More Polemics on Wikipedia

The way things are done in the Land of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is getting the results of Wikipedia’s design. So, why is Wikipedia complaining about getting, what it has asked for? If Wikipedia doesn’t want disruptive people, then why are they begging for them to edit articles?

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Wikipedia publicly advertises: “anyone can edit nearly any page at any time.” They never honestly state what Wikipedia wants up front. Wikipedia publicly claim “no special knowledge is required to participate,” such as intimate knowledge of NPOV and 100’s of other unique, if not down right strange, Wikipedian policies, practices and guidelines. Nor, does Wikipedia ever require any loyalty oath or commitment to their goals, in order to edit articles.

And, when people like, John H. Gohde, respond negatively to the Wikipedian thought police rudely getting in their faces, Wikipedians actually have the nerve to act all offended and victimized.

Wikipedia certainly never publicly advertised that the work of editors on articles is subject to immediate deletion, nor that editors can be subjected to very public lynchings and personal attacks by the Wikipedian thought police. Wikipedia is just another case of the inmates running the insane asylum.

What is an encyclopedic article?

Encyclopedias were a 17th century invention that have been obsoleted by the Internet. Encyclopedias were good for doing homework in the 6th grade 40 years ago, but they are not accepted today by anyone interested in doing/reading serious research (i.e., as a transitive verb). So, go ahead Wikipedians and knock yourselves out writing fodder for 6th graders.

I have absolutely no interest in working on articles like Tampons, Bisexual pride flag, Steve Urkel, General Motors Electro-Motive Division, Royal New Zealand Air Force, Baltimore Convention Center, List of heavy metal genres, and Sock puppet.

I am only interested in working on serious articles that are within my areas of expertise.

  • Quality over Quantity!
  • Substance over Form!

Plagiarism is considered the greatest sin in the land of academia.

No sources of information are cited in the respective articles. Clearly, Wikipedia has plagiarized its sources of information.

  • Unsourced articles read like a gossip column in a tabloid newspaper.

Do great encyclopedias express a point of view?

Many consider the eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, first published in 1911, to be the best encyclopedia ever written because its articles are between 5 to 10 times the length of other encyclopedias. It contains over 40,000 articles written by over 1,500 authors within their various fields of expertise.

MEDICINE: “The two systems appear to have existed side by side, but to have been distinct, and if they were ever united it must have been before the times of which we have any record. The theory of a development of Greek medicine from the rites of Asclepius, though defended by eminent names, must accordingly be rejected.”

The answer is an obvious: YES! Truly great encyclopedias take sides on issues. Truly great encyclopedia articles are written by authors within their various fields of expertise. And, the best encyclopedia has already been written.

On my planet …

  • Mediation means mediation.
  • Arbitration means arbitration.
  • A ban is permanent and is physically enforced.
  • A suspension of editing privileges is temporary and is physically enforced.
  • Trouble makers are dealt with, within a matter of a few minutes, per clearly advertised rules and expectations of behavior.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, NOT!

Sorry to rudely inform you, but Wikipedia is a dictionary.

Like thousands of other people, I was first introduced to Wikipedia as a dictionary. And, my entire interest in editing Wikipedia is for the utility of Wikipedia as a web dictionary. Global web dictionaries, such as One Look Dictionary, treat Wikipedia like a dictionary.

So, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it must be a duck. Ergo, Wikipedia is a dictionary.


Who are the Trolls?

“In health related groups trolls are the posters who post controversial stuff and use ‘attitude’ and other emotional arguments in order to intimidate those who would dare disagree with them. Trolls with very minimal effort, force others into wasting their time. That is why you will often run across the phrase “Don’t Feed the Trolls” on the Internet. This phrase suggests that you should ignore posts made by trolls. It warns people not to be tricked into wasting their time by a troll.” — Mr-Natural-Health

“The troll expects you to do their thinking for them, for the troll is too important to even bother to point out what they are complaining about. The aim of the troll is to intimidate you into doing all the work or better yet flaming them.” — Mr-Natural-Health

I have run into far too many trolls on Wikipedia. — Mr-Natural-Health 16:06, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My favorite Jewish radio talk show quote is:

“I do not hate science. I hate scientism.”Dennis Prager

Favorite quotation from my website:

“If you are seeking boundless energy, eternal happiness, an ageless body, or immortality, please look elsewhere. I will be writing only of real possibilities, consistent with the findings of medical science.” — _Health and Healing_ by Andrew Weil, MD

A wise man once wrote:

“Confused people shouldn’t be editing these articles.

I could not agree more. –Mr-Natural-Health

My favorite Busybody quote:

“This is a page where Wikipedians can help each other through their withdrawal symptoms while developers attempt to fix the server.”

John H. Gohde described contemporaneously in Talk:Alternative medicine his experiences participating naively in Wikipedia’s despute resolution process for the very first time. Which ended up in Wikipedia’s very first banishment of an editor for 30 days.

Let me see now.

  1. First, both mediation & arbitration was unilaterally called off.
  2. Then mediation was unilaterally called back on, according to you.
  3. Next, arbitration was unilaterally called back on.
  4. Mediation was then unilaterally called off without officially notifying me. All because Jimbo Wales said, for whatever reason, that the arbitration was back on.
  5. Somewhere in between the arbitrators unilaterally decided that they did not have to follow any rules of fair play because Jimbo Wales has spoken.

Wikipedians went through all this trouble because they were unable to articulate their criticisms of alternative medicine in plain English.

Do you really expect me to take you Wikipedians seriously?” — Mr-Natural-Health 19:21, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from “
All text on this page is available under the terms of the
GNU Free Documentation License.
Published on January 25, 2008 at 11:46 pm  Comments Off on More Polemics on Wikipedia  
%d bloggers like this: