The insanity of Wikipedia a.k.a Wackypedia

I have always thought the policies of Wikipedia were a bit strange. But having seen this ‘Editgate’ saga unfold, they seem unworkable.


They want people with no bias on a topic to write it, the reality is almost everyone has a bias (opinion) on almost anything they know enough about . So effectively no-one is qualified to write anything.


In editing they prefer people with no knowledge of the topic to edit it.   So effectively only the clueless are qualified to edit the articles that no-one is properly qualified to write, because they are biased.


In any inevitable dispute about the article, the knowledgeable are attacked for bias, by the impartial who know nothing. So effectively the truth becomes a popularity contest between idiots.


Potential  Wikipedia article on the number 4:

4 is a number.

2+2 = 4

Edit war:

No source that 4 exists, recommend deletion of all instances of 4.

2+2 =5  to replace 2+2 =4, reached by consensus amongst editors.

Final page:

[removed, no source]

2+2 = 5

Worst of all these Wikipedia editors seem to be horrified by the idea that there could be real world consequences for the information they alter. It is almost as if they think they are living in a parallel universe and the information they edit applies to a world they don’t live in. While in most cases the information is so removed from their personal lives they alter data without consequence, but ultimately someone is affected. They are just horrified when it come back to them. “How dare someone make me accountable for what I do!”

A thing like Wikipedia could be a good thing but the mindset of the editors is critical. What kind person wants to read through page after page of text on a computer just to find a correction and score a brownie point? I’d bet not the typical person, I’d hazard a guess not an overly social person in many instances.

Wikipedia is starting to sound like an Orwellian book burning organization with strong Marxist overtones. It was Marxists that caused problems at Occupy Melbourne, just wanting to criticize with no knowledge, criticism about everything except their own Marxist ideology.

Ever notice how many Wikipedia article pages  are getting smaller?

The modern day book burning is happening online one word at a time, changing the context of everything.

Wikipedia the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but some animals are more equal than others.

Posted on February 23, 2013, in Editgate cyber war, History, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. Looks like Wikipedia are aware of the sort of problems that can arise, what happened in this case is a common problem, tne following quote is from one of their pages:

    “People revert edits without explaining themselves (Example: an edit on Economics) (a proper explanation usually works better on the talk page than in an edit summary). Then, when somebody reverts back, also without an explanation, an edit war often results. There’s not enough grounding in Wikiquette to explain that reverts without comments are inconsiderate and almost never justified except for spam and simple vandalism, and even in those cases comments need to be made for tracking purposes.

    There’s a culture of hostility and conflict rather than of good will and cooperation. Even experienced Wikipedians fail to assume good faith in their collaborators. It seems fighting off perceived intruders and making egotistical reversions are a higher priority than incorporating helpful collaborators into Wikipedia’s community. Glaring errors and omissions are completely ignored by veteran Wikiholics (many of whom pose as scientists, for example, but have no verifiable credentials) who have nothing to contribute but egotistical reverts. There is also no acknowledgement ever that multiple communities might be using Wikipedia not by choice but because they feel they must react to changes or to people using the website.”

    This sounds almost like a disclaimer, as the creators of Wikipedia obviously have no real control over their thousands of volunteer editors. And the volunteer editors act as if they represent Wikipedia, which is not really the case.

    It needs to be stated again, that none of the interference mentioned above was perpetrated by members of All did initially did was draw attention to the edit war and we were attacked by Zhou Fang for speculating who it might be, which in the view of Melbourne City council being involved was only fair.. Zhou Fang never supplied any sources or decent explanation for the reverts. Neither did Jason EMgee, who undid the suspected MCC edits without consulting anyone. Jason is now afraid to lose his editor status, so he has complied with Zhou Fang undoing his edits and shifting the blame on, to get his head out of the sling. Hilarious.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: