Wikipedia Sucks!

https://reason.com/2022/09/18/what-wiki ... -internet/

"A key ingredient to Wikipedia's success, says Wales, is its high degree of decentralization." - Wikipedia is actually very centralized; their headquarters are in one location in California, and there are only 500 admins.

"Whereas, with Wikipedia, the purpose [is to] write an encyclopedia article or talk about the articles. If you go to the discussion page for the entry on Donald Trump, it's not really a place to go and rant about Donald Trump. It's a place to talk about the article and how we could improve it. Obviously, those discussions can get quite heated, but it is within a framework of saying, 'We're actually here with a particular task in front of us,' versus a little box that says, 'Tell me what you think.'" - Not true, people just don't read the warnings and post whatever they want

"Where I see real opportunity for change for the social networks, applying some of the lessons of Wikipedia, is to put more control in the hands of the users." - Wikipedia is the only website where admins intimidate users by saying that they looked up their IP addresses and ISPs without permission.

there is a prior post on the same article.

I see, but the post focuses more on the legal issues

Here's an amazing takedown of Wikipedia by a former editor and anarchist HISTORIAN on r/socialism:

https://old.reddit.com/r/socialism/comm ... s/cs5jbpf/

For the deleted comments:

https://www.unddit.com/r/socialism/comm ... s/cs5jbpf/

Bbb23sucks wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:50 am

https://old.reddit.com/r/socialism/comm ... s/cs5jbpf/

That's not a bad writeup. But it was ignored at the time. You didn't see r/wikiinaction in its heyday, 2015-2020, did you?

For the deleted comments:
https://www.unddit.com/r/socialism/comm ... s/cs5jbpf/

Blanked.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:11 pm

Bbb23sucks wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:50 am

https://old.reddit.com/r/socialism/comm ... s/cs5jbpf/

That's not a bad writeup. But it was ignored at the time. You didn't see r/wikiinaction in its heyday, 2015-2020, did you?

Unfortunately not, but I usually prefer criticism of Wikipedia from non-critics, as it is usually more likely to convince other non-critics.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:11 pm

For the deleted comments:
https://www.unddit.com/r/socialism/comm ... s/cs5jbpf/

Blanked.

What do you mean?

I mean all I see is A BLANK SCREEN. No content.

(Never mind---Firefox automatically blocks cross-site scripting like this, browser treats it like a tracking cookie. Genius! I had to dig around to figure it out. Who are "Alatorr" and "Humanispherian" anyway? "Important" in any way? Other than squabbling about anarchism and how wonderful WP is?)

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:11 pm

Bbb23sucks wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:50 am

Blanked.

What do you mean?

ylevental wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:59 pm

If you go to the discussion page for the entry on Donald Trump, it's not really a place to go and rant about Donald Trump. It's a place to talk about the article and how we could improve it.

That's the theory. Twenty years plus, they're still trying to put it into practice.

The beauty of decentralisation is that the Wikipedia wanks are debating how to handle drve by comments at Talk:Donald Trump at Talk:Donald Trump even now.....

The real problem (the monkey hiding under the bed, the lizard in the closet, etc.) is WP editors who pile on and use such inquiries -- good faith or not, well-formulated or not, specific or vague -- as an opportunity for a late-night college dorm debate. Once a reply has been given, WP editors need to step back and not continue to reply to OP, at least until OP has responded with some new addition. So I suggest, when we respond the first responder should use the green checkmark to show the issue has been addressed. And everyone else needs to start a new thread if they are inspired to share their thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a shit show. The people who know it the most are Wikipedia wanks.

Jimmy doesn't care, he knows the Wikipedia wanks are an irrelevant side show. Useful idiots.

There are approximately a thousand words of advice/instruction/command at the top of Talk:Donald Trump, the product of barely a handful of self important self elected Guardians of Truth. If you control the talk page, you control the article. If you control the article, you win U.S. Democracy. In their fucking dreams.

Deluded is what they are.

Only THREE editors have a combined fifty percent of the talk of posts (at least the last 50,000! before the database craps out) there. It isn't healthy. Bias is inevitable. Nobody cares.

How's that for decentralisation?

Jimmy is laughing all the way to the bank. He laughs especially hard at his irrelevant worker bees, who he gaslights with pieces like this.