- (Hello to everyone who came here from the message thread at Wikipedia Review!)
I used to love Wikipedia: this online encyclopedia is a shining example of the power of the commons. Personally, I think Wikipedia is drowning in its own politics, but that hasn't affected its ultimate usefulness as a source of starting information on any subject available.
Contributions and group participation by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have made the academics sit up and take notice. Many professionals are greeting Wikipedia with open arms. Some of them (especially the ones whose sources of income are threatened, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica) are saying nothing but bad things about it, in an attempt to scare us away and back to their tried, true, and trusted sources of information.
And the kooks have discovered Wikipedia, too. Many of the more contentious and controversial articles there have been focus of vicious flame wars, as folks from the fringe attempt to use them to promote their own points of view. However, a number of kooks are finding that Wikipedia's famous "neutral point of view" is turning into a stumbling block: extreme and outrageous points of view are frowned upon there. Some of the kooks have given up and abandoned Wikipedia, while some have adapted to it – and even become useful contributors.
But, a few of the more notorious kooks simply will not get it into their thick skulls that Wikipedia is a group participation project that often includes compromises. These kooks have become outraged at the fact that Wikipedia will not let them select a few choice articles and turn them into advertisements for their own kookery. Some of these folks have ended up being banned for good, while others have declared Wikipedia to be a nest of vipers, Nazis, and control freaks who are out to censor their well-meaning efforts. These kooks, of course, are the ones who provide us with the most entertainment!
- A nice, safe, "conservative" alternative to Wikipedia's bias.
Corporate Sex Offenders
- Perverted Justice's response to their unfair and biased treatment at Wikipedia – they started their own anti-pedophile (and anti-Wikipedia) wiki.
- (and the old Wikipedia Review message board)
- Ostensibly established to review Wikipedia, this has devolved into a morass of accusations, misinformation, paranoia and illogical commentary.
- "[Wikipedia is] an effort to reinvent the wheel, actually overlay the wheel with pointless drivel, since without Wikipedia the internet is already an encyclopedic source of information or a least can point one to relevant sources of information such as books"
- "Some days I get up in the morning and nominate fifty random pages for deletion. Doesn't matter what pages. Some of them are articles that are obviously notable. But the Wikipedian drones go through the motions, with their little system of holding court on the page for a week as everyone chimes in their opinion, wasting their own time and Wikipedia's bandwidth. Then, other days, I try an opposite approach. Some mornings I put up fifty new pages, on various subjects ranging from the merely obscure to the distinctly ridiculous. (Some of them are cut and pasted verbatim from the Uncyclopedia and no one's even noticed.) But I put up just enough data to sometimes make the Wikipedes do their little AfD dance and debate the relative merits of the article. Again, wasting their own time and Wikipedia's bandwidth."
- "If the response continues to be good, I might just do that. Wikipedia-bashing is fun, but I'm not sure I'm committed to it deeply enough to do it at a personal financial loss." - from Igor, the site administrator
- By early 2006, flame wars on the original Wikipedia Review message board had grown so intense that a number of folks broke away and founded the "new" Wikipedia Review forum. Initial viewing seems to suggest that the new board is thriving and attracting new members, while the original board is beginning to stagnate and fade.
- In a further attempt at getting attention, Wikipedia's critics have created yet another "news" site and blog dedicated to attacking Wikipedia. This one includes a long essay on the history of Wikipedia's nastiest edit wars over the years. (They even mention me as one of those troublemakers dedicated to inserting my own hate into Wikipedia: )
- A full-fledged wiki dedicated to nothing but attacking Wikipedia! (This one has its own article here.)
Wikipedia: Techno-Cult of Ignorance
- The folks behind this site are the publishers of weird "science" books describing the (self-proclaimed) science of Aetherometry. Like many folks today, they hoped to use Wikipedia to promote their books; however, the dedicated uses of Wikipedia wouldn't let them re-write the "Aetherometry" article according to their own standards. So, they declared Wikipedia to be the center of a fascistic crusade against "non-mainstream" science, and they wrote an entire book attacking the ones who they deemed the worst offenders.
- This one is from the founder of the Google Watch site, Daniel Brandt. When Brandt's "fans" started an article about him on Wikipedia, he got all ticked off and began the Wikipedia Watch site as a sister site to Google Watch. He even keeps his own enemies list of Wikipedia administrators who are all engaged in their insiduious persecution. (I'm included on the list, way down near the bottom.) Because of Wikipedia’s considerable popularity, Brandt has found that he can get a lot of attention by bashing Wikipedia. Consequently, Brandt has found more fame as a “critic” of Wikipedia than he ever did as a Google-basher.
- This useful page is keeping track of every flame war and anti-Wikipedia rant to come down the pike over the past few years.