Wikipedia dying

Certainly happened to me. I stopped contributing anything new after some pseudonymous little turd called one of my careful & meticulous changes "vandalism" and threatened to ban me.

This after writing 30-40 exactingly-researched articles.

Now I just occasionally fix typos and so on, if I can be bothered.

Looking for volounteers to maintain, edit and monitor WANKIPEDIA.EU

First entries to publish should be:
1) The Everywhere Girl
2) Charlie Demerjian
3) Fake Penis Experts (meaning experts about fake penises)
4) Fake Penis Experts (meaning fake experts about penises)

Rules:
1) Editing works only after the original poster approves the edit
2) Talking about relevant things is allowed, but not encouraged
3) You can (and should) insert yourself (after all, who's more expert than YOU about yourself?)

Those interested can send me an e-mail!

Have the authority to define the world will inevitably lead to a god complex.

Presumably there's an upper limit to the number of articles there can be? If this is the case, then the number of articles added per month is bound to decline as the Encyclopaedia approaches "knowing everything".

Generally speaking, Wikipedia has become controlled by a circle of more-or-less left-leaning senior editors.

Try to look up any subject that is controversial (good example: global warming), and you will see a raging editing battle that the leftist editors are always winning because they can have the final word.

Reality is known to have a left-leaning bias...

I (along with many others) gave up on Sh*ttyPedia a long time ago.

There's only so long you can put up with power-crazed lunatics constantly threatening anyone who dares to disagree with them (while the whole time claiming that they are the epitome of impartiality, benevolence and balance).

DON'T LOOK TO WIKIPEDIA FOR INFORMATION ON CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS! It really is that easy. And that can be applied for any source on controversial topics! If you want to find out what a lemming toad bird is, go to Wikipedia. If you want unbiased information on global warming just give up because you're not going to find it!

I tried to edit the discography for a band at one time.. the research was fairly easy, go to the bands website, compare with wikipedia and add whats missing..

looked up the same page a few days later.. the edit was gone.. so whats the use if some lame editor cant even be bothered with a 2 min fact check before deleting information.

"Generally speaking, Wikipedia has become controlled by a circle of more-or-less left-leaning senior editors."

If you check the article on the US education system your faith in the ability of right wing nutters to edit Wikipedia will be restored.

Does the chap Nick have a second job? Has he an analyst? Does he have a stable relationship, e.g. someone he can talk to to realign his mind to notions contingent to reality? Or at least hug him? Does he contribute to conservapedia? I mean, should we be ringing emergency services right now. Because if you one of your edits to wikipedia was deleted, and you need to you use your megaphone to complain, then you are likely to cause a traffic accident.

on controversial subjects, the site follows the opinion of the US&A government - i.e. deny everything

after all, you should not think for yourself because you are given all your opinions by the US&A government and woe betide you if you deviate!

That's why I gave up on the Wonkipaedia. Too many morons who fall for their own hype going around removing the contributions of informed people.

Some people are good at what they know, so they gets jobs in the field. That leaves little time to edit articles on that site so their stats are low. Other people are unable to get a proper job or are too stupid to knuckle down and do their student course properly so they spend all day editing Wikipedia pages. The stats show that these people have 'contributed' tens of thousands of edits or more, therefore they must be experts, right? So they end up feeing a special affinity to Wikipedia because of this and go around removing or altering those occasional edits made by the informed people because the stats 'prove' they they know better than anyone else.

And I've even had edits removed for being too eloquent! I corrected a history of events for a certain radio presenter during the weeks that led up to him being sacked, and simply because I wrote well - in the kind of encyclopedic style you'd expect of Brittanica or something, a moron removed it with the reason given being that I was clearly some kind of agent or radio station employee posting marketese. If I'd have typed like a chav, avoiding capitalisation wherever possible, the same editor would have probably relished in cleaning up my typing instead.

I think what it comes down to is people with inflated egos needing to find opportunities to correct everyone else because that proved to themselves that they're better than everyone.

been there, done that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twobombs/3415974262/sizes/o/

Some have already said it but, again: I find wiki to be of incredible value on a wide range of FACT based topics. By definition, there will be controversy on controversial topics. Maybe the editors make errors or are over-zealous, but can you imagine the amount of tripe they have to sort through? You are obviously biased and this is not journalism. Despite its faults, Wiki is a valuable resource to many people.

@bobt - these "FACT based topics", which can be written by anyone (so they are not necessarily facts), are edited by "experts" who have little or no credentials (and in some cases - fake credientials).

I ask you, how can someone be assured that these topics are indeed "FACT based"?

I think the "editors" are on some kind of power trip because of their editing "powers" and the fact (a veifiably true fact) that they have the last word.

I choose to use an alternate source when I need facts or information. At least with another source I have a higher probability of getting the correct information that I need or want.

Having all the world's information in one place does not make it more accurate/correct.

I was recently hugely, surprised to see an editor (appropriately named) RedPenOfDoom, whose job seems to be to delete as many entries/contributions as possible (based on the wacky criteria of self-appointed WikiPolice). To top this all, this persons seems to be a salaried employee of Wikipedia.

just imagine, Wikipedia paying somebody to clean-up as much content as possible.

Google Wave?

Years ago I wanted to contribute. I found an article on a subject close to my heart. The content was good, the facts were right, but the grammar was poor and it contained spelling mistakes and typos.

Much to my surprise, after cleaning it up (Without changing a single fact or reference) I went back later to find it .. reverted back to the original.

That put me off. But what finally killed Wikipedia for me was the "Ayers Rock" thing.

I remember learning about 30 years ago that Ayers Rock was a "batholith" from an encyclopaedia. (I think it was Britannica but it's so along ago I'm not sure.). It stuck in my mind because it seemed such a strange word and it was the first time I'd ever seen it.

A few years back I checked in Wikipedia only to find apparently that's wrong, it's now an "inselberg", an isolated fragment of an eroded mountain chain.

Suspicious, I checked some of the websites listed as references... guess what THEY used as a reference? WIKIPEDIA.

Circular references .. I'm tempted to say something much more rude that sounds similar.

History is written by the winners, they say ... and now an entire world's body of knowledge is in the hands of self-proclaimed experts who jealously exclude outsiders...the scary thing is that sounds just like the way it was done before, it's just that we have a new set of controllers... are we witnessing a knowledge coup?

Funny, I always thought the Wankerpedia editors were fake experts on fake penises. Good thing there are legitimate reference sites.

Circular references? You mean circle-jerk?

See the movie 'Idiocracy' if you want to see where this planet is headed. Time to relocate. I hear the weather on Stragaslanus IV is particularly nice this time of year...

If anyone has any common sense, when using wikipedia, follow the references to find out how the information got there. This is what they are for. As for deletion and the rest, who ever heard of a perfect society.

I like the Simpsons but the wiki editors keep pages dedicated to characters that appeared 1 time on a cartoon show and delete pages of physics, math & computer science.

As for bias, I've seen just the reverse of what people are claiming. Links to public records & peer reviewed research are deleted and replaced with quotes from talk radio. Wiki now uses an automatic IP tracer to flag edits from IPs registered to PR firms & other organizations with a history of misinformation.

@myname - if one has to follow the references, then one can simply do his/her own research and wiki would no longer be necessary.

As for the world not being perfect - I agree, but in the case of the wiki editors, they leave A LOT to be desired. They make far too many deletions and unecessary edits. They are about as far from perfect as one could get. If their edits were actually improvements to the topic it would be one thing, but in many cases they are edits to show power and bias.

I take part on wackypedia and know that is right, as it depends on the controlling admin who look your article through. For example: I'm a mountaineer and my speciality are the ötztal alps. All of the Fotos for the articles are my own. And once an admin want to delete it, because he had the feeling for a copyright theft of me - because of the exact route description I gave of the mountain. But thats because I climb on that mountain.

Another example is an admin who wrote in his self description: 'Theres are discussion on themes who are important for myself...'. And that obviosuly nothing has to do with telling the truth (as in an encyclopedia it should be), as often the truth is not beautiful.

There are many constructive writers, but many people there have rights they shouldn't have. And there are too many of them there. That horrifies new writers and drive them back from the project. And so wackypedias grow and quality goes down...

Trying to add my knowledge to articles because every time I DID I got a threatening email about illegal edit or some such. No chance to protest or even find out WHAT was illegal or in violation of whatever arbitrary rule it was I had broken. I even sent an email to one of the admins and was told not to do that again or my ip would be banned. Didn't address the issue, just told me to f***off.

Wikipedia activity is going down because its culture is toxic. Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it's becoming ever more mature as an encyclopedia. There are still a lot of stubs, but they'll always be there.

As for reverting edits, I've made hundreds upon hundreds of edits over the years, some of them "controversial", and only one of them was reverted in error. Again, something is rotten in INQland.

Ancestor on Matriarchial side of family, John Charles Fremont, is little known, although ran for Hon President in 1856. In Americana theres two page article, yet most never mention name at ALL. I, meaning my personal self, was greatly informed by reading John Charles Fremonts' Bio in Wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Fremont

You can never tell when Waki might meet wiki, yet some of US History is fascinating. Maybe they have Mike Magee, yet theres NO mike Magee ancestory, as its spoof name. When zines go, Mike goes. Yet Captain John Charles Fremont name will live forever.

vondrashek

I am amazed at how few people realize what utter nonsense this article is.

The statistics quoted in this article are those of a successful concept, not a dying one. The number of new articles and contributors are supposed to level out and then decrease.

Before the first Wikipedia article was written, you could think of absolutely anything, and there would not yet be a Wikipedia entry for it. No matter what you thought of, you could add a new article on Wikipedia for it. Now, think of something that interests you. Anything... computers, plastic bags, volcanos, navel lint. There is likely to be an entry for it. Sometimes it is just a stub, but there it is. This is so obvious, that I can hardly believe that the author of this article doesn't know this.

