Criticism of Wickedpedia grows
The clowns who run Wickedpedia. Picture is courtesy of the Wikitruth website. "NPOV" stands for "Neutral Point of View," the name of one of the Wickedpedia content policies and a policy that Wickedpedia frequently ignores.
A website called Wikitruth says,
Wikitruth is a website dedicated to the subject of flaws and issues with the Wikipedia, another website run by Jimbo Wales and a massive, insane army of Wikipedians that he controls with his mind rays. It's very hard to really explain Wikipedia, but if you visit it, it says it wants to be "the free encylopedia that anyone can edit". Instead, however, it is often filled with crazy people, experiences some issues with manipulative personalities, and falls prey to abuse and censorship. And that's a real shame.
Jimmy "King Jimbo" Wales -- I like the sound of that name. It sounds like the name of a cult leader -- like Jim Jones of Jonestown. King Jimbo is a cult leader who has suckered thousands of people into donating their time to work on Wikipedia while he runs the show and reaps the rewards.
The Tech Law Prof Blog says,
The stories in the press and on the web about the Wikipedia editor Essjay, real name Ryan Jordan, are unfortunate. That's the same term that Jimmy Wales used in describing the situation where Essjay misrepresented his credentials as a tenured professor of theology when in reality he was a college drop out. Now Jordan is gone and Wikipedia is now going to verify the credentials of the 650 or so general editors of the project.
What's interesting about this is not that this occurred at Wikipedia. It could have happened at Britannica, or any of the other web sites that promote online expertise. It's the response that the other editors have to verify their claimed credentials. Wikipedia started out as a populist project to harness the knowledge of (the) people and to document it. Events happened such as politicians enhancing their bios and smearing those of opponents. Disgruntled individuals made outrageous claims about other individuals that rose to the level of defamation.
Darwinists have been misusing Wikipedia as a "grudge factory" for defaming critics of Darwinism.
Links to several media articles about the Essjay scandal are at the bottom of this webpage. One of the articles quotes a disgruntled Wikipedia editor as saying,
We've stopped being an encyclopedia. We've stopped using common sense. We've taken our eye of (sic) the big picture and focused on ourselves, our myopic power games, our petty process, and our internal need to keep every one in line. We count sources to determine notability -- because we need objective rules. Never mind the fact it is absurd . . . . I'm sick of the little people and their little rules. For now, I want no part of them. I thought there were signs of hope. And I was wrong.
Verifying the credentials of the 650 Wikipedia administrators is not going to do any good because highly credentialed people are as capable of being as biased and manipulative as anyone else. Without a fundamental change in the way Wikipedia operates, verifying the administrators' credentials is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I strongly recommend my simple suggestion of resolving really serious disputes on Wikipedia by adding the disputed item along with (1) a statement that the item is disputed and (2) links to external websites that discuss or debate the dispute. Adding a disputed item to a printed encyclopedia would have the disadvantage that no instant links to outside discussions or debates could be provided; however, Wikipedia is an Internet encyclopedia, not a printed encyclopedia, and there is no reason to run it like a printed encyclopedia.
The frustration that I and some others experienced in trying to get "Of Pandas and People" -- the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned in public school classes -- added to the Wikipedia list of banned books was only the tip of the iceberg. Those control freaks over at Wikipedia would not even accept my sensible proposed compromise of listing the book along with (1) a statement that the listing was disputed and (2) links to external websites that discussed and debated the dispute. Because many people feel that the book should be listed as a banned book, merely saying that my proposed compromise was pointless because the book was not really a banned book does not resolve the dispute. The arbitrariness of those jerks who run Wikipedia is like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
The Wickedpedia organization is now locked into an ever-widening spiral of intellectual and moral degeneracy -- its wickedness tends to attract wicked people and repel decent people, making it even more wicked, which in turn increases the attractiveness to wicked people and the repulsiveness to decent people, and so forth.