Community of Wikipedia: The Home of Bureaucracy and Know-It-Alls’May 4, 2012 • By Cask J. Thomson
Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but there is no freedom from the users that think they know everything. The entire point of this article is to state that if a vast amount of Wikipedia users believe in one thing – then biasedness occurs, this is something Wikipedia supposedly frowns upon, but then if you don’t agree with the admins, then you get banned.
The reason? – pompous administrators – their occupation is to find excuses to block users and quote whatever terminology that the Wikipedia guides have. Most of these people, well they seem to know it all off the top of their heads.
I conducted a test after my incredibly relevant paragraph (citations and all) was removed/ I had added that the HTC Desire Z mobile phone was confirmed to be the last QWERTY release from HTC – press releases and interviews as proof, I was told that my content was not confirmable. I raised the simple “Well, if it is on the OFFICIAL website in a press statement, then yes, it is confirmed and dusted as proof”. I let it go; Wikipedia isn’t something I will dedicate hours of my time to just to get factual information across. Then, I noticed I was being stalked by one of the sites’ moderators. I would make another edit that week under the same IP address and the SAME moderator would correct me, quote some sort of offense that I had broken and then tell me I would have my editing rights removed, to which I replied “Oh because I really fear losing the ability to edit an encyclopaedia” – I shit you not, I was banned for harassing a moderator and providing unfriendly discussion regarding Wikipedia. Oh well, I have work to do and a life to live.
It didn’t exactly end there; I realized that Wikipedia appears to be an online dictatorial establishment, with the laughingly over-enthusiastic volunteer writers with no face in the high and mighty position. I was reminded of the Justice System – you broke this code, this one and this one, and therefore you aided this and we’re going to charge you with that.
My little experiment went along the lines of using two anonymous proxies (which were private and therefore not already blocked by Wikipedia) and editing a page for a barely-known metal band. The content I added was considered ‘lacking notability for Wikipedia’ even though the page only had a brief summary and incredibly out of date claim that a new album would be released in 2008, it being a 2012 edit, I figured it would be no harm, let’s see.
The content was removed, so from a Linux-based computer with a completely different IP address displaying that I was from the other side of the world, reinstated the content claiming ‘yes it was significant’. Pathetically, a discussion intensified where the ‘users’ were accused of Sock Puppetry due to the edits being so quick. One of these users (both were me, remember) stated “well if THAT’S not notable, then why is the entire article? Why is the entire band considered notable enough for Wikipedia” – that comment right there had both accounts banned for working together and were accused of plotting against the administrator. This in turn is because ‘we’ disputed the admins claims and so because the admin couldn’t get his/her way – banned!
The radically conservative left-winged clone of Wikipedia is Conservapedia, although they are clearly run by patriotic Christians, they do have a point when they state that even Wikipedia opposition websites like Wikitruth (a site that aimed at proving the biasedness of editors and the proof that Wikipedia is fuelled by misinformation) is listed for arbitration with the notes “Wikitruth is a website which is highly critical of wikipedia.” And calling it “an attack site” – for this, the incredibly notable site is constantly deleted and forbidden from having its on Wikipedia article.
So as much as I appreciate Wikipedia, its users pride themselves ridiculously on maintaining a strict code of conduct and protecting whatever credibility it gives them. Sadly it remains very one-sided at times, and the users defend themselves to the death, almost as if they have nothing else to live for other than Wikipedia.