Why this Site?

  • Our Mission:
  • We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
  • How you can participate:
  •  Visit the Wikipediocracy Forum, a candid exchange of views between Wikipedia editors, administrators, critics, proponents, and the general public.
  • 'Like' our Wikipediocracy page on Facebook.
  •  Follow Wikipediocracy on Twitter!

Press Releases

  • Please click here for recent Wikipediocracy press releases.

All Ur 28bytes R belong to us

.

By the Masked Maggot

It’s been an interesting week in Wikiland, and in Wikipediocracy country too!

It all started several weeks ago during the ARBCOM elections. Early on, there were some seriously odd characters running for the seats, and not many others. Several folks on the Wikipediocracy forums suggested that “one of us” should run, and it turns out that one did, though we didn’t know it at the time. Not only did he run, but he won, and won with the most support of any of the candidates.

About a week and a half ago, our superb team of investigators figured out who 28bytes is in “real life”. His identity (or “dox”, though it wasn’t really his dox) appeared on the public forum briefly, but was taken out of sight for a while at his request. He briefly considered “coming out” here on our blog, but decided that doing so on WP would be the better approach. The investigative team then began to suspect that he was also an insider here on Wikipediocracy as well, and what do ya know… they were right again.

.

 

As you can imagine, some of us were annoyed, some amused, some angry, most surprised. Some of the Wikipedians seem a bit shocked that we have a “super secret forum” where we review blog posts before publishing them (the horrors!), and of course the wheels of the Wikipedia drama machine are spinning away, though that’s not news, is it?

All we can say to those of our readers who aren’t Wikipedians: wikidrama is as contagious as flu and as addictive as a bad soap opera or reality show. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

We wish you all

…continue reading All Ur 28bytes R belong to us

What Wikipedia Repeatedly Does

By Stanistani

Some days it’s hard to get motivated. You need inspiration, you need the wisdom of the ages. Why not turn to Wikipedia for that nugget of wisdom that will define your day?

Excellence

Excellence is a talent or quality which is unusually good and so surpasses ordinary standards. It is also used as a standard of performance as measured e.g. through economic indicators. In modern public relations and marketing, “excellence” is a much overused buzzword that tries to convey a good impression often without imparting any concrete information (e.g. “center for excellence in …”, “business excellence”, etc.).

Well, pooh (e.g. “Winnie the”). That’s not horribly inspiring so far, or “unusually good.” But I’m here for the wisdom of the ancients, so let’s examine the History of Excellence (imagine Greek column here).

History

The Ancient Greeks had a concept of arete which meant an outstanding fitness for purpose. This occurs in the works of Aristotle and Homer. Aristotle once said. “We are what we repeatedly do . . . excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” Another related concept was eudaimonia which was the happiness which resulted from a life well-lived, being prosperous and fulfilled. The equivalent concept in Muslim philosophy is ihsan.

There we go! “We are what we repeatedly do . . . excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” –Aristotle

Carve that into my desk! Tattoo it on my arm!

Wait a minute… I have read a lot of books in my day, and I do believe I’ve seen that quote somewhere before. When I was a young boy, I was gifted a set of books written by Will and Ariel Durant (wonderful popularizers of history and such in their day, check them out). One

…continue reading What Wikipedia Repeatedly Does

Wikipedia’s Problem in a Nutshell

The following is distilled from a recent exchange on the Wikipediocracy Forum:

 

greybeard wrote:

Never before has the definition of “encyclopedia” included current events, lengthy biographies of recent celebrities, up-to-date statistics about current sporting events, exhaustive descriptions of mass-culture phenomenon, or lengthy expositions on unsettled and/or controversial matters of science, economics, and so on. We have traditionally had other publications — newspapers, almanacs, fan books, sports compendia, scholarly and not-so-scholarly journals, People magazine, etc — for those purposes.

Indeed, the Internet has massively democratized access to information generally, so that I can find the lyrics to virtually any pop song, a review of any movie and play, quality medical information about every disease and treatment, and a myriad of other information online from a variety of reputable (and not reputable) sources. Laymen and amateurs of every stripe can gain access online to information that was formerly the purview of only experts with access to research libraries and the skill to locate such material.

But the converse situation has not (entirely) arisen. The professional diplomat or statesmen does not leap up and say “Israel’s settlement expansion in the East Jerusalem town of Gilo is clearly illegal under section 49 of the UN ruling … I know because Wikipedia says so!” No physicist will say “The presence of helium in cold-fusion reactions showing anomalous heat signatures seems to indicate some kind of reaction … I read that on Wikipedia, so it must be true!” Not at all. Statesmen, scientists, and others continue to (quite properly) use specialist sources and primary materials to form their professional opinions.

So who is it that various zealots (whether on Pokemon, the Middle East conflict, or Cold Fusion) are trying to reach by pushing this stuff into Wikipedia? Answer: the lazy and not-very-smart. They want to

…continue reading Wikipedia’s Problem in a Nutshell