Wikifracturing with WikiTruth |
Loading ...Life seems better without squabbling with random people around the world in what is or isn’t Wikipedia-worthy. Seriously, it’s the main reason I’ve never gotten that involved with the site. Internal strife continues with WikiTruth.
The same WikiTruth which is down as of this writing because they received over 60,000 visitors from Slashdotting. Via Metafilter:
Tired of seeing articles carelessly deleted, censored, and then cherry picked as to what is “encyclopedic enough”, several Wikipedia members formed “Wikipedians against censorship“.
Guess I’m piling on by linking WikiTruth here, so just earmark this one and visit later after the Wikitruthians get some more bandwidth. I haven’t seen the site either, but the quote from Metafilter and other places talking about it made me go hmm.
The site appears to be back up now. I can definitely sympathize. Wikipedia’s editors are draconian. That’s why you won’t find an article on “Synergy/DE”.
Comment by Sterling Camden — April 17, 2006 @ 12:11 pm PST
Yeah, take the most stuffy, strict librarian type imaginable and then make that person 100 times more anal and that’s the vision I have of the hardened Wikipedia editor. It’s possible I’m completely off the mark and the majority of them are mellow and only a few behave this way, but if that’s the case the perception is way skewed. And one only has to look through a few passionate edit wars and that perception is quickly validated.
Comment by TDavid — April 17, 2006 @ 5:26 pm PST
[…] It’s this kind of anal-retentive activity that will bring the Wikipedia glass towers crashing down. I realize this is a drum beaten here before (last time here), but I see evidence like this almost every time Wikipedia is mentioned and it really damages the desirability of using the site beyond a sometimes quick reference. […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » Wikiargument over Hacking Netflix being link-worthy and professional enough on Netflix page — April 27, 2006 @ 5:39 pm PST
I have actually witnessed instances in which a Wikipedia administrator would delete a viable contribution from a subject matter expert, flame that expert by creating a User page for that person and writing defamatory content about her, and then delete all responses from the victim not only by reverting to his own copy, but by deleting all history pages carrying the victim’s response. Then, the Wikipedia administrator would gloat about how the defamatory user page ranks high in a search of the victim’s name in Google.
Comment by Joel Ashcroft — October 23, 2006 @ 10:44 am PST