Mr. Natural Health Critiques Wikipedia

Published Critiques of Wikipedia

Did this author have Alternative medicine in mind? “Some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy. Does someone actually believe this? … How long does it take for an article to evolve into a “polished, presentable masterpiece,” or even just into a usable workaday encyclopedia article? … In fact, the earlier versions of the article are better written overall, with fewer murky passages and sophomoric summaries. Contrary to the faith, the article has, in fact, been edited into mediocrity. Is this a surprising result? Not really.” The Faith-Based Encyclopedia

Postscript: The Faith-Based Encyclopedia webpage originally had a long list of feedback comments made at the bottom of it. Over time, this long list of comments has been lost for what ever reason. John H. Gohde, below, references comments made by various people which are nolonger available on the source webpage. But, were contemporiusly avialable at the time that John commented on the source webpage, Faith-Based Encyclopedia.

John H. Gohde says that the well recognized problems of Wikipedia are so great, that Wikipedia itself has finally acknowledged them. On that page, Jason Scott pretty well summarizes the position of John H. Gohde on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously, neither can banishment from Wikipedia be considered anything other than some kind of a farce. Unless, you are part a part of the mental illness called Wikipedia.

  • Does someone actually believe “articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy?” Heck, no! What I found are articles being edited to death by mediocrities.– John Gohde 22:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sanger on the Current Wikipedia

Co-founder of Wikipedia writes:[1]

  1. A fork edition of Wikipedia under new management will probably be necessary.
  2. Wikipedia is being snubbed by academia.
  3. Wikipedia has a credibility problem.
  4. Did Harry Nutcluster have Alternative medicine in mind? “If the project was lucky enough to have a writer or two well-informed about some specialized subject, and if their work was not degraded in quality by the majority of people, whose knowledge of the subject is based on paragraphs in books and mere mentions in college classes, then there might be a good, credible article on that specialized subject. Otherwise, there will be no article at all, a very amateurish-sounding article, or an article that looks like it might once have been pretty good, but which has been hacked to bits by hoi polloi.
  5. The majority of the editors are “difficult people, trolls, and their enablers.”
    • The real trolls are all within the power structure of Wikipedia.
  6. Having problems with Admins? “there are myriad abuses and problems that never make it to mediation, let alone arbitration. A few of the project’s participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated.”
  7. Editors with absolutely no personal life, rather than those with expertise, rule on Wikipedia. “The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise”, i.e. Lack of respect for WikiProjects
    • This is not a minor problem. People who live on Wikipedia, with aboslutely no personal life, have obvious mental problems. In short, the mentally ill are running Wikipedia. Think about it. You are not considered for an Admin position unless you have done at least 10,000 edits on Wikipedia. No rational person would spend a lot of time in Wikipedia, yet this is what is expected of all editors.
      • You clearly cannot have a rational conversation with non-rational editors. The place is absolutely crawling with mentally ill individuals who live on Wikipedia 8 plus hours a day, 7 days a week for several years. Addiction to the internet is a mental illness that has broken up many a marriage. And, addiction to Wikipedia is one of the worst forms of this type of mental illness. No rational person has the time to keep on cleaning up every time one of these seriously deranged individuals takes a crap on what you are trying to work on in an objective manner.
    • Of course, I have long poked fun at all forms of academia. I call it the second oldest scam in the history of mankind. Experts should not be just limited to academics with a Ph.D.. WikiProjects are, thus, the perfect compromise. One can become a good enough expert in any field simply by spending a lot of personal time in that area: reading, researching, and writing on the topic.
    • “any idiot can and does contribute to articles in subjects they know nothing about” Dr Gonzo
      • Tell me about it!
    • “The truism that 50% of all people are of below-average intelligence rings true on Wikipedia, and the brighter minds who are experts in particular fields don’t have the time to waste on constantly revising their articles every time some crackpot takes a crap on them.” Dr Gonzo
      • Personally, I prefer to use the term defecate.
      • People in the first quintile of IQ scores are too stupid to realize just how stupid they actually are.
    • On Wikipedia it is neither form or substance, but rather process crap! “Right now, far more talk is generated when a serious user commits a faux pax (e.g., violating the 3RR or ‘calling a troll a troll’) than when a troll spews crap into an article. Here’s the reason: Wikipedia has mechanisms enforsing rules of PROCESS (e.g., Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement) but lacks mechanisms enforsing rules of PRODUCT (e.g., Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). As a result, when a policy related to product is broken, the dispute usually stays on talk, handled only by a handful of serious editors actively watching the page; but when a policy related to process is broken, it will attract a huge contingent of users fussing over who reverted whom, how many reverts there were, and what did or did not constitute a revert. The rules are shaping a culture on Wikipedia utterly obsessed with process, but incognizant of product. desysoped 172
      • Will all you people without a life stop wasting my time on all your PROCESS CRAP and start working on the real problem: PRODUCT?
    • Speaking of Snowflake and his ilk? “anti-elitism … is cultivated and desperately defended as it allows just about anyone with absolutely no qualifications who have a lot of time on their hands to become community “insiders” and control the activities of others. Who cares if anyone is reading the articles the wikipedians are having fun, right? Expertise and the amount of time required to become a respected member of the Wikipedia community are mutually exclusive. This demand for time screens out experts and allows officious (and oh so self important) bureaucrats with dubious qualifications to control the process. Kids, students (with either no social skills or no real academic commitment – with as a result lots of time), dossers and assorted unemployed or minimum wage bums have the one ingredient required to make it up the Wikipedia hierarchy … time.” Robert Brookes
      • Snowflake is the champion of all mediocrities in Wikipedia.
    • NPOV Did this author have Alternative medicine in mind? “their ‘Neutral Point of View’ so often becomes ‘the general uninformed prejudice on the matter’. … are far more likely to censor truths that contrast mere general prejudice and leave in anything that repeats commonly held fallacies.” nomentanus
      • Reminds me of the garbage being written by the anti-alternative medicine crowd. Can they please stop defecating on CAM articles?
      • Feel free to continue to waste your lives writing fodder for children on the commonly held fallacies of our times.
    • Well somebody must be writing all these 3rd rate articles and comments? “Wikipedia is seen as a third-rate reference” cribcage
    • The move to Categorize really makes the interface suck! “Mental Vomit Regarding Wikipedia … Reality is cool and all… but the interface sucks.” noise
      • Navigation boxes made by experts in the field is definitely the way to go. You cannot improve Wikipedia when @#$%^* keep on defecating on your work.

Sanger on Categories

See [2]

See also [3]

Retrieved from “
All text on this page is available under the terms of the
GNU Free Documentation License.
Published on January 24, 2008 at 10:36 pm  Comments Off on Mr. Natural Health Critiques Wikipedia  
%d bloggers like this: