Sunday, September 16, 2007

Is wikipedia run by neo-fascist, rule-book geek zealots?

After no more than two hours researching and creating two pages on Wikipedia I have been subject to the worst display of anti-social online behaviour by a Wikipedia admin and editor, and had the pages deleted out of hand without discussion or explanation.

Instead, I was confronted by short, unfriendly messages quoting sentence and verse from the Wikipedia regulations. Overnight, while pondering the stupidity of these people I now had to deal with, the pages were deleted.

At no point was there any attempt to understand what I was doing or to explain how I might do it differently.

The problems didn't begin until I attempted to cite a reference (hyperlink) to a page on a website. At that point I was accused of "BLATANT ADVERTISING" and creation of "Inappropriate content". WTF?!

This reminds me of being harrassed by the student librarian geeks at highschool.

If Wikipedia is run by a bunch of these pathalogically socially challenged types then what is it's future as a document reflecting the best opinions and expertise in the world. Not very good I would have to say.

Further, is this an example of open-source democracy?!

(BTW. I am a software engineer with twenty years experience in media, teaching, journalism, publishing and web development. I am married with three children and lead a socially normal life. If you want the names of these nasty acolytes of feudal feifdom then just take a look at my profile if they haven't deleted it )

If you've experienced anything like this then let me know.

6 comments:

The DJ said...

No, it's just run by overworked "tired-of-spam" people who need to deal with a whole lot of bad in order to keep the encyclopedia sane. Some of the editors can go a bit far in that. (remember that less than 3000 people manage the contributions of over 5.000.000 editors)

The best path for beginners in Wikipedia is usually:
Correct -> Expand -> Learn -> Create

You went