MyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2009-05-17T22:02:32Z

Cedric: /* INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES */ oops!

<big>'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</big><ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of [[Wikipedia]]. A number of Wikipedia users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on Wikipedia have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, Wikipedia’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at [[Wikipedia Review]], and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Instant editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales]], says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to Wales, the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-AdminTM. It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the effect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621 “Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their nature arise from, and are sustained by, conflict; and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of Wikipedia Review. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise is desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2008-12-28T06:15:24Z

Cedric: /* THE END GAME */

<big>'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</big><ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of [[Wikipedia]]. A number of Wikipedia users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on Wikipedia have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, Wikipedia’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at [[Wikipedia Review]], and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales]], says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to Wales, the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-AdminTM. It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the effect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621 “Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their nature arise from, and are sustained by, conflict; and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of Wikipedia Review. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise is desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2008-12-28T06:02:55Z

Cedric: /* EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL */

<big>'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</big><ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of [[Wikipedia]]. A number of Wikipedia users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on Wikipedia have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, Wikipedia’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at [[Wikipedia Review]], and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales]], says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to Wales, the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-AdminTM. It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the effect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621 “Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their nature arise from, and are sustained by, conflict; and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of Wikipedia Review. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-11T18:46:38Z

Cedric: /* Banal and unencyclopedic */ Son of More Wikidiocy vs. Frankenstein

<big>'''The Worst of Wikipedia'''</big>

Since its online debut in January, 2001, [[Wikipedia]], the self-styled "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has managed to form quite a collection of incorrect, trivial, unencyclopedic, disgusting and libelous content. Below are a series of links to a small sampling of the worst of Wikipedia's content, past and present, that are howlers, head-scratchers, or stuff that just makes people mad.

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080227011601/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinfo Wikinfo]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka Dunin]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

 

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300-page_iPhone_bill 300 page iPhone bill (''a "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Eden_hat Anthony Eden hat (''a "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_40_Alternate_(Keyser%27s_Ridge_%E2%80%93_Cumberland,_Maryland) U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge -- Cumberland, Maryland) (''a "featured article"'')] <ref>Important! Not to be confused with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_40_Alternate_(Hagerstown_%E2%80%93_Frederick,_Maryland) U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Hagerstown -- Frederick, Maryland)]</ref>
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_victims_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States_by_decade List of victims of fatal snake bites in the United States by decade]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Meerkat_Manor_meerkats List of Meerkat Manor meerkats (''a "featured list"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra_at_the_1976_Winter_Olympics Andorra at the 1976 Winter Olympics]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs_and_devices_in_the_Year_Zero_alternate_reality_game Drugs and devices in the Year Zero alternate reality game]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_listed_on_the_Toronto_Stock_Exchange_(J) Companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (J)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopolis_Kirchberg Utopolis Kirchberg]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanqiu_Xiu Guanqiu Xiu]

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-06T18:08:16Z

Cedric: /* Banal and unencyclopedic */ return of the son of more wikidiocy

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T21:46:40Z

Cedric: notes

<big>'''The Worst of Wikipedia'''</big>

Since its online debut in January, 2001, [[Wikipedia]], the self-styled "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has managed to form quite a collection of incorrect, trivial, unencyclopedic, disgusting and libelous content. Below are a series of links to a small sampling of the worst of Wikipedia's content, past and present, that are howlers, head-scratchers, or stuff that just makes people mad.

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080227011601/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinfo Wikinfo]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka Dunin]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

 

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_40_Alternate_(Keyser%27s_Ridge_%E2%80%93_Cumberland,_Maryland) U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge -- Cumberland, Maryland) (''a "featured article"'')] <ref>Important! Not to be confused with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_40_Alternate_(Hagerstown_%E2%80%93_Frederick,_Maryland) U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Hagerstown -- Frederick, Maryland)]</ref>
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_victims_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States_by_decade List of victims of fatal snake bites in the United States by decade]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Meerkat_Manor_meerkats List of Meerkat Manor meerkats (''a "featured list"'')]

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T21:41:10Z

Cedric: /* Banal and unencyclopedic */ son of more wikidiocy

<big>'''The Worst of Wikipedia'''</big>

Since its online debut in January, 2001, [[Wikipedia]], the self-styled "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has managed to form quite a collection of incorrect, trivial, unencyclopedic, disgusting and libelous content. Below are a series of links to a small sampling of the worst of Wikipedia's content, past and present, that are howlers, head-scratchers, or stuff that just makes people mad.

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080227011601/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinfo Wikinfo]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka Dunin]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

 

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_40_Alternate_(Keyser%27s_Ridge_%E2%80%93_Cumberland,_Maryland) U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge -- Cumberland, Maryland) (''a "featured article"'')] <ref>Important! Not to be confused with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_40_Alternate_(Hagerstown_%E2%80%93_Frederick,_Maryland) U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Hagerstown -- Frederick,_Maryland)]</ref>
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_victims_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States_by_decade List of victims of fatal snake bites in the United States by decade]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Meerkat_Manor_meerkats List of Meerkat Manor meerkats (''a "featured list"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T20:57:04Z

Cedric: /* Other truly awful */

<big>'''The Worst of Wikipedia'''</big>

Since its online debut in January, 2001, [[Wikipedia]], the self-styled "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has managed to form quite a collection of incorrect, trivial, unencyclopedic, disgusting and libelous content. Below are a series of links to a small sampling of the worst of Wikipedia's content, past and present, that are howlers, head-scratchers, or stuff that just makes people mad.

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080227011601/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinfo Wikinfo]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka Dunin]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

 

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T20:37:48Z

Cedric: Added short intro

<big>'''The Worst of Wikipedia'''</big>

Since its online debut in January, 2001, [[Wikipedia]], the self-styled "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has managed to form quite a collection of incorrect, trivial, unencyclopedic, disgusting and libelous content. Below are a series of links to a small sampling of the worst of Wikipedia's content, past and present, that are howlers, head-scratchers, or stuff that just makes people mad.

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080227011601/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinfo Wikinfo]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka Dunin]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T20:13:37Z

Cedric: /* Non-Notable */ changed links for "Mzoli's" and "Elonka"

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080227011601/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinfo Wikinfo]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka Dunin]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka Dunin

2008-12-05T20:11:45Z

Cedric: New page (copied from en.wikipedia.org)

{{Self-published|date=November 2008}}
{{Like-resume|date=November 2008}}
{{Infobox Celebrity
| name = Elonka Dunin
| image = Elonka 6653.jpg
| image_size = 200px
| caption = Elonka Dunin, 2006
| birth_date = {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1958|12|29}}
| birth_place = [[Santa Monica, California|Santa Monica]], [[California]]
| death_date =
| death_place =
| occupation = [[Video game developer]]
| salary =
| networth =
| spouse =
| children =
| website = [http://www.elonka.com www.elonka.com]
| footnotes =
}}
'''Elonka Dunin''' ({{pronEng|ɪˈlɔŋkə 'dʌnɨn}}); (b. 29 December 1958) is a game developer<ref name="nyt"/> at [[Simutronics Corp.]] in [[St. Louis, Missouri]]. She is one of the founders of the [[International Game Developers Association]]'s [[Online Games]] group, and was editor in chief on IGDA State of the Industry [[White paper#Commercial white papers|white papers]].

Dunin has published a book of exercises on [[classical cryptography]] in two editions, and she maintains a web-site on the ''[[Kryptos]]'' sculptural [[cryptogram]], located at the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] headquarters in [[Langley, Virginia|Langley]], [[Virginia]]. Although she practices cryptography as an amateur,<ref name="Science Now"/><ref name=NPR/><ref name="Science"/> she is referred to as a [[cryptanalyst]] in several media reports on the ''[[Kryptos]]'' sculpture.<ref>{{Citenews|title=London Lawyers Turn Into Code-Breakers|publisher=''[[The Washington Post]]''|date=2006-04-27|url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/27/AR2006042701765.html}}</ref><ref name=NPR>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5356012 "Enigmatic CIA Puzzle ''Kryptos'' May Be Flawed"] [[NPR]] All Things Considered, April 21, 2006</ref><ref name="nyt">{{citenews|title=A Break for Code Breakers on a C.I.A. Mystery |author=Kenneth Chang||date=2006-04-22|publisher=''[[The New York Times]]''|url= http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE5DA153FF931A15757C0A9609C8B63}}</ref> She has given several lectures on the topic,<ref name=nsa>{{cite web|url=http://kryptos.yak.net/50|title=NSA Cryptologic History Symposium in 2005 |publisher=kryptos.yak.net|accessdate=2008-11-13}}</ref><ref name=defcon>[http://althing.cs.dartmouth.edu/secref/resources/defcon12/dc-12-speakers.html#dunin Defcon 12: Kryptos and the Cracking of the Cyrillic Projector Cipher]</ref> and according to the [[PBS]] series ''[[NOVA scienceNOW]]'' she is "generally considered the leading ''Kryptos'' expert in the world."<ref name="PBS">{{cite news|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/video/3411/q03-220.html |publisher=''[[NOVA scienceNOW]]''|date=July 2007|title=''Kryptos''|accessdate=2007-10-13}}</ref>

==Biography==
Dunin graduated in 1976 from [[University High School (Los Angeles, California)|University High School]]. She was enrolled as an undergraduate at [[University of California, Los Angeles|UCLA]], majoring in [[astronomy]]{{Fact|date=November 2008}}, for roughly one year, after which she joined the [[United States Air Force]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://elonka.com/articles/tommarello.html|title=Tommarello Interview with Elonka Dunin|publisher=elonka.com|accessdate=2008-11-13|quote=Elonka does not have a college degree, but has a wide breadth of practical experience to draw upon. After dropping out of college, she spent six years in the Air Force as an Avionics Instruments System Specialist.}}</ref> working as an [[avionics]] technician at [[RAF Mildenhall]] in the United Kingdom and [[Beale Air Force Base]] in California.<ref name=stccbr/>

==Online games==
In 1990, Dunin moved to [[St. Louis, Missouri|St. Louis]] and began working for the online game company [[Simutronics]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Games People Play |work=St. Charles Journal |date=January 9, 1994}}</ref><ref name=stccbr>{{cite news | title=Elonka Dunin's ability to crack codes is stuff books are made of | work=St. Charles County Business Record | date= August 28, 2006 | author=Stage, Wm.}}</ref>Simutronics launched its own website, play.net, in 1997 with Dunin as Supervisor of Online Games.<ref>{{cite news |title=Trends: Nice Work If You Can Master It |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |first=Jennifer |last=Pendleton |page=6 |date=1997-08-18}}</ref> In 1999, she held the position of general manager of Simutronics' on-line community.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Pure Internet play. Simutronics' online games. |journal=[[Inc. (magazine)|Inc]] |first=Nancy K |last=Austin |volume=21 |issue=15 |pages=p. 75 |date=October 19, 1999}}</ref> Dunin was the product manager for ''[[GemStone III]]'', executive producer for the ''[[Hercules (TV show)|Hercules]]'' and ''[[Xena: Warrior Princess]]''-based multiplayer game ''Alliance of Heroes'', and worked on the development of most of Simutronics' other products, including ''[[CyberStrike 2|CyberStrike]]'', ''Modus Operandi'', ''[[DragonRealms]]'' and the upcoming ''[[Hero's Journey (computer game)|Hero's Journey]]''. She currently is the "General Manager of Online Community". She is a founding member of the [[International Game Developers Association]]'s [[Online game|Online Games]] [[Special Interest Group|SIG]] and senior editor of two of their annual White Papers on various aspects of the online game industry: "Web and Downloadable Games" and "Persistent Worlds."{{Fact|date=November 2008}}

== Cryptanalysis ==

In interviews with GIGnews.com, Dunin said that in the year 2000 she cracked the [[PhreakNIC]] v3.0 Code, an amateur cryptographic puzzle created by a [[Hacker (computer security)|hacker group]].<ref name="GIGnews">{{cite web |url=http://www.gignews.com/goddess/dunin.htm |title=A Chat with Elonka Dunin |work=GIGnews.com |first=Melanie |last=Cambron |month=May |year=2002 |accessdate=2008-10-31}}</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=November 2008}}<ref name="pn6">[http://phreaknic.info/pn6/schedule.html PhreakNIC 6 schedule]</ref>

