Wikipedia, aspie heaven or hell?

Post Reply New Topic

I wouldn't say the rules regarding notability and verifiability are too harsh as such. They are fine. It's more that, like everything else on Wikipedia, they are applied so unevenly and open to so much abuse.

SandyGeorgia, who commandeered and distorted the Autism articles, just to show she could, has also managed to take over and dominate the "Manual of Style" and the "Featured Article" process. In any article she and her cronies turn their attention to verifiability, notability and "encyclopedic style" are decided solely on their personal whims, with material of equal, or greater weight being discarded often simply because the editor submitting it does not also "submit" to their control game.

To me, this is quality of content being dictated by, and sacrificed to, an increasingly dysfunctional group dynamic.

I very much doubt if SandyGeorgia and her cronies are the ONLY faction playing these games at the expense of content. IF a way could be found to stop these "power games" coming into play, and being pandered to at the expense of reality, all the way up to arbcom level, Wikipedia would be a remarkable project indeed.

But as it stands, though originally intended to operate impartially, impersonally and transparently, more and more of Wikipedia is being defined and decided in accord with a "pack order", unworthy of stray dogs, that works itself out by private email and IRC among a select few. Ironically, a lot of the *formal* opposition to Wikipedia consists largely in failed aspects of exactly the same dynamic.

I suppose it's just another example of something that should have been remarkable (and was, at first, for a while) ruined by the frailties of human nature ramping up to overdrive.

M

Oh yeah there has been a few times Ive been on wikipedia to look something up. See a link and decide to check it out. Before I know it its been hours. Who'd have though the topic of wage slavery could be so interesting...

>.>


Also ya Id use it more as a starting point for information gathering. If you really want to look something up make sure you get a couple of sources of information.

I like Uncyclopedia it cheers me up and I like Wikipedia

Ummm, didn't I say that anyway? Just differently?

I got the feeling you were saying the rules themselves were too harsh, whereas I feel the rules are fine, if only they were applied as they stand and evenly and not abused so much to further a variety of "unencyclopedic" agenda, such as, who individual editors want to promote, and who individual editors want to spite.

M

I find that it's a little piece of Heaven on Earth.

Wikipedia is what the world would like if the world were governed by aspies with a lot of free time. (citation needed)

Hell not because its addicting but because their is no source information on wiki from what I saw so you never know where the info comes from or if its even accurate. I would never use this for serious research.

Yep! I love to read and re-read the articles about my obsessions!

Oh, yes, that brightened my lousy day a little!

I live there. hehe. Some of it is good info.

I was referring to the way they were applied in a certain area. Sorry for the confusion.

If so, heaven forbid!

Actually the main problem may be that they let in WAY TOO MANY NT....and loads of them got admin status.

M

I think of wikipedia is nothing more than junk science because the majority of the information there isn't verified so you never know if you are getting the truth or just somethign that someone thought it would be fun to put up as a lark. Especially on the more obscure topics that aren't often visited by those knowledgeable in the subject area

I prefer Encyclopedia Dramatica.

I didn't read that!