how he uses his powers of deletion to remove unflattering edits from page history. And sadly, this fits right in with the behavior of many other higher-ups at Wikipedia, including, it would seem, Jimbo himself. I see no reason to disbelieve these accounts. And it's very disappointing.

No Wikipedia is NOT slightly less accurate than Britannica, it's very very inaccurate. The study that wikiphiles like to quote was a stitch-up designed to show Wikipedia in the most favorable light.

Most of the time Wikipedia varies between mediocre and deeply flawed. Yes there's lots of interesting trivia in there but there are also gaping flaws that the unwary won't pick up on.

Nor can you avoid Wikipedia by just putting -wikipedia and -wiki in your search engine: there are at least 965 domains that scrape Wikipedia and more are being setup by the day.

Will Citizendium avoid the bear-trap that Wikipedia has fallen into? It depends very much on how much control the editors really have. It also depends on whether Citizendium's contributors continue to do so when they have no guarantee that their work ever sees the light of day.

Here is a new devesating vandal technique which all ex-wikipedians should know.

1. Go to any page
2. Click edit this page
3. Scroll down to the bottom to the list of templates used
4. Open each template that is not protect in a new tab on your browser
5. Paste in lots of image code of your "favorite" picture (eg [[Image:Willys-Knight1920.jpg]]) into themplate.
6. Repeat for each tab.
7. Enjoy the multi-page vandalism
8. Repeat over multiple projects and wikis
9. Help Reclaim Wikimedia for the vandals.

Willy on Wheels, Pelican Shit, CPLOT and all other vandals unite to get revenge on the deletion of the so-called "Not-Notable" GNAA.

http://www.wikitruth.info/
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
http://www.wikipediareview.com/
http://www.gnaa.us/
http://willy.on.whee.ls/

He lists where they're plagiarized from on his website... click on each article and read the box at the top.

He's got a bit more information at these threads: [1], [2], [3] I don't agree with his conclusions, but he said he did put around three weeks of effort going over these by hand to make sure they were legitimate copyvios.

He lists where they're plagiarized from on his website... click on each article and read the box at the top.

He's got a bit more information at these threads: [1], [2], [3] I don't agree with his conclusions, but he said he did put around three weeks of effort going over these by hand to make sure they were legitimate copyvios.

He lists where they're plagiarized from on his website... click on each article and read the box at the top.

He's got a bit more information at these threads: [1], [2], [3] I don't agree with his conclusions, but he said he did put around three weeks of effort going over these by hand to make sure they were legitimate copyvios.

...but you can see all of the plagiarism as well. A perfect gift for the misinformed and the ignorant to keep them that way!

As time has gone by, the situation has gotten worse. As far as I'm concerned, Jimbo Wales input into how to deal with generally hurts the situation, and his like-minded lieutenants follow along. To show the cultish aspect of this, anyone who points this out is called a "troll" or whatnot, I'm sure I'll be called a troll here and modded down by Wikipedia partisans, which kind of proves my point. Another cultish aspect is that no one is allowed to post links to sites truly critical of Wikipedia like Wikipedia Review on the Criticism of Wikipedia page.

What it really is is that old adage of how little problems not dealt with become huge problems as time goes by. Wikipedia has done such a good job with articles on math, science and that type of thing that people tend to ignore how the historical articles are garbage. Aside from the enormous bias of the professional English-speaking Westerner view throughout English Wikipedia, there is focus - Leeroy Jenkins of World of Warcraft fame has an article, while leaders of sub-Saharan African countries get no articles whatsoever. If you combined the Star Trek and Star Wars articles, they would dwarf the size of text written about, say, South America, on English Wikipedia. Anyhow, these things will become more apparent as time goes on, they're apparent to many already, or Wikipedia Review, the site linking of is banned on Wikipedia, wouldn't exist. I don't think Jimbo Wales or Wikipedia will change, and I see a fork certainly coming in the future. I nowadays make about an edit to Wikipedia a month, most of my stuff I put on alternative wikis.

You should be more careful what you say, people that actually know about Wikipedia that aren't mindless zealots post here too.
For example, you state that mentions of the http://www.wikipediareview.com/ are not blocked, and yet until Eric Moeller removed it from [[m:Spam_blacklist]] recently it was impossible to add a link to the site. You obviously know about [[m:Spam_blacklist]] as you are a bureaucrat and an admin on en: as well as an admin on meta. In fact just today you added Daniel Brant's sites to [[m:Spam_blacklist]] with an invalid reasoning.

Were these domains used to spam Wikipedia so much so that they cannot be dealt with by blocks and reverts? No, but you added them anyways without regard for the blacklist's purpose.

--An anonymous admin

Of course, Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and the ArbCom is going to do what they are going to do, but I think it should be generally known how people are unhappy with Wikipedia. A recent poll on Wikipedia Review showed the majority of users there were left-leaning. Wikipedia is run by an Ayn Rand devoted millionaire, who says he runs Wikipedia on a Ludwig von Mises model, so this is not much of a surprise. I hope that Wikipedia Review will build an alternative to Wikipedia, especially in the abysmal categories like History and Culture.

Also discuss this here on the unofficial Wikipedia discussion forum, Wikipedia Review :) http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=492

I have been very involved with Wikipedia since 2003, and won't go into why I myself am unhappy with it that much here. Suffice to say, I think Jimbo exercises too much control, which wouldn't be so bad maybe if I didn't think he was making decisions I dislike. I view much of the "cabal", his highest lieutenants in the same manner, especially ones who didn't get properly elected to the Arbitration Committee (the highest authoritative body on Wikipedia) like Jayjg. Of course, even if there are major problems with Wikipedia, people complaining sound like cranks and complainers until they go out and build something better, or at least alternative. I hope Wikipedia Review is a step in that direction. There are alternatives to Wikipedia out there right now, I just hope Wikipedia Review helps in building the momentum of one (or some) of them until they start reaching critical mass.