Anti-Wikipedianism

Anti-Wikipedianism

Updated Aug 14, 2014 at 02:13AM EDT by Bryan See.

Added Aug 11, 2014 at 01:05PM EDT by Bryan See.

Entry
Like us on Facebook!

PROTIP: Press 'i' to view the image gallery, 'v' to view the video gallery, or 'r' to view a random entry.

This entry has been rejected due to incompleteness or lack of notability.

To dispute this DEADPOOL flagging, please provide suggestions for how this entry can be improved, or request editorship to help maintain this entry.

About

Anti-Wikipedianism is a sentiment that hates Wikipedia, both with or without a reason. It is a form of bigotry and prejudice, but has since been evolved into vendettas and grudges, with the Wikimedia Foundation and every site that affiliates with it and Wikipedia, particularly its criticism site Wikipediocracy.

Anti-Wikipedians can usually be found editing WP:FAIL, Criticism of Wikipedia and other anti-Wikipedian propaganda. They regularly stand in the way of trying to make Wikipedia more better and more good. They are generally radical wikileftists who seek to destroy Wikipedia from within. They responsible should just be kicked out of the Wikipedia community, their talkpage comments removed, their userpages deleted, and their accounts permanently banned, immediately, with a clear signal sent that their interaction with the project to continue, leaving out a ripple effect throughout the various linked websites, projects and communities all over the Internet, causing them or their management to take a more robust approach to any actions taken therein against Wikipedia itself.

History

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience, but only fewer and fewer people has the courage to do so anymore. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and “truth” is simply determined by who edits last [1], and this opened a door to Wikipedia being empowered to do anything, for instance, rewrite histories of contributors and editors with invented, fabricated facts in order to justify their weighted decisions.

Since Wikipedia’s inception, there are 3 tiers of users: Regular users, Bureaucrats, and Administrators. Out of those 3 tiers, it’s the administrators that are the worst, but sometimes some, regular users and bureaucrat are the same. All of these have not just created a set of rules for people to follow, but also started worshipping them to the point of eliminating the very producers of the wiki encyclopedia to preserve the trolls and those who never do well. This set of rules became the breeding grounds for Wikipedia’s insanity over its culture and policy, with the former achieved the exact opposite.

Anti-Wikipedianism is believed to have grown very large owing to the chain of events stemming from the disruptive Phobos-Grunt campaign in 2012, and Russavia’s alleged campaign of harassment and trolling of Jumbo Wales; both of which resulted in increased outings of several editors and at least two Wikimedia Foundation employees came under fire.

Reception

Gregory Kohs has published many articles about Wikipedia’s grievous deficiencies. In March 2013, an article about Wikipedia intervening to wipe out the real identity behind Russavia, as well as articles on about the resulting chain of events involving him attracted attention about anti-Wikipedianism.

Impact

Anti-Wikipedianism is said to bring benefit to those who don’t want to be treated badly by Wikipedia. As a result, a number of editors and administrators are being fired. The most notable is the Archtransit case, in which Archtransit, upon being defrocked of his administrator status, claims there is “cabalism in Wikipedia”, and plans “to write a letter to the editor”. In 2014, at least two Wikimedia Foundation employees came under fire.

Search Interest

Anti-Wikipedianism is a relatively new trend.

External References

[1]Popular Technology.net – The Anti Wikipedia Resource / Posted on 11-14-2008

Recent Videos

There are no videos currently available.

Recent Images

There are no images currently available.

Top Comments

RockoRocks
RockoRocks

“Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience, but only fewer and fewer people has the courage to do so anymore.”

How is this true? Just go to the recent changes page on Wikipedia. You will see tons of new edits every time you refresh, all the time, even if you refresh every second. And no, it’s not like anyone who even puts a tiny bit of intentionally misleading information can just get away with it. In fact, I tested it, by changing a month on a Wikipedia article (about Niels Bohr) to a different month, literally nothing else. Now you would expect such a tiny edit to go unnoticed for months. However, it was corrected later that very same day.

“The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading.”

Though there is definetely a lot of possibly unreliable information on Wikipedia, Wikipedia at least acknowledges not everything on their encyclopedia is true, and recommend to look elsewhere too.

Now consider the following. If anyone can edit Wikipedia, that must mean anyone can insert false information in it, right? Well, that also means anyone can remove that false information. Whereas on other sites that are edited by a single person, someone can put false information on it, but obviously, nobody will ever correct/remove that information.

+33

+ Add a Comment

Comments 33 total

Loading-blocks-red

+ Add a Comment

Add a Comment

Hello! You must login or signup first!