According to the ''[[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]]'', in 2003 Dunin was "leading the charge" to decode a ''Kryptos'' sister sculpture, the ''[[Cyrillic Projector]]''.<ref name="Post-Dispatch">{{cite news |url=http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/92251953766AB8FE86256DBA00139A45?OpenDocument |title=Woman sets sights on code on CIA sculpture |work=[[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]] |first=Eli |last=Kintisch |date=2003-10-08 |archiveurl=http://www.elonka.com/mirrors/STL/sights.html |archivedate=2004-03-11}}</ref> An article in the periodical ''[[Science Now]]'', followed by another in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', reported that Mike Bales, a computer programmer in Michigan and Frank Corr, a computer programmer in North Carolina had decrypted the [[ciphertext]] in September 2003, and that Dunin performed the final translation of the [[plaintext]] from [[Russian language|Russian]] — a language that neither Bales or Corr knew.<ref name="Science Now">{{cite journal |url=http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2003/1007/3 |title=Cryptic Sculpture Cracked |journal=[[Science Now]] |first=Charles |last=Seife |date=October 7, 2003 |archiveurl=http://elonka.com/kryptos/mirrors/ScienceMagazine.html |archivedate=2004-03-11}}</ref><ref name="Science">[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol302/issue5643/r-samples.dtl Cyrillic Riddle Solved] ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', vol 302, 10 Oct. 2003, page 224</ref> The article in the ''St. Louis Post-Dispatch'' details that Bales was "on Dunin's team."<ref name="Post-Dispatch"/>

Dunin and Chris Hanson are co-moderators of a Yahoo group that attempts to decipher the ''[[Kryptos]]'' sculptural cryptogram, and she also maintains a comprehensive website about the sculpture.<ref name="nyt"/><ref name=wired06>{{cite news|title=Typo Confounds Kryptos Sleuths|author=Kim Zetter|date=[[2006-04-20]]|publisher=[[Wired News]]. CondéNet, Inc.|url=http://wired.com./science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70701|}}</ref> Because of its location on [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] grounds, physical access to ''Kryptos'' is restricted. According to [[Wired News]], in 2002, she give a presentation to CIA analysts about [[steganography]] and [[al-Qaida]].<ref name="wired05">{{cite news |url=http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/01/66334 |title=Solving the Enigma of Kryptos |publisher=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired.com]] |first=Kim |last=Zetter |date=2005-01-21 |accessdate=2008-10-31}}</ref> According to the same source, "[i]n 2002, Dunin was one of the lucky few who saw the works in person", and "she also made [[rubbing]]s of the text". During her visit, "[a]lthough she wasn't allowed to snap photos of ''Kryptos'' while there, her CIA guides arranged to have an official photographer take pictures of her standing next to it."

The plaintext of the first three out of four sections of the message engraved on ''Kryptos'' has been publicly revealed in 1999 by
California computer scientist [[Jim Gillogly]]. According to an article in ''[[The New York Times]]'', in 2006 [[James Sanborn]], the artist who created the ''Kryptos'' sculpture, contacted Dunin to point out an error in the decryption.<ref name="nyt"/> The error was caused by a missing letter ''x'' in the ciphertext, which was intentionally omitted by Sanborn "for aesthetic reasons, to keep the sculpture visually balanced."<ref name=wired06/> Sanborn later confirmed to Dunin the correct plaintext.<ref name="nyt"/> Despite this progress, the last section of ''Kryptos'' remains undeciphered.

In 2006, Dunin published a book of 600 exercises in [[classical cryptography]], ''The Mammoth Book of Secret Code Puzzles''. An abridged version (400 exercises) was simultaneously published in the UK. The book includes a few details about Kryptos.<ref name=wired06/> In July 2007 she appeared on the [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] program ''[[NOVA scienceNOW]]'', as an expert on ''Kryptos''.

==Public speaking==

Dunin gave talks on ''Kryptos'' and the ''Cyrillic Projector'' at [[NSA Cryptologic History Symposium]],<ref name=nsa/> [[Def Con]] 12,<ref name=defcon/> [[Shmoocon]] 2006,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.shmoocon.org/2006/presentations.html|title=ShmooCon |publisher=www.shmoocon.org|accessdate=2008-11-13}}</ref> and [[Notacon]] 3,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.notacon.org/archive/2006/speakers.html|title=NOTACON |publisher=www.notacon.org|accessdate=2008-11-13}}</ref> and a talk on [[steganography]] at [[PhreakNIC]] 6.<ref name="pn6"/> She also gave lectures at [[Dragon*Con]],{{Fact|date=November 2008}}, and the [[GDC|International Game Developers Conference]].<ref name="dragoncon">{{cite web |url=http://www.dragoncon.org/people/dunine.html |title=Dragon*Con Biography: Elonka Dunin |work=Dragoncon.org |year=2000 |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20010308165958/http://www.dragoncon.org/people/dunine.html |archivedate=2001-03-08}}</ref><ref name="cmpevents">{{cite web |url=https://www.cmpevents.com/GD08/a.asp?option=G&V=3&id=92209 |title=Game Developers Conference 2008 Speakers: Elonka Dunin |work=CMPEvents.com |accessdate=2008-10-31}}</ref> She has been invited to be a co-host on the [[Binary Revolution]] webcast three times.<ref name="binrev">[http://www.binrev.com/radio/archive.php Episodes #78, #99 and #156], ''Binary Revolution'', interviews by David Blake.</ref>

== Books ==
* {{cite book |title=The Mammoth Book of Secret Codes and Cryptograms |publisher=Carroll & Graf |location=New York, United States |author=Dunin, Elonka |date=April 2006 |isbn=0-7867-1726-2}}
* (abridged edition) {{cite book |title=The Mammoth Book of Secret Code Puzzles |publisher=Constable & Robinson |location=London, United Kingdom |author=Dunin, Elonka |date=April 2006 |isbn=1-84529-325-8}}

== Co-authored chapters in white papers ==

* IGDA Online Games White Paper, 2002. [http://igda.org/online/IGDA_Online_Games_Whitepaper_2002.pdf PDF]
* IGDA Online Games White Paper, 2003. [http://www.igda.org/online/IGDA_Online_Games_Whitepaper_2003.pdf PDF]
* IGDA Web & Downloadable Games White Paper, 2004. [http://igda.org/online/IGDA_WebDL_Whitepaper_2004.pdf PDF]
* IGDA Persistent Worlds White Paper, 2004. [http://igda.org/online/IGDA_PSW_Whitepaper_2004.pdf PDF]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
{{Commons}}
* [http://www.elonka.com Elonka Dunin's website]
* [http://www.unfiction.com/compendium/2003/01/02/on-pixels-and-puzzles-and-pi/ January 2003 Unfiction interview with Elonka Dunin]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dunin, Elonka}}
[[Category:1958 births]]
[[Category:Alumni of University High School (Los Angeles, California)]]
[[Category:American non-fiction writers]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Recreational cryptographers]]
[[Category:People from Santa Monica, California]]
[[Category:Puzzle designers]]
[[Category:United States Air Force personnel]]
[[Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni]]
[[Category:American video game designers]]

[[pl:Elonka Dunin]]
[[simple:Elonka Dunin]]

Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's

2008-12-05T20:03:55Z

Cedric: New page (copied from en.wikipedia.org)

{{Infobox music venue
| name = Mzoli's
| image = Outside_Mzolis.jpg
| image_size = 280px
| caption = Some tourists outside Mzoli's in April 2006
| location = [[Gugulethu]] township, [[Cape Town]], [[South Africa]]
| coordinates = {{coord|33|58|35|S|18|34|11|E|type:landmark|display=inline,title}}
| type = [[butcher|Butcher shop]] [[Restaurant]] [[Nightclub]]
| genres = [[Deep house]] [[Kwaito]] [[Cape jazz]] [[Marimba]]
| years_active = 2003 - present
| capacity = several hundred
| owner = Mzoli Ngcawuzele
| promotions =
| website =
}}
'''Mzoli's''' (also known as '''Mzoli's Place''', '''Mzoli's Meat''', or '''Mzoli's Butchery''') is a [[butcher]]y, [[restaurant]], and [[nightclub]] in [[Gugulethu]], a [[Township (South Africa)|township]] on the outskirts of [[Cape Town]], [[South Africa]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://campus.financialmail.co.za/FMCampus/Article/Article.asp?ArticleId=735 |title=They may be Legless, but they're going places.|publisher=[[Financial Mail]]|author=Adami, Kelly|date=[[2005-08-25]]|accessdate=2007-09-17}}</ref> Since Mzoli's opened in early 2003, the restaurant has become a popular gathering spot for Cape Town residents and a tourist attraction.<ref name="cf">{{cite web|title=Mzoli's - the ultimate user-generated restaurant|publisher=cherryflava|url=http://www.cherryflava.com/cherryflava/2007/05/mzolis_the_ulti.html |date=[[2007-05-02]]|accessdate=2007-09-17}}</ref> However, amongst Gugulethu's residents, Mzoli's Place has a reputation for public drunkenness and disrespect for the local community.<ref name=tourists>Zara Nicholson and Murray Williams. "Tourists and DA councillor held in Gugs drinking raid". ''[[Cape Argus]]''. [[2006-11-20]]. p. 1</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://antieviction.org.za/2008/10/13/gugulethu-residents-to-protest-against-new-mall-backed-the-famous-mzoli-and-old-mutual/ |title=Gugulethu residents to protest against new Mall backed the famous Mzoli and Old Mutual.|publisher=[[Anti-Eviction Campaign]]}}</ref> Mzoli's is named after the founder and owner, [[Mzoli Ngcawuzele]].<ref>{{citenews|title=Where would we go if it shut down? |url= http://www.news24.com/Regional_Papers/Components/Category_Article_Text_Template/0,,433-452_1626797~E,00.html |date=[[2004-11-25]]|publisher= City Vision|accessdate=2007-09-17}}</ref><ref>{{citenews|title= Mzoli's new cross to bear|date=[[2007-01-03]] |author=Zama feni, Leila Samodien and Murray Williams|url= http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=13&set_id=1&art_id=vn20070103125345985C361435|publisher= Independent Online|accessdate=2007-09-17}}</ref>

== History ==
The establishment opened in early 2003.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.come2capetown.com/newsletter/oct/tourism.htm |title=Some first sunset sundowner places in Cape Town|author=Mtyala, Quinton|publisher=come2capetown.com|accessdate=2008-01-22}}</ref> Owner [[Mzoli Ngcawuzele]] obtained start-up funding from the [[Development Bank of South Africa]], which supports black-owned businesses.<ref name="yr"/> In October 2006, an economic study said that Mzoli had "moved, from selling meat informally from a garage, to owning one of the most popular hangouts in Cape Town".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.commerce.uct.ac.za/research_units/dpru/DPRUConference2006/Papers/Deumert_Mabandla-i-Dollar%20eyi%20one.pdf |format=[[PDF]]|title=Language, Communication Networks and Economic Participation, Towards an Inclusive Economy|publisher=[[University of Cape Town]]|date=18 to 20 October 2006|author=Ana Deumert and Nkululeko Mabandla|accessdate=2008-01-22}}</ref>

In November 2006, more than 30 restaurant patrons, including a group of tourists and [[Democratic Alliance (South Africa)|Democratic Alliance]] councillor Masizole Mnqasela, were arrested in a police raid for public drinking. The restaurant did not sell liquor, but Ngcawuzele explained that he could not stop people from bringing their own alcohol.<ref name=patrons>Vusi Nzapheza. "Patrons harassed". ''[[Cape Times]]''. [[2006-11-21]]. p. 3.</ref><ref name=tourists>Zara Nicholson and Murray Williams. "Tourists and DA councillor held in Gugs drinking raid". ''[[Cape Argus]]''. [[2006-11-20]]. p. 1</ref> The incident generated controversy in the local press. Tour operator Ryan Hunt claimed that police swore at the patrons and threatened people for asking questions. "The police created a dangerous situation. People are always encouraged to visit township attractions, but now they are turned away with that kind of situation," he said.<ref>Zara Nicholson. "Swearing cops 'disgust' arrested tour operator". ''[[Cape Argus]]''. [[2006-11-22]]. p.5.</ref> Mnqasela, a member of Cape Town's economic development committee, added, "Mzoli's is internationally acclaimed and is key to township tourism. What kind of message are the police sending?"<ref name=patrons/> The [[African National Congress]] approved the police actions, citing a need to curtail public drunkenness.<ref name=tourists/>

== Business ==
Located in the [[Township (South Africa)|township]] of [[Gugulethu]], a black neighbourhood 15 kilometres southeast of the centre of Cape Town, Mzoli's is a "[[Do it yourself|do-it-yourself]]" market and eatery, selling meat to patrons who in turn hire independent [[entrepreneurs]] running [[braai]] stalls on the grounds to grill the meat and prepare meals.<ref name="cf"/> Mzoli's also provides live entertainment and has become noted as a venue for [[deep house]] and [[kwaito]] music.<ref name="yr"/><ref>Nicole Alper. "Captivating Capetown, South Africa". ''[[Essence (magazine)|Essence]]''. February 2007. p. 216.</ref>

As well as local people, Mzoli's attracts [[television]] [[celebrity|stars]], [[DJ]]s such as DJ Fresh, [[politician]]s such as [[Tony Yengeni]], [[businesspeople]], [[tourist]]s, and [[college student]]s.<ref name=Planting>Sasha Planting. "A taste of ekasi. Mzoli's Butchery". ''[[Financial Mail]]''. [[2006-09-15]]. p. 20.</ref><ref name="yr">{{cite web|publisher=Youth Radio|url=http://www.youthradio.org/international/mktplace060207_mzoli.shtml|accessdate=2007-09-17|author=Unathi Kondile|title=Mzoli’s Meat|date=}}</ref> Mzoli's is considered to be a "base camp" where "black diamonds" (a local term for an upwardly mobile class of township-based blacks who are at home in the corporate world) gather and network.<ref name="yr"/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=13&set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060918052303655C625872 |publisher=''[[Cape Times]]''|title= Black diamonds juggle urban, township worlds|date=[[2006-09-18]]|author=Dominique Herman|accessdate=2007-09-17}}</ref> In September 2006, Sasha Planting of ''[[Financial Mail]]'' called it "the destination for everyone".<ref name=Planting />

== Tourism ==
Mzoli's is a key part of [[tourism]] in the area. An example of a tourist-centred activity is the ''Mzoli's Shebeen Experience'', in which tourists are brought to the township from their hotels in [[Cape Town]]. In this context, a [[shebeen]] is a local bar that sells food. As part of the tour, Mzoli speaks about township life and how Gugulethu has revived since the 1990s. The lunch provided includes local meats and food such as [[Karoo]] lamb, [[boerewors]], [[potjiekos|potjie]], [[umngqusho]] ([[samp]] and beans), [[pap (food)|mielie pap]] and [[mielie-meal|mielies]]. Guests can drink beer and local [[South African wine|Cape wine]], and [[Cape jazz]] and [[marimba]] players supply entertainment.

== Criticism ==

While Mzoli's Place has a good reputation outside Gugulethu, some local residents claim unfairness in the owner's business practices.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-11-20-david-vs-goliath-in-gugulethu |title=David vs Goliath in Gugulethu|publisher=Mail&Guardian |date=[[2008-10-15]]}}</ref><ref>{{citenews|title=Mzoli promises protesters jobs |url= http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=124&art_id=vn20081017120053403C367931 |date=[[2008-10-17]]|publisher= Cape Argues|accessdate=2008-10-131}}</ref> Protesters have recently converged on Mzoli's Place charging that Ngcauwezele intimidates rather than consults with area residents. In response to threats that his property may get vandalised, Ngcauwezele has called some protesters "criminal thugs." <ref>{{citenews|title=Vandalism threatens new Gugs mall |url= http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=139&art_id=vn20081015114414617C693938 |date=[[2008-10-15]]|publisher= Cape Argues|accessdate=2008-10-16}}</ref> Protesters have hit back, saying that if they were criminals they would be rich like Ngcauwezele.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://antieviction.org.za/2008/10/15/gugulethu-will-not-be-ruled-by-big-business/ |title=Gugulethu will not be rulled by big-business!|publisher=[[Anti-Eviction Campaign]] |date=[[2008-10-15]]}}</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.tourismcapetown.co.za/za/guide/114493sy,en,SCH1/objectId,CTR32642za,_area,westerncape,_site,visit-travel,_subArea,355957,curr,ZAR,parentId,RGN21za,season,at2,selectedEntry,catering/intern.html Mzoli's at Cape Town & Western Cape official visitor website]
* [http://antieviction.org.za/?s=mzoli Articles about Mzoli on website of the Anti-Eviction Campaign]
* [http://kwamzoli.com/about.php Mzoli's Place Website]

[[Category:Buildings and structures in Cape Town]]
[[Category:Butchers]]
[[Category:Nightclubs]]
[[Category:Restaurants in South Africa]]
[[Category:Tourism in South Africa]]

[[es:Mzoli's]]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T19:57:22Z

Cedric: /* Non-Notable */

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzoli%27s Mzoli's]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080227011601/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinfo Wikinfo]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka Dunin]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T19:46:05Z

Cedric: /* Non-Notable */ "Wikinfo" from the Wayback Machine

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzoli%27s Mzoli's]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080227011601/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinfo Wikinfo]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T19:42:17Z

Cedric: /* Geography */

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzoli%27s Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Wikinfo]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T19:37:25Z

Cedric: /* Non-Notable */ fixed "Mzoli's" link

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Worst of Wikipedia/Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Worst of Wikipedia/Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzoli%27s Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Wikinfo]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka]]
 

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T18:44:44Z

Cedric: /* Geography */"Southern Michigan" from the Wayback Machine

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Worst of Wikipedia/Music of Eastern Europe]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060923140907/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Michigan Worst of Wikipedia/Southern Michigan]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Wikinfo]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka]]

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T18:29:22Z

Cedric: /* Geography */ link to the Wayback Machine

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080119182435/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Eastern_Europe Worst of Wikipedia/Music of Eastern Europe]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Southern Michigan]]

 

===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Wikinfo]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka]]

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T17:54:15Z

Cedric: /* Banal and unencyclopedic */ more wikidiocy

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Music of Eastern Europe]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Southern Michigan]]

 
===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Wikinfo]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka]]

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberstone_Road_railway_station Humberstone Road railway station]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_1128 List of state leaders in 1128]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Pleydell-Bouverie,_4th_Earl_of_Radnor Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 4th Earl of Radnor]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Princess_Minky_Momo Magical Princess Minky Momo]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong Beer pong (''a former "good article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle The Bus Uncle (''a "featured article"'')]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (''a "featured article"'')]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T16:18:37Z

Cedric: /* Banal and unencyclopedic */ added Roadster silliness

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Music of Eastern Europe]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Southern Michigan]]

 
===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Wikinfo]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka]]

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_route_numbers_in_Oregon List of highway route numbers in Oregon]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T16:03:03Z

Cedric: /* Revolting */ more

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Music of Eastern Europe]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Southern Michigan]]

 
===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Wikinfo]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka]]

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_knuckle_cake Fisting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone Rusty trombone]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]

Worst of Wikipedia

2008-12-05T15:26:15Z

Cedric: /* Revolting */ Yes, they have this one, too. Ugh!

'''Worst of Wikipedia'''

__TOC__
==Wikipedia Main Space==
 
===Geography===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/History of western Eurasia]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Music of Eastern Europe]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Southern Michigan]]

 
===Libel===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Libel]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Fuzzy Zoeller]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/John Siegenthaler, Sr.]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Taner Akcam]]

 
===Non-Notable===
<ASK Mainlabel="Article" Header="show" Link="all">
[[Worst of Wikipedia Name:=*|Worst of Wikipedia Name]]
[[Category:Non-Notable]]
[[Category:*|Category]]
[[Page Of::*|Section]]
[[Page Of::<q>[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</q>]]
</ASK>
 
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Mzoli's]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Wikinfo]]
*[[Worst of Wikipedia/Elonka]]

=== Other truly awful ===

*[[Worst of Wikipedia/STIR]]

== Revolting ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) Pearl necklace]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot Cum_shot]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) Cream pie]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio Fellatio]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus Cunnilingus]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation Female ejaculation]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing Labia piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic) Child modeling (erotic)]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing Frenum piercing]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_clamp Nipple clamp]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography Incest pornography]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox Smotherbox]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_stretcher Ball stretcher]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_hook Bondage hook]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act) Dirty Sanchez]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia Coprophilia]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting Fart lighting]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces Human faeces]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass_to_mouth Ass to mouth]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_Punch Donkey Punch]

== Banal and unencyclopedic ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_Factor_Contestants List of X Factor Contestants]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_missions_of_Suriname Diplomatic missions of Suriname]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122nd_meridian_west 122nd meridian west]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies Teletubbies]

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2008-11-29T19:53:42Z

Cedric: Hi, Greg!

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''

==Leave a message table==
I think Gregory it's the "div class". Just remove the div class capsule, the front and rear tags. That seemed to fix it for me. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 22:39, 6 July 2008 (PDT)

== Just wondering ==

Out of curiosity - why is the article I made, [[Music For Tourists]], here? Not that I'm against it being copied over, just wondering why that particular article is here out of all the articles I've written (and all the articles on Wikipedia). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 13:57, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
:I don't know why that one, from among many others. Probably just caught a user's eye as being a good one for drawing traffic. Since it's a legal entity or trademarked product, I should probably move it to Directory space. Your authorship attribution is actually captured in the Edit history. Let me know if I can help some other way. According to MyWikiBiz "rules" the content is up for grabs until Chris Garneau or one of his authorized agents elects to take "ownership" of the page. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 09:05, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

== ha, thanks ==

Thanks for the welcome. :) [[User:Remi|Remi]] 14:07, 22 August 2008 (PDT)

== Thanks ==
...for the welcome. Yes, and block and unblock would be appreciated..particularly if we can have several years of impassioned arguments in between. -[[User:Pete Forsyth|Pete]]

== Revenue ==

sharing! :) [[User:Emeseee|Emeseee]] 14:26, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

== Blogapro ==

Hi Greg,

Hopefully, you remember me? I wrote a post about mywikibiz on my blog:
http://www.blogapro.com/2008/09/09/mywikibiz-author-your-own-legacy/

I was just wanting to thank you for your tips by the way.

I'm most impressed with the wiki, so much so, that I've taken the time this weekend to completely redo my own wiki page as can be seen in the following link.
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Gavin_Smith

Regards,

Gavin

:Gavin, I'm glad that you're impressed. I hope you'll tell others, because the only way we're going to really take off is if we build a viral wave of some sort. Sites like Wikia and AboutUs are going to leave MyWikiBiz in the dust, ''unless'' folks start to realize the two advantages here -- semantic web notation that helps search engine results, and self-paying advertising in protected space. Otherwise, we're just "another wiki". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:30, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

== Gmail ==

Hey Greg - Just wondering if gmail has been down for you today. --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 11:14, 30 September 2008 (PDT)
:No observable problems on my end. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:23, 30 September 2008 (PDT)

== Hi ==

You are Thekohser +/- any affiliates of his, right? Anyway, good job. I was only wanting to comment on your idea for a new improved Wikipedia Review. I don't know if you will pay attention to what I said at all. I do think that WR wasn't ideal, but I do not think that multiplaying (sock puppeting, whatever you want to call it) was an issue. Rather, I think that they allowed too many people in, people whose sole aim was to destroy the site - Wikipedia administrators and other people that think that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with Wikipedia. IMO such people should never have been allowed in. The Poetlister incident proved that we should listen to ED more as they are at times a good resource, and that we were for the most part right the whole way along, that Poetlister was a good, helpful user who was roleplaying online, like most everyone does. We don't need a solution by people using real names, as that can create more problems than it solves. I think that that would be dangerous. Rather, you need to keep with WR's ideas to allow people the choice. Choice is important. There is no need, however, to allow people in who are only aiming to destroy the site. Let them do that on Wikipedia sites or the like. Most importantly, however, get rid of the power struggle element. I don't care if Igor Alexander was satan himself - he founded the site and he should be able to keep going to his own site. Founding members shouldn't be able to be banned, period. It is just wrong on so many levels to do that, to steal a site, and those bans against good people are a big part of what went wrong with the site.

With that being said, WR was and still is a resounding success. It has created a big warning label, it has achieved overall in spite of the problems. It has made a difference to how people view Wikipedia, which was the aim.

I am concerned that a new site may either move too far away from WR's original aims and hence make a bad site, or that they may fail to deal with WR's problems.

As for MyWikiBiz, you know, per my user page, that I originally objected to it, and even encouraged for them to be banned from Wikipedia, before Jimbo banned them. My reason, of course, was because I was concerned about truth changing. I think that truth changing is a big deal and is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. Paying someone to edit articles, in my opinion, represented truth changing.

