Wikipediocracy

I'm disappointed that my initial suspicions were accurate but since it did fall within the realm of anticipated scenarios not that much. But if it makes you feel better to think that I'm sobbing inconsolably and tearing my hair out in vexation I'll leave you with that lovely picture. Bye!

From http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1972&start=57,this thread OK, Several others here have tried to be diplomatic. That's not me. Shut the fuck up with these weird, strident conspiracy thingies you're doing. It's tiresome and feeble and makes you look like a high school student ...

Excuse me but I find this tone unwarranted. I am criticizing Wikipedia perhaps flippantly perhaps seriously. Are you saying that is not allowed on this site? Is Wikipedia a holy cow? Would you be taking the same tone if I said the government was incompetent? If this all strikes too close to home and...

Does Wikipedia deserve to be consequential? When someone vandalizes a page on Wikipedia saying a certain starlet for example has died when she hasn't what makes that vandalism consequential? Does a newspaper reporting it increase or decrease the consequence? Wikipedia is allowed to be like teflon. W...

If you think Wikipedia is important then I think outing becomes more justifiable. But if you don't think Wikipedia is important then why bother?

I'm curious, deci, what content did you try to add that was removed? Oh that would make it too easy for those who love to figure certain things out. But I assure you this, I researched it thoroughly starting from an independent point-of-view with no prior interest in the subject and feel a fair eva...

Also outing Beeblebrox serves what purpose exactly? He's perfect where he is destroying Wikipedia. I wouldn't say "perfect," exactly. But for Hasten The Day! purposes, he'll do. In the end Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales's creature, so if it gets better he benefits and I do not see how contributors get to...

iii, correct me if I'm wrong but you're still a Wikipedia lover yes? Please try answering the question I posted in that other thread I started inquiring how Wikipedia veterans can still justify supporting the site. Particularly what's your opinion of Jimmy Wales and how you reconcile supporting a we...

For example, if you reconstruct the Wikipedia database in 2001 you find plenty of woo, as well as plenty of stuff about anime, trivia and so on. It's not that Wikipedia started out as this pure thing that eventually got corrupted. The rot was in there from the very beginning. This can never be emph...

I just found out I cannot edit and update the first post probably because of a time lock to editing. Disappointing. If that's the case, topics here are doomed to be ephemeral in nature and the efficacy of any purpose blunted. Would a blog article have more permanence? Can those be updated to be more...

Not without more. This is a watchdog site. It'll diminish its credibility every time it gets petty. I am in favor of every admin that has an access to IPs, and any one that does oversight, providing real name etc. to the lawfully responsible owners of Wikipedia. I don't care much that I don't get t...

In article editing it should be similarly simple: let them add content and cite sources till they go blue in the face. If one side drops a load of information, they worked for it and the onus should be on those wanting to remove it to explain why. What you see with Wikipedia though are people remov...

I'm not a true supporter of Wikipedia, though I thought the idea was kind of neat. I think I can answer your question on behalf of the True Believers -- they will say that Wikipedia is bigger than Jimmy Wales, that you're making him out to be more important a factor than he really is, and that he's...

The thread has wandered a bit from the main question posed a the start. Why are there people who still support Wikipedia? Do the supporters trust Jimmy Wales? Who here thinks he is a man of integrity? Even if Wikipedia improves to such an extent that all technical and cultural problems are miraculou...

There should be some common reference that identifies the active cliques at Wikipedia so that unsuspecting editors are better aware and informed what they are up against when they get into a dispute with one of them. As we all should know Wikipedia forbids the listing of Wikipedia members and groups...

O-kay, why not tell us your story and how you got browned off with it cheers Cas Naive as I was, I was misled by the media into thinking that Wikipedia was about providing a free and open encyclopedia. Because of that it seemed obvious to me that contributors would be given respect and valued. Of c...

For the innocent who are new to Wikipedia I can understand the allure of the project, but for those more experienced and knowledgeable about all the shenanigans that go on, why do you put up with all its crap? How do you ethically defend the abuse and exploitation that goes on? Why should those who ...

The purpose of Wikipediocracy is to constructively criticise Wikipedia's flaws, the failing of its governance, and to provide a safe place to discuss all this. "Constructively criticize Wikipedia's flaws"? With a view to what? Improving Wikipedia and making it better? So people here aim to give mor...

In many cases this should be easier to deal with than what happens. If we were to have a basketball game how do you determine the better team? You let them play and enforce the rules to make sure they don't play dirty. In article editing it should be similarly simple: let them add content and cite s...

Hello new here but before I get involved I want to know and be assured this place's principles are in alignment with mine and that it will not waste my time the way Wikipedia has. According to the site's mission statement: We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia a...