Exposing the cliques of Wikipedia

[deci]

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 current?

[Cedric]

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 emphasized enough. All those stories about Wikipedia starting to go seriously wrong in 2004, 2005 or 2006 are just so much bullshit. All of the seeds of Wikipedia's self-destruction were sown in the earliest days. The crazy stuff we see today would not have happened, or never would have happened to such a degree, but for critical mistakes made back in 2001 and 2002.

[Peter Damian]

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 emphasized enough. All those stories about Wikipedia starting to go seriously wrong in 2004, 2005 or 2006 are just so much bullshit. All of the seeds of Wikipedia's self-destruction were sown in the earliest days. The crazy stuff we see today would not have happened, or never would have happened to such a degree, but for critical mistakes made back in 2001 and 2002.

Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine.

[deci]

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 emphasized enough. All those stories about Wikipedia starting to go seriously wrong in 2004, 2005 or 2006 are just so much bullshit. All of the seeds of Wikipedia's self-destruction were sown in the earliest days. The crazy stuff we see today would not have happened, or never would have happened to such a degree, but for critical mistakes made back in 2001 and 2002.

Have to disagree with this. But I won't explain because if people don't know the problem, it will be difficult to come up with a solution right?

[Vigilant]

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 emphasized enough. All those stories about Wikipedia starting to go seriously wrong in 2004, 2005 or 2006 are just so much bullshit. All of the seeds of Wikipedia's self-destruction were sown in the earliest days. The crazy stuff we see today would not have happened, or never would have happened to such a degree, but for critical mistakes made back in 2001 and 2002.

Have to disagree with this. But I won't explain because if people don't know the problem, it will be difficult to come up with a solution right?

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 with too little real world experience.

State the problem in a straight forward manner and stop thinking that you have some magical insight into wikipedia and that if you shared it with the wider world that someone at wikipedia would read it and fix all their problems overnight.

This makes you look like a self important douchebag.

You wouldn't happen to have won a 12th place award for Extemporaneous Writing, would you have?

[deci]

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 is not allowed then I do wonder what this forum is for.

[Zoloft]

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 is not allowed then I do wonder what this forum is for.

Ok, deci, you are allowed to criticize Wikipedia. The problem is you're acting a bit hyper and telling people here who have been critical of Wikipedia for a long time that if they disagree with you they're pro-Wikipedia.

If you're not trolling, tone it down a bit. If you are trolling, well, eventually you'll get suspended from here, sometime between now and tomorrow.

[EricBarbour]

All of the seeds of Wikipedia's self-destruction were sown in the earliest days.

Yes. Speaking as someone who is co-writing a book about Wikipedia's history, Cedric is correct.
The idiocy started early on, and Jimbo facilitated it. Ultimately, he has to take the greatest responsibility.