With that being said, the whole reason that Wikipedia is able to encourage truth changing is with regards to 2 rules: WP:NPOV and WP:OWN: both theoretically impossible to enforce and in practice cause a lot of problems. They are also wrong! Bias is a good thing, and furthermore articles should be controlled by experts on the topic. As I now understand it, this is what MyWikiBiz is all about: allowing people to write articles about themselves, or their companies. This is a good thing. If Wikipedia did this, then truth changing wouldn't be an issue. If people write things about themselves, of course they are biased and they may even be false in some ways, but at least then you can account for the biases, and get to the truth of the issue. That is the issue with Wikipedia - we don't know who has inserted the lies.

You can tell with the Port Arthur massacre article on Wikipedia that what is written is blatantly false, but you don't know who is responsible. It took me ages to work it out, and ultimately it was controlled by Robert Merkel since 2002, with help from various others including Tannin, and then ultimately taken over by Thebainer, who added disinformation. But you wouldn't know that from looking at the history. It takes hours to piece it all together as to how it happened. Even once put together, the article that explains the truth changing in that one individual article is enormous. Yet that is one of the most obvious and devastating examples of truth changing that is out there, and on an issue that I am personally an expert on. What hope do others have in finding out about truth changing on other topics?

Look, WR needs redoing. If a new site was created that then became more popular, then that would be a good thing. I hope that you invite me along, but that is your choice. I won't insist on it. I tried to make a new one, but of course I have no way to talk to people to get it going, so I can't. I just hope that it adds to the good things of WR, not detracts from them. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:54, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

:Thanks for your input, Blissyu2. What was the alternate site that you tried to launch? -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 05:38, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

::I wanted www.wikipediacritics.com, but after I told Somey that I wanted the freedom to launch that and to advertise it on WR as our compromise, Somey turned around and registered that domain name and made it redirect to Wikipedia Review, just to be nasty. I set up a ProBoards site, but it is not the same, since I can't advertise it. I really want to have Wikipedia Review run like it was in the beginning, before all of the power trips. I don't think that it needs any change, it just needs to go back to what it was like to start with. Well, perhaps a few changes. For one thing, I wouldn't allow any anti-critics people in at all. Obviously some of the current staff at WR would not be made staff if it was run properly, but some of them would stay staff too, depending on how they got to be staff really. But when something is stolen, it is really gone, and there isn't much I can do but to try to advertise the truth of it. Much like how WR couldn't change Wikipedia, all it could do was to warn people about its dangers. It is all a bit depressing really, since that's the 2nd site I ran which got stolen from me at the peak of its popularity, and then run into the ground. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 06:44, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::Just for the record, Selina grabbed wikipediacritics.com and redirected it, not me. She also grabbed several other domains, as Daniel Brandt has revealed [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20862&view=findpost&p=138755 here], and whether or not she did it "just to be nasty" is anyone's guess. (It's anyone's guess as to how long that link will work, btw.) The only domains I'm currently squatting on are critizendium.org and knolreview.com, neither of which redirect to anything. I'll probably let them both expire after their year is out, in case anyone wants them. [[User:Sueme|Somey]] 01:05, 30 October 2008 (PDT)

== More stuff ==

I added [[Wikipedia Vandalism Study|this]], which is of your hand but not on MWB, I think. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 09:13, 13 October 2008 (PDT)

:Added to this: [[Worst of Wikipedia]] tho' not sure if that was what was intended. Otherwise [[Unencyclopedic articles (Wikipedia)]] could be another place. This is all part of a longer project to support a media campaign. I have a couple of invitations to write something, but it all needs to be carefully document, I hope this is an acceptable place. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 09:51, 14 October 2008 (PDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for the welcome, Greg. In case it isn't obvious, I am Mndrew of the Wikipedia Review. [[User:AndrewM|AndrewM]] 23:23, 23 October 2008 (PDT)

==your message==
Thanks for your message, Greg. I've responded on my user talk page.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 19:05, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

==So fast!==
Did y'all get a server upgrade? I can actually click around at near wikipedia speeds! I think I might be back. My lack of patience and school/work/social was keeping me away but If you have any bring projects to under take my winter break starts in a few weeks. Maybe finish Karl's vision of a php content creation bot or at least get google to like us again. For some reason centiare had way better SEO than MWB.

[[User:Garrett|Garrett]] 10:19, 23 November 2008 (PST)

:Garrett, my sister also seemed to notice improvements recently on the server. Our host may have been working on it, because the site went down for a couple of hours, but returned in improved condition. I'm finding that Google loves us for some things -- and I think a big part of what you may be saying about "Centiare having better SEO" is actually that when you were working on Centiare, your content was fresh and updated recently. Now, after 2 years, it hasn't changed one bit, and so Google demotes it. Try making a few changes over the course of 2 weeks on a few of your pages, and see if it affects (positively) the Google juice. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 18:07, 23 November 2008 (PST)

::The google juice seem back and better than ever even without changes. I looked at the rankings for one of my old clients. [http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=foundation+strategies+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=2 check it out]. [[User:Garrett|Garrett]] 16:05, 24 November 2008 (PST)

:::I'm seeing it, too, Garrett. And I've been letting people know. Search [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=MyWikiBiz this page] for the word "congratulations", then check out the edit diffs on those. Pretty awesome. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:04, 24 November 2008 (PST)

==Hi, Greg!==
Thanks for the welcome. I was puttering around with a few minor changes to the re-posting of my ''Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia'' essay, originally posted at Wikipedia Review. We miss you there! It's taking awhile to get used to using wiki markup again, but I think am getting there.
--Eddie

[[User:Cedric|Cedric]] 11:53, 29 November 2008 (PST)

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2008-11-29T19:29:59Z

Cedric: Added links

<big>'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</big><ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of [[Wikipedia]]. A number of Wikipedia users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on Wikipedia have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, Wikipedia’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at [[Wikipedia Review]], and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-AdminTM. It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the affect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621 “Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their nature arise from, and are sustained by, conflict; and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of Wikipedia Review. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2008-11-29T19:10:45Z

Cedric: /* BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE */ grammar, style & technical changes

'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of Wikipedia. A number of Wikipedia users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on Wikipedia have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, Wikipedia’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at Wikipedia Review, and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-AdminTM. It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the affect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621 “Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their nature arise from, and are sustained by, conflict; and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of Wikipedia Review. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2008-11-29T18:44:53Z

Cedric: /* HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR */ corrected superscript

'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of Wikipedia. A number of Wikipedia users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on Wikipedia have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, Wikipedia’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at Wikipedia Review, and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-AdminTM. It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the affect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621“Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their natural arise from conflict, and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of WR. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2008-11-29T18:28:22Z

Cedric:

'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of Wikipedia. A number of Wikipedia users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on Wikipedia have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, Wikipedia’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at Wikipedia Review, and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the affect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621“Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their natural arise from conflict, and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of WR. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2008-11-29T18:25:18Z

Cedric:

'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of Wikipedia. A number of Wikipedia users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on Wikipedia have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, WP’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at Wikipedia Review, and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the affect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621“Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their natural arise from conflict, and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of WR. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2008-11-29T18:02:59Z

Cedric:

'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of Wikipedia. A number of WP users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on WP have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, WP’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at Wikipedia Review, and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the affect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621“Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their natural arise from conflict, and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of WR. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

User:Cedric

2008-11-29T17:59:38Z

Cedric:

<center>http://www.mycathatesyou.com/images/cats/2005/10/cedric.jpg</center>

<big><center>''' "I saw what you did" '''</center></big>

User:Cedric

2008-11-29T17:49:30Z

Cedric: New page: <center>http://www.mycathatesyou.com/images/cats/2005/10/cedric.jpg</center> <center>''' "I saw what you did" '''</center>

<center>http://www.mycathatesyou.com/images/cats/2005/10/cedric.jpg</center>
<center>''' "I saw what you did" '''</center>

The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia

2008-11-29T17:33:21Z

Cedric: Added shortened intro from original WR thread

'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED: THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of Wikipedia. A number of WP users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on WP have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, WP’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at Wikipedia Review, and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

<center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center>

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists). It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of Wikipedia is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs Wikipedia (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit Wikipedia (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
<Blockquote>
<Center>
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg

<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==

According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote>
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:

<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote>
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of Wikipedia requires Wikipedia editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' Wikipedia articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
<Blockquote><Center>
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg

<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==

Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.

Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on Wikipedia, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a Wikipedia user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.

By the time Wikipedia came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, Wikipedia can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.

Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on Wikipedia many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous Wikipedia users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on Wikipedia. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that Wikipedia has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.

I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png

<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==

Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of Wikipedia, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.

Wikipedia does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, Wikipedia focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 Wikipedia’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:

<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote>
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of Wikipedia. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience. What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg

<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin™ T-shirt'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== EXPLOITATION OF THE ADDICTED AND MENTALLY ILL ==

Of all of the unseemly aspects that there are of Wikipedia, the most unattractive and morally repugnant of them all is the way that those with addictive personalities and/or mental illness are used to generate content and to police the website. One can readily see the addictive qualities of editing Wikipedia by clicking on the “contributions” link for any number of Wikipedia admins and other “power users”. The 24+ hour editing sprees and other signs of obsessive and compulsive editing are well known to the regulars here at Wikipedia Review. So too are many of their usernames, although there is no need in naming any here.

The culture on Wikipedia is such that obsessive and overblown devotion to the website is cause for signal praise, rather than cause for alarm. That is, as long as the user is deemed “constructive” and is also subservient to (or at least acquiescent to) the will of the applicable cabal that controls the matter or “articlespace” where they edit. Users award one another virtual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars “barnstars”], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ribbons “ribbons”], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards “medals”], along with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards other “awards”] for their “service to the wiki”. It appears that Wikipedia has developed even more awards than the old Soviet Union to honor its most politically correct devotees.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become. Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned. Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all. Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure. To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior; an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user. It also has the affect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about. And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized. In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”. If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned. Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users. The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5683/hogarthrakeinbedlamio8.jpg

<Big>'''“Good Lord, dear! Bethlehem Hospital? I thought this was WMF Headquarters!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== BAD GOVERNANCE– THE REIGN OF THE LORDS OF MISRULE ==

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others. The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here. Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model. While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either. Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing. In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621“Wikipedia Governance”]. The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”. A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing. There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.” Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended. Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along. Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site. It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc. There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether. A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers. In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy. While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

Still, Wikipedia is not a perfect anarchy; it does indeed have some of the elements of an absolute dictatorship, but not a terribly ''efficient'' one. As noted above, core policies of Wikipedia, like “NPOV” and determining “consensus”, are vaguely worded or contain essentially illogical or unworkable formulas. This, in addition to the anarchy that otherwise prevails on Wikipedia, serves as a powerful incentive for admins to act in arbitrary fashion to suppress perceived “enemies of the wiki”, which not a few succumb to.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany. A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient. Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not. The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common. This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design. With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes. All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended. Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top. While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany. Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself. In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit. As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia. Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above. I would suggest that that is no accident. Feudal systems by their natural arise from conflict, and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”. But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo). This has been documented time and again on the pages of WR. The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured. Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5858/feastfoolspt1.gif

<Big>'''“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those having business before the Arbitration Committee draw near and demonstrate your fealty!”'''</Big>
</Center></Blockquote>

== THE END GAME ==

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out? This is difficult to say with any certainty. The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website. As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood. It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise desirable for various reasons. The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings. These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill. But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start. It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient. They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall. In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''. They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever. I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia. It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself. One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Despite all the strong criticism made here, there is no doubt that a free, online and reliable general use encyclopedia is a worthy goal, and we should look forward to the day there will be one. But that encyclopedia will never be Wikipedia, sadly. The conditions needed for the reform of Wikipedia do not exist, nor does it appear they ever will. The media and public will not remain forever blind to the deep flaws of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply too big and its dysfunction too deep to hide or obscure forever. Perhaps one day a group of former wikipedians, left sadder but far wiser by the decline and fall of Wikipedia, will band together and get to work on a true encyclopedia that is deserving of our efforts. This writer, for one, would like that. It is comforting to think that something good and worthy can eventually arise from the pit of agony and dysfunction that is Wikipedia.

<Blockquote><Center>
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7328/ragnarokvp6.jpg
</Center></Blockquote>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}