Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Great Lies of Wikipedia - Parker Peters
Great Lies of Wikipedia
One of the more humorous aspects of dealing with Wikipedia is how contradictory the actions of administrators are to the message they try to convey.

So for this update, I thought I'd like to expose some of the "Great Lies" of wikipedia.

Lie #1: "It's the message, not the messenger."
This is often quoted by administrators claiming they are "fair" on a given topic.

Unfortunately, the opposite is shown by the evidence at hand. If the message was to be dealt with fairly, administrators would not be in such a rush to hunt down "suspected sockpuppets" constantly, vandalizing user pages and terrorizing new users while claiming they are "sockpuppets" of some long-lost grudge.

Slimvirgin, David Gerard, and various of their toady suck-ups have recently been on an attack vector again, declaring a large swath of new users to be "sockpuppets" of the old Enviroknot account.

Exceedingly funny is that if one examines the Contributions of this account, it never broke the rules. How they got rid of this user for disagreeing with them? They conflated the account with an arbitration it had nothing to do with, lied about CheckUser evidence (this wasn't the first time David Gerard did that, nor has the recent spate of poorly justified "Checkuser" results helped the situation any), and generally abused users constantly.

Up until right before he was banned, Enviroknot was still making useful contributions to the encyclopedia.

The joke is: it's always the "messenger". If the messenger is new and has only written on one subject, they are a "single purpose account" and subject to removal/harassment. If they are new, they are a "suspected sockpuppet" - and the verdict is always the same, Guilty. If they have been around a while, they are a "sleeper account."

The bottom line is that when an abusive administrator decides to attack someone, the message or whether they are a good editor is secondary to whether or not the administrator just really wants to remove them. If they do, it'll happen, because the administrator will either cook up some excuse, or just harass them until they do something "block-worthy" in return.

Which brings us to
Lie #2: Nobody new ever comes to Wikipedia

This is, of course, a lie. New people come to wikipedia all the time.

However, the policies in place ON wikipedia are specifically designed to prevent new editors from coming up unless they are friends of established POV warriors or administrators themselves. New contributors who don't agree with the orthodoxy or have an administrator friend to help them are wiped out quickly so that the established POV gangs can maintain control over their articles.

Examples of this are quite simple:
Sockpuppet policy gives administrators broad latitude to declare anyone they like a "sockpuppet."

Funnily enough, wikipedia has contradictory policies.
Policy #1: "Keep heated issues in a small area", allows for users to create new accounts before editing on a controversial topic. This is contradicted by the single purpose account policy, which says that accounts that only edit in a given area may be ignored and reverted at will.

Policy #2: "Don't bite the Newbies" - this, in a nutshell, tells administrators to assume good faith on the part of new accounts.

It is also to be described as "If someone isn't as dumb as a box of rocks, they're not new" - or at least, that's how administrators behave. The most common "reasoning" for an administrator calling someone a "sockpuppet" is that they have done something "no new user could possibly know how to do" - in other words, someone who reads the policies, lurks, and examines how edits work before editing is going to get called a sockpuppet just for learning how the system works.

Interestingly enough, the BITE policy has a telling statement: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism.

Why is this interesting? Because this is precisely the goal of the abusive administrators. They want, no, need, to drive away anyone new who disagrees with them, because if they did not, then ultimately they bear the risk of enough new users coming in to overturn their bogus "consensus" on the articles they control.

If you ban the new users as they come in, however, they are never more than one or two strong, and the rest of the corrupt administration will support you for it.
4 comments or Leave a comment
From: (Anonymous) Date: November 1st, 2007 06:51 am (UTC) (Link)


I wonder whether this has changed over time or whether I never checked what happened to my edits in the past. However, nowadays, it's exactly as you say. If you try to correct some facts which are suppressed because a few people strongly oppose it, you'll be confronted with hostility a mass. I've been accused of being a sock puppet just because someone they've banned had the same opinion on this topic albeit there are millions of people who could have made the same edits. However those millions either don't care as much as I do about correctness or they are smarter not to waste their time. Oh yes, "single purpose edits" was claimed as well. If something is wrong in several articles and you try to correct each of them, then yes you're doing that for the single purpose to correct some fact. What the heck is wrong with that?

