Why Wikipedia sucks
October 19th, 2006 Ryan Jones
Update:This is a very old post, and the problem has since been rectified, but it still serves as an example of one of the major problems with Wikipedia – that being that once somebody gets moderator status they’re free to bend Wikipedia to their will. There’s practically no recourse for somebody who’s been banned from editing – whether for legit reasons or for reasons like I mention below. That’s one of the major problems with the site, and why I think the admin policy of Wikipedia sucks.
I’ve been banned from wikipedia. I’m not allowed to edit anything anymore. Did I spam? Nope. Was I vulgar? Nope. All I did was add relevant links to an article (and not even links to my own sites)
The article I’m talking about is the one on Internet Slang.
I not only added links to my own site: noslang.com (an authority site on internet slang according to Google, Kim Kommando, Ken Leebow, Wired, NBC etc..) but to a few other slang dictionaries and slang related sites as well. These included:
NoSlang Internet Slang Translator
Internet Abbreviation Dictionary
British Internet Slang Dictionary
NetLingo – downloadable internet slang dictionary
Do any of these sites seem irrelevant?
Ordinarily I wouldn’t be mad.. but Some Mod on a Power Trip, AbsolutDan seems to think that only the site: FOLDOC.org deserves to be linked there. He’s painstakenly removed every other site.
What’s so great about this site and not the others? Why is it given preferential treatment? Does Dan have a relationship with this site? My guess is probably.
It’s sad to see that wikipedia admins can go on power trips like this. What’s worse is, all of these sites were linked on wikipedia at one time, and have been there for over a year. All I did was put them all (not just mine) back after some crazy admin removed them all.
Since I can’t edit it… if anybody else wants to help out in this cause, simply copy and paste the following wikipedia code:
and head on over to the Wikipedia Article and look for the Edit button for external links.
Entry Filed under: Main
10 Comments
1. Josh Taylor | June 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
I feel the same way as you. Wikipedia is a fascist encyclopedia where editors can’t say “conspiracy theory” because it’s considered disruption. Why’s the word ”conspriacy theory” being considered “disruption”? It don’t make any sense. WP:CIVILITY violation I could accept as a reason, but “disruption” is not to be considered a reason. We should stand up and file a petition to remove Wikipedia from the Internet.
2. A B | July 4th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Have a look at the work of Deiz, all he does is delete material that others have written. A totally negative influence, he should be removed from the project.
3. Dave | September 1st, 2007 at 8:35 pm
ROFL. Let’s stand up and file a petition to remove Microsoft from the internet too. How about whitehouse.gov? Awesome man!
4. The Assmonkey | September 12th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I was banned for vandalism for correcting something on a celebrities wikipage that was untrue. A guy form poland kept undoing my edit then reported me for correcting wrong information then no questions no nothing IP banned.
5. Matt | September 15th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I have also been the victim of wiki-zealotry. I tried to contribute something to the site and it was deleted based on the first sentence I wrote. Somehow it was biased, of course it was describing a viewpoint-not endorsing it. Rather than reading it in it’s entirety along with it’s citations it was simply deleted. Likewise, I have had items listed as spam and deleted, and the only reason listed is a reference towards the policy. Having previously read the policy and being of a sound and logical mind I can only shake my head in confusion about these views of my work. I have begun to believe that wikipedia has become a puritanical e-kingdom for those who love to exert their power. I understand that their are spammers, cranks, and all measure of loonies in this world. But I would be open to some sort of debate, revision or explanation for the course of action. It is simply becoming a waste of time to contribute to it. I feel as though every fustrated English major is a part of the project taking out their displaced anger on those of us who are tying to participate. The fate of wikipedia is likely to be what economists call the tragedy of the commons. It has become so mired in it’s own editorial policy that it has become a disincentive for those who can contribute–to bother with it.
6. Me | September 20th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Ditto, ditto, ditto. I knew if I Googled “wikipedia sucks” I’d find more stories like mine. I add valid, truthful, useful, relevant, factual, supported, neutral info only to be undone as “rv”. And then summarily blocked. Fine, I’ll just get in and excise all my additions to date, so screw you Wiki.
Yes, I concur, the root problem cause seems to be the design of Wikipedia fosters a cult of personalities. Same as with communism where everyone is equal, just some people are more equal than others. In this case it is people like “Can’t sleep, clown will eat me” who master how to get wikipower and then wield it. Remove this, all awards and counts of how many changes one makes, etc., and Wiki can be saved.
7. balamm | October 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 am
I joined 3 edits and recieved 3 VERY rude comments from ??? I have no idea who. Wiki Nazis maybe?
On the smileys page, there’s a link to an obscure japanese text emoticon site.
I added a link to the largest searcahble emoticon resource on the web.
On the Nancy Grace page, there’s a Nancy Grace fan club link.
I added an nancy grace non fansite link.
And was accused of changing the nancy grace article to “nancy grace is a big bag of poo”.
Wrong IP displayed of course.
A site this size that uses a 10 year old function to grap user ip? So they ban the proxy ip and eliminate an entire netblock.
Wikipedia is doomed as long as this cique is in charge.
Here’s a though… If you don;t want user input, remove the user input form.
But if you lip off at to many people, one of them may decide to visit you with an attitude adjustment 😉
These are the comments I recieved along with ny ban notice:
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article’s talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 23:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Smiley. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Storm Rider (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
8. J.S. Bernstein | October 7th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Ryan, I wholeheartedly sympathize with you. I wrote a shot-by-shot analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide Shut” and someone else, someone I did not know in the slightest, linked it to the Wikipedia page, but an “astute” editor appeared after the link had been up for a Full Year and apparently didn’t find my document scholarly enough. [http://www.jeffreyscottbernstein.com/kubrick/eyeswideshut.html]
Hilariously, the “editor” used atrocious grammar to scold me when I tried to put the link back up. The editor accused me of adding the link myself, and thereby removed the link. Lastly, the editor used my real name to accuse me of being a liar. It’s insane there, monkey-brain-time. But I’ve found Citizendium, and it’s a pleasant antidote. Best of luck.
9. NotAnAdminAtWikipedia | October 8th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I’ve been banned for “Vandalism” because i was trying to create a page for a 8 year old assembler called RosAsm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RosAsm
Can you imagine that ? Vandalism on a non-existent page?
As you can see, the page is non-existent…
As i was trying to create the page, i could not stop telling them that RosAsm had a page in French, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian and more! It has notability and all ! THEY DON’T CARE.
You cannot believe the amount of bullshit the wikipedia admins can give you. Links to their wikilaws and stuff, but they’re always off the point and they don’t care.
Yea, Wikipedia is owned by the admin mobs. I despise wikipedia now.
10. Rachel | October 19th, 2007 at 3:27 am
I’ve been banned too, for the simple act of correcting a few typos, they are accusing me of being a ‘sock puppet’ of another banned user, saying I have the same IP address or something, I’m not technical so I don’t really understand it all, and I definitely can’t understand how they have proof of me being someone else when I am absolutely not anyone else! And they’ve even blocked my talk page so I can’t ask for help or anything, and I can’t set up a new account because they’ve blocked me doing that too. I only wanted to help out, I wish I’d never bothered now.