The Register Exposes More Wikipedia Abuse

cyofee writes "The Register has up another article exposing abuse of Wikipedia's policies and processes. It tells a tale of a man, Gary Weiss, controlling the Wikipedia article about himself and his enemies (one of Wikipedia's biggest taboos) all under the blessing of the Wikipedia Cabal. A man who attempted to expose the affair on Wikipedia, along with his his entire IP range (some 1000 homes), was permanently blocked. This comes only days after the affair of the Secret Mailing list."

Comments

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater

[Torodung]

Yes, but is this relevant to 85% of the body of work? Do we really need to throw the word "totalitarian" around, or "black helicopters?" Jeez.

News flash! The Register has less credibility than Wiki, if only for this idiotic smear job.

In defense of Wikipedia: Sure, Wikipedia has its corruptions and its problems, but so does any other human endeavor.

Point is, it is a useful source of information. If you don't have the critical skills to determine where it is not useful, you should ask your Mom for help in using it.

I'd hate for Wikipedia to be taken down over some scandal. These shrill articles about "corruption" are really rather childish. Wikipedia has made no claims to be a superior source of information. There's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

I find it to be an excellent source for non-politicized information, and this will continue to be the case, regardless of administrative difficulties, so long as Wikipedia is given the chance to survive this tabloid "scandal sheet" coverage of its staff.

Let's not fan the flames, and that is what the linked article is: a flame. Don't do this to the staff of Wikipedia just because you may think they are "a bit snotty."

--
Toro

Todays lesson: spotting bullshit.

[LordLimecat]

Before even beginning to RTFA, i knew this was gonna be a garbage article with nothing but assumptions. I wont say that wikipedia doesnt have problems, but whenever i see references to a "cabal" @ wikipedia, my bullshit-radar kicks in. Did everyone reading the article miss the point where Bagley vandalized another persons wikipedia article, and then wondered why he got banned? Im not an expert on dealing with issues @ wikipedia, but I'm going to take a wild stab and say that performing vandalism in order to get the attention of admins is a rather bad idea. Im gonna go a step further and saying that engaging in an edit war on another article doesnt help your reputation @ wikipedia. Bagley was behaving like a classic troll, regardless of the merits of his claim, and he was acting on a hunch--it states in the article that he wasnt even sure that Weiss was the one engaged in the edit war with him. Nothing to see here except more register.co.uk bullshit.

Wikipedia is just a victim of the times

[damburger]

These days, Americans seem intent on politicising every damn thing, so its no surprise a project contributed to largely by Americans devolves into petty politics.