The Wikipedia thread

So in short, I agree with what Wikitruth said about what the problem is:
Wikitruth said:
Too many rules are left to be decided by consensus. Too much interpretation (like a song or a poem, not a law) takes place when people whip out their policy schlongs at each other. And, sadly, censorship is now blowing across the Wikipedia landscape, taking good work and sending good people into the night.

In fact, that's the problem! There are so many people who have been burnt out on Wikipedia because of the bullshit, the little God-Kings, the complete lack of direction from the top. The project has literally lost hundreds of good, solid, intelligent people, leaving a core of folks either completely masochistic in nature, or in possesion of little tiny reptile brains. And after all that good work and design on the code and the initial basic ideas!

It's like someone created a great sports car and then made it so that it had 408 steering wheels and a random button that says "skid uncontrollably".


Gold Member
Wikipedia is a crapshoot.

This morning I was sitting in a cafe planning how I'm going to organize my private library when it grows substantially enough.

I came upon an article on the Dewey Decimal System, which (along with its derivative systems in other countries) is the most widely used library classification system in use today.

There are a full 3 subheadings added to the article with a stark SJW agenda:



Gold Member
Look, just stay away from Wikipedia. There's a reason they call it the Tragedy of the Commons.

But the real reason it doesn't work, above all, is simple Talebian truth: not one contributor to Wikipedia has any skin in the game. They suffer zero consequences if their advice is wrong and someone relies on it to their detriment. At least the publisher of a book (if not the author) has to contend with getting sued if they publish blatantly false material (and note even charlatans from James L. Frey to Robert Kiyosaki are still selling books.)


VincentVinturi said:
There are a full 3 subheadings added to the article with a stark SJW agenda:


There should be a SJW category added under mental derangements.

BTW, it doesn't surprise me that SJWs would get triggered over the dewey decimal system, since so many of them are centered in academia and probably live at the library.


Gold Member
There has been a long-running column on Breitbart documenting Wikipedia's leftist bias, but this is the first article I've seen about it in the MSM:

It wouldn't surprise me to see a sudden push by Wikipedia's regulars to ban Fox News as a "reliable source."


The co-founder of Wikipedia has been a critic now for many years: or Looks like he has a book out last year with some of those writings and others.

Personally I was quite active on Wikipedia in the aughties and beyond, I was optimistic about it, wasn't a really big wheel or anything but got involved in a few projects and had some low-level special privileges. I've done very little on it for several years, now, though. I used to edit wiktionary as I was learning a language (put the word in foreign language on English wiktionary if it wasn't there), but I haven't bothered with that much lately either. Can't feed that beast, even if what I'm doing is objectively neutral and good for the resource in its idealized form.