WikipediaFrom WhatPort80 
Unlike most MMORPG, TOW (That Other Wiki) has an end-goal, which is to make the wiki into something like the 21st century's answer to the Library of Alexandria. Good luck with that. Why Wikipedia is Generally a Huge Pile of CrapCurrently Wikipedia contains 3,187,022 articles, 2,451,617 of which are plagiarized from other sources. After edits from various admins, editors, trolls and vandals, only 11,661 of these remain more than 50% factually accurate. This leaves Wikipedia on an academic par with "Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections: The Ultimate Guide to Star Wars Vehicles and Spacecraft" and "My First Book of Animals from A to Z". All reputable universities and even high schools have permabanned the use of encyclopedias such as Wikipedia and Britannica in academic citations. Wikipedia has a concept called WikiLove and has a policy of "assume good faith" amongst its contributors. This is a vital policy as, in fact, there is no good faith amongst any of the members of Wikipedia, so it is necessary to at least pretend that the other guy isn't out there to be an jerk. Wikipedia has about eighty updates per second, it's easy for a small but fatally incorrect change to slip through unnoticed. Also, Wikipedia is quite prone to hivemind, since everybody wants to be an admin, and disagreeing with Wikipedia admins is an easy way to not become one. Vast amounts of Pornography is viewable on Wikipedia, attracting many Pedophiles, making Wikipedia very unsafe for your Children. In addition, Wikipedia is famous for having far too many dang links in text. You can't read a single dang sentence without coming across at least 100 links just like this, and it's annoying as hell. As Maddox said, if I wanted to read a completely different article, I would go to that article's page. However, lusers who love having over 9000 browser windows open at once praise this feature; particularly ones who have nothing better to do than sit and follow link after link after link on Wikipedia. ReliabilityIn 2007, a variety of scandals began to surface from within Wikipedia. For the first time, mainstream news organizations began to openly discuss the common public perception of Wikipedia as "unreliable." In a sophisticated experiment, it was demonstrated that the terms "Wikipedia" and "unreliable," when entered into the Google, generated more than 502,000 "hits"; that is, 502,000 web pages on which Wikipedia is described as unreliable. In contrast, a similar search using "Encyclopedia Dramatica" and "unreliable" generated barely more than 300 hits, with most of these being self-deprecating jokes of humility on the part of Encyclopedia Dramatica editors. Thus, it was scientifically proven that Wikipedia is much, much more unreliable than Encyclopedia Dramatica, or even Uncyclopedia. HivemindWikipedians, especially sysops and recent patrollers, share a hivemind. They all think alike, act alike, and no matter how abusive a member of the hivemind is, they always support it. Those of the hivemind look like they are sock puppets, but they actually communicate telepathically. In 2005, like a colony of bees, the hivemind recognized that those outside the collective had their own individuality. Now they are a complete collective consciousness like the Borg and no longer believe identity exists outside the collective. To them, everyone is fake, an illusion; an actor who has no thoughts, emotions, viewpoints, etc. and must be eliminated. Because everyone outside their collective is a phony, anything they say is only an act, and by definition they are trolls. Any expression of individuality is banned as trolling or, to use a common wikipodadminism, "disruption." See Don't feed the trolls and Don't Feed the Divas, especially the last sentence, which crushes to oblivion the little self-esteem you may have: The hivemind extends outside Wikipedia as well, on those rare occasions that an admin strays onto another forum. A good way to start a flamewar with them is to hint, suggest, joke, outright state or otherwise insinuate that Wikipedia is anything less than the greatest academic achievement in the history of mankind. Thus, because of the Hivemind, Wikipedia has immunized itself against any criticism. Of course, the corollary to this immunity, according to themselves, is because so many people are part of it, it can't be controlled. And, that because of so many participants, real criticism will come from inside. Yeah, that'll happen. Criticize the Hivemind at your own peril, because the Hivemind controls the power to delete your edits, to ban you, and to railroad you from social advancement (as SlimVirgin did to Gracenotes). When ED criticized Wikipedia, ED was site-banned in their blacklist (which was later reverted by Shii). When Wikipedia Review criticizes Wikipedia, the Cabal removes all links under some kind of definition of "no personal attacks". Now real newspapers like the Register are criticizing and the chant goes out "Ban them, ban them, ban them..." [1]. Watch out New York Times, you're next. [2] Policies and GuidelinesOn Wikipedia, if A=B and B=C, then A does NOT equal C unless the New York Times says so.
Gallery
See Also
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