When Wikipedia first started, nobody knew about it. I could go to almost anybody and tell them about it, knowing that I have increased the number of potential editors by one. Now I find it very difficult to find anybody who has not heard of it. So the number of new editors is not increasing quite as fast. Also quite obvious.

Then there are the normal fluctuations of hype. Every time there's some buzz about Wikipedia, the number of editors increases, and afterwards, it drops back to normal levels. The decreases are as normal as the increases.

One can see how silly this article is when one applies the same logic to other situations: Prime numbers will soon be a thing of the past, because the number of new prime numbers we find is decreasing. It is safe to get out of a vehicle when it stops accelerating. When somebody's temperature drops after suffering a fever, they will eventually reach zero degrees. One day somebody will invent a perpetual motion engine. A pyramid scheme can carry on forever. It is possible to cool something to -1000 degrees.

And as for people having their contributions removed, this is not unique to Wikipedia. Everywhere in this world, there are idiots who make things difficult. The presence of idiots on Wikipedia says nothing about Wikipedia. Half the people complaining about this are victims of idiots who do not like their content improved on, and the other half are idiots who deserved having their contributions removed. Everybody falls into both these categories from somebody's point of view.

I also fully agree with the comments of Ken and Saint Ides.

Nice to see there are some reseonable people who still read INQ. There are a few others who also commented how wonderful and invaluable wikipedia is as an agregate source of information - despite all it's flaws.

INQ had been pro wikipedia earlier, but once there piece of crap horny fantasy everywhere girl topic was removed on prefectly valid ground(why put an article on one perticular stock photo face) - they started a personal crusade against wikipedia.

On the other hand, removal of Everywhere Girl topic stopped me from creating my own Everywhere Dog topic, which some may argue, saved 5 seconds in the life of all who would have read it.

Very typical of my experience. Bunch of little fascist editors jerked me around. Told 'em what they can do with a retractable baton. Last time I'll ever contribute even a semicolon. Later I found an article with an error in it. I told them "I know where the error is but I'm not going to fix it, good luck."

well done Shrog+Saint Ides, I wondered how long it would be before someone spotted the 800 lb gorilla sized flaw in the article's premise. I know the average person aint too bright, but I would of thought it would of thought someone would of pointed out the flawed reasoning well within ~20 posts! I wearily shake my head

A year or so ago, I made the mistake of adding an interesting factoid to the Wikipedia X-Files page. I added a line or two referencing the fact that the guest-star on a couple of episodes was Roy Thinnes, star of the 1967 sci-fi TV series "The Invaders". I offered the further (controversial) observation that the "The Invaders" had a very similar plot concept, and that the temperament of the character played by Roy Thinnes strongly resembled 'Mulder' on "X-Files". The next day, I discovered my two sentence edit had been removed, and I got an e-mail from some anonymous Wikipedia contributor who told me he had to remove my comments because "opinions are not allowed", and that I had failed to provide references for my information.

In fact, I had figured out how to footnote my comment, and the reference was to another Wikipedia page called "Roy_Thinnes", which described his role in the 1967 Quinn Martin production. As for my opinion on the 'temperament' of the leading characters, I was 15 years old at the time, and I think I watched every episode of "The Invaders" during it's two-year run. I figured that qualified me as a primary source, albeit in the oral tradition.

Of course, my arguments were not sufficient to convince this fellow to restore my comments. I then decided to review "his" X-Files page myself, and after tracking down three references, none of which was authoritative, and one of which was quite literally false, I decided that I had stumbled into yet another community of "people who live on-line", and not worth the effort of trying to overcome their pathological insecurities.

That said, I routinely find very useful information at Wikipedia pages, mostly on technical subjects, less prone to subjective squabbling over what is fact vs. opinion. And thanks to INQ, I have finally had the chance to tell my Wikipedia mugging story to a rational audience. Thank you!

funny thing about online idiots is that by far the most civilized tolerant helpfull cooperative comunities ive seen online were porn forums... and porn torrent sites...

and some of the worse cases were a local irc programmers channel (little nazis - talk about life on line)... and a local cinema center site where the average joe culd comment on the movie presentation sites - this one was a piec of history.. i shuld have made some screenshots to remember what went on there . it was a special glimpse into the innerworkings of the human mind... to bad that now they started moderating it.

Wikipedia is a useful tool as long ans people recognise it not as an encyclopedia but ONLY as a snapshot of pop culture, opinions, and interests of a large, arbitrary sample of computer hobbyists.

As such it's probably a very valuable tool for geeky factoids like tracking down the actors of 'The Blake 7' or plot summaries of cartoons of the late 1970s.

If you want a counterbalance when researching more hotly debated subjects then go, but also visit sites holding opposing political or cultural views such as conservapedia.com.

ZOMG this is like one's first experience in finding two library books which contradict each other. ('But it's the *printed word,* it *must* be true...')

What a nice little microcosm Wikipedia is for this world we live in.

It's changing colors???