Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Wikipedia Sucks

Wikipedia Sucks: Here are 10 Reasons Why | SMO BloggerImage result for Wikipedia sucks

Wikipedia Sucks: Here are 10 Reasons Why

There are many reasons why Wikipedia represents a flawed model for publishing accurate information. These 10 reasons critique Wikipedia and will hopefully provide some impetus for improvement.
  1. The theory that everyone’s contributions to a topic are equally valuable sounds good, but is clearly nonsense.
  2. Wikipedia has no way of recognizing expert knowledge over inexpert knowledge. The members with most authority are the ones who have spent the most time working on Wikipedia – their “knowledge” is often just a combination of Google results and prejudice.
  3. Wikipedia gives people’s opinions undeserved authority by virtue of its search engine rankings and authoritative presentation and identity.
  4. Too many people (especially students) who use Wikipedia believe the articles will be reliable – and Wikipedia’s stance as an encyclopedia encourages this misguided belief.
  5. At the core of Wikipedia is the idea that bad articles will eventually be edited by the community until they become good (i.e. factual and well-written). In fact, they are likely to be edited until all but one member loses interest or gives up trying.
  6. “If you don’t like an entry, you can fix it yourself”(1). But I came here for information, not to provide it.
  7. “Wikipedia pages have become increasingly complex and Wikipedia doesn’t support a WYSIWYG editor.”(3) This and other technical aspects of Wikipedia effectively prevent many people with valuable knowledge from participating.
  8. The lack of any required standard of writing, error-checking and fact-checking means that many Wikipedia entries are poorly-written and contain factual inconsistencies.(1)(2)(4)
  9. Wikipedia articles only ever skim the surface. Which is fine – but they don’t ever indicate what might be below the surface either, leading people to believe that everything is as simple and uncontroversial as Wikipedia says it is. (2)
  10. Wikipedia entries are meant to be “notable” – but only Wikipedia’s (self-appointed) editors have to think so. Is Stroyent really important?
Publish this article on your blog with a followed link to http://www.smoblogger.com/.

The Abuse and Harassment of New Editors

In order to maintain control and power over their own pathetic echo chambers the trollish editors and administrators will accuse you of wrong doing where there was none and if you complain of file a dispute the will claim that you insulted them when they were the ones who insulted you.

Wikipedia has lost 1/2 of its administrators and editor because they god sick of the demagoguery, censorship and the agenda trolling of the editors and administrators who are still there.

Wikipedia is lawless. It is pure anarchy and the anarchist there are particularly virulent rule breakers.

Anyone can be an editor there but if say something one of the agenda trolls dislikes they will remove your edit, accuse you of something called disruptive editing with no explanation given, inappropriate discussion again with no explanation. Basically, they fuck with you and lie to you and about you. The will even accuse you of "vandalizing" a page simply because your facts conflict with their narrative and agenda.

If your go to YOUR talk page and discuss the subject of the article for review by another less biased editor they will lie and say that you are using the talk page as a "forum". The talk page is a forum.

They will make up rules. One of their favorites is "Cross-Wiki Abuse" There is no such thing as cross-Wiki abuse. It's gibberish made up by abusive rule breaking power hungry loser administrators must of whom now are nasty millennials. 


Wikipdia Administrators Suck. Software Engineer Geoffrey Liu Explains Why <-------CLICK

Anonymity assures that there is accountability. Established gangs of administrators collude under their cloak of anonymity so that can defame you, falsely accuse you, and harass you with impunity.

Image result for vandalize wikipedia

According to Wikipedia everyone is an editor and this repeating. What this means is anyone can change and article. This invites what the call vandalism only the real vandalism of inserting links that look legit but go to porn sites, somebody just pasting in "Fuck you" 1000 times of starting their own articles bashing the power hungry loser administrators at Wikipedia and even if they ban your IP a vandal could go to an internet cafe or use a proxy server of VPN to continues to vandalize in order to get a little do it yourself justice on a corrupt administrator.

DISCLAIMER: I am not advising anyone to vandalize Wikipedia pages. In spite of the fact that the appeals process is tantamount to a kangaroo court and the administrators are corrupt assholes who are held to no standard of accountability I would advise you that you don't vandalize pages on Wikipedia. That said, I am not trying to inflict my morals or judgment onto you so do what you think is right.  

Vandalizing is another BS open ended term that Wikepedia uses to justify their fucking with new editor. It's kinda like being falsely arrested for disorderly conduct. It's mostly made up bullshit. The links below may be helpful in your understanding of the "wicked Wiki game.

How do you mass vandalize wikipedia? | Yahoo Answers

Back up. What is wiki vandalism in the first place?

Wikipedia defines it as any "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," which can come in variety of flavors, such as...
Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense.
Page creation: Creating new pages with the intent of malicious behavior, like blatant advertising pages, personal attack pages and hoaxes.
Page lengthening: Adding large amounts of bad-faith content in order to make the page's load time abnormally long or even make it impossible to load without browser crashing.
Spam: Adding external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites or sites that have some relationship to the subject matter, but advertise or promote in the user's interest.
Silly vandalism: Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters or other nonsense to entries or creating nonsensical and non-encyclopedic pages.
Image vandalism: Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or using images in other disruptive ways.