The "established" authors team up and make sure all your edits are promptly reverted. Apparently, they don't even check what you write, they just revert even if you just fixed some illogic sentence or typo. If you try to discuss with them they respond like brainless bots - if they respond at all and not just scrap your comment. If you actually point out that they are bullying and ignorant, they'll accuse you of personal attacks.

Then they are constantly referring to policies which they don't understand themselves, which are ambiguous, which they violate themselves or which they actually recently modified using their team to overpower any of the few others which actually noticed the poll. I mean what's the point of a policy or even inverting it if their are 20 people voting on it when their are millions of contributers and at least thousands of experts who just weren't there to vote. How can a handful of people dare to decide ignoring international standards because they, uhm, don't like it?

In real-life you could pull in a reasonable authority like a teacher, a prof or at least a cop. In Wikipedia you're pretty much lost as an individual. The only useful strategy would be getting your friends aboard to overpower them with sheer quantity because arguments and facts matter very little. Soon Wikipedia will spread nothing but urban legends, myths and slang because well they are better known than actual facts.
From: (Anonymous) Date: December 8th, 2007 06:57 am (UTC) (Link)
When all serious information disappears, there will always be the liberal POV, so dear to the clique, on everything. I assume one could do fairly well if he tried to find out their POV and tried to agree, as forcefully as possible, on everything.

Another mass-induced decline is that nobody will stand for personal opinions that need argument and detail in their defence. When in a mob, it is easiest to get the most agreement if one supports POVs that one can defend mostly or only by bullying, defaming and pressure tactics.
From: (Anonymous) Date: December 9th, 2007 06:22 pm (UTC) (Link)

Why abusive admins must get new users banned...

"Why is this interesting? Because this is precisely the goal of the abusive administrators. They want, no, need, to drive away anyone new who disagrees with them, because if they did not, then ultimately they bear the risk of enough new users coming in to overturn their bogus "consensus" on the articles they control. If you ban the new users as they come in, however, they are never more than one or two strong, and the rest of the corrupt administration will support you for it."

Your explanation of the methodology of these abusive admins is similar to my explanation given in this essay:


The more people know about these abusive admins the better.
mzmadmike From: mzmadmike Date: May 4th, 2008 12:33 am (UTC) (Link)
The ones that piss me off are the ones who mark dozens of articles, sometimes entire subjects (webcomics was one, someone is off on survivalism/preparedness now) for deletion.

"Oh, well, I've never heard of it, therefore it's not notable."

You point out reviews and interviews in the NYT, CNN, ABC...

"Oh, just because a FEW media have interviewed them doesn't make them notable. Their only real presence is online." (Like Wikipedia?)

"Oh, just because he also has a near-bestselling book..."

"Oh, just because he also edited a few professional journals..."

"Oh, just he's had comics in a magazine with sales of a million copies...but it's ONLY an industry specific mag..."

"Oh, I doubt his book has sold even 50,000 copies..." (most genre books sell about 5000)

"Oh, just because..."

Point out they're moving the goalposts and they claim you're making personal attacks.

Then they claim all supporters are "sockpuppets," and are strangely silent when it's proven some of us have been around for years.

Frankly, I need to write an article on it just so MY wikipedia entry can say, sourced, "Is an outspoken critic of Wikipedia, being quoted as referring to is as "a bunch of OCD losers in their parents' basements trying to fabricate respectability through theses on Pokemon cards and the bullying of anyone interested in reality."

I wonder if I should go tag for deletion the article about the guy who was fucked to death by a horse...?
4 comments or Leave a comment