How John H. Gohde Views Wikipedia

Views on Wikipedia proliferate the web.

You wont find any glowing praises listed, here. Nor, will you read about boring academic discussions of the accuracy of information on Wikipedia. Those quotes would only perpetuate the notion that Wikipedia should be taken seriously.

John H. Gohde says that Wikipedia is quilty of being unethical in its operating practices. And, what is acceptable for a for profit business is in fact unethical for a not-for-profit operation that publicly claims to be what it clearly is not.

Wikipedia Quotations & Quotes

Quotes are being used to document the fact that more than one person shares the views of John H. Gohde on Wikipedia. It is the intent of this webpage to enlighten the public to the totalitarianism openly taking place on Wikipedia on its discussion pages.

The focus is on Wikipedia as a whole, while avoiding digressions and the boring reporting on petty newsgroup squabbing that often characterizes the original source documents.

Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

  1. “You are only welcome to edit the Wikipedia, so long as you conform to the groupthink espoused by the Wikipedia’s core constituency.” [1]
  2. “The simple fact is, a low barrier to entry and an easy access to an audience tends to lead to problems.” [2]
  3. “Woe be that your take on things is off from the majority. Even if you can prove something, you’re now in the situation that anybody can change it. … You [will eventually] realize that the people who are going to change it could have absolutely no experience with the subject whatsoever.” [2]
  4. “Because everyone outside their [groupthink] collective … by definition … are trolls. Any expression of individuality is banned for trolling.” [3]

Wikipedia – Virtual World of the Mentally ill

  1. “If you are a Wikipedia editor; maybe you should get a life, and do something more productive with your time.” [1]
  2. “Wikipedia has long since been breached by uncouth bureaucratic idiots, and they have become petty tyrants. Wikipedia is now just a large message board, with a lot of uptight moderators who edit just about everything.” [1]
  3. “Wikipedia is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) in which participants play editors of a hypothetical online encyclopedia, where they try to insert misinformation that they are randomly assigned when they create their accounts, while preventing contrary information from being entered by others. Players with similar misinformation to promote will generally form ‘guilds’ in order to aid each other.” [3]
  4. Peer-review: “The site is undermined by a centralized group of users which repeatedly attacks those who attempt to improve the site.” [1]
  5. “Will you enjoy making edits to controversial topics, only to have cranks, vandals, and fanatics undo your hard-work, and then muddle your way through a judicial system which is far more concerned with cliquish politics, than with basic standards of judicial procedure?” [1]
  6. “Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee – an organization which has no interest in justice, rule of law, or reasonable procedure.” [1]

Wikipedia – Blight Upon the Internet

  1. “We discussed how annoying it is to have worthless Wikipedia articles (and their pornographic clones) clogging search-engine results.” [1]
  2. Do you add -wikipedia to the end of search queries?
  3. “Wikipedia has become the McDonalds/Microsoft/Walmart of information.” – Michael White, Librarian [1]
  4. Wikipedia – the Internet’s’ largest repository of stuff nobody cares about. [3]

Wikipedia – A Den of Process Wackjobs

  1. “The editorial process is always the same; the ruling minority decides what will be included, how it will be presented, and where it will be located – they are often wrong, and its a time-consuming affair to correct them.”[1]
  2. “You are no longer in the role of content generator soon after your works are exposed to the wonks and twiddlers and procedural whackjobs. You are [now] a content defender and that means that time you could be … [spending creating content] is being spent explaining for the hundredth time [your edit to somebody who just joined the discussion]. [2]

Wikipedia – Knowledge Fascism

  1. The views taken by articles “are limited by the incompetence of the highest-ranking administrator.” [1]
  2. “Why the heck would anyone want to patrol for recent changes [RC} on Wikipedia? The articles are usually dull. Patrolling edits on Wikipedia is boring as hell. The only reason that makes sense to RC Patrol on there is to harass people by reverting and giving no reason.” [3]
  3. “Wikipedia administrators are not able to restrain themselves from censoring articles.” [1]
  4. “Wikipedia has become an officiating organ of scientific censorship and scientism” [4]
  5. “Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed, because the entire editorial process bottlenecks (through the admins, developers, and arbitrators) until finally it coalesces into the personal POV of Jimbo Wales.” [1]
  6. “The ‘dirt’ in Wikipedia is not a matter of chance but a matter of system, it is there in principle, it is systemic and endemic. And one knows that it was invariably left by either an Admin or a member of some squad or cabal, some officiating technopriest of the Cult of Ignorance.” [4}
  7. “Wiki politics are dominated by personal attacks (rather than the Wikilove which proponents gush on about), and Wiki articles tend to be dominated by a narrow clique of self-proclaimed experts (rather than by peer-review, as the site proclaims). In essence, the Wikipedia is ruled by the tyranny of its owner, the former pornographer Mr. Jimbo Wales (who dishonestly accepts donations from the public, which trusts him to behave better); and via him, by a pyramidal group of his Freudianesque disciples.” [1]
  8. ” What Wikipedia is not, is an effective repository of the best in knowledge – or even, much more modestly, of actual, factual and adequate knowledge. Instead, Wikipedia has become a forum for an officiating falsification of knowledge, a system for disinformation and an assurance of misinformation. Backed by cabals of administrators and bureaucrats, Wikipedia features the raw, unfettered and exhibitionistic domination exerted by ignorant and fascist bullies.” [4]
  9. “Bogus Western democracy; … Wikipedia exemplifies this trend of passing off a pyramidal republican cabal as some sort of democratic organization.” [1]
  10. “The issue with Wikimedia, is that they are making deceptive claims; they are pretending that there isn’t a cabal. They stand upon their soapbox and proclaim themselves to be a force of intellectual righteousness – alas, they are just two-bit power-tripping hacks.” [1]

Wikipedia is largely a waste of time

  1. “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”
  2. “People make little empires, have their agendas, push through ideas and themes they want, and disregard and delete things they do not.” [2]
  3. “It’s like you get to play one note of your trumpet and then you spend 20 minutes defending it. To anybody who walked in. Just now.” [2]
  4. “Making serious efforts there is akin to attempting professional writing, tossing it into a wastebasket full of somebody else’s notes, and hoping that it doesn’t get thrown away by an ignorant janitor with power-mad delusions of grandeur.” [1]
  5. “It is not hard, browsing over historical edits to majorly contended Wikipedia articles, to see the slow erosion of facts and ideas according to people trying to implement their own idea of neutrality or meaning on top of it. Even if the person who originally wrote a section was well-informed, any huckleberry can wander along and scrawl crayon on it.” [2]


1. – A Criticism of the Wikipedia
2. – The Great Failure of Wikipedia
3. – Wikipedia as an online role playing game
4. – Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance

Published on February 3, 2008 at 8:32 am  Comments Off on How John H. Gohde Views Wikipedia  
%d bloggers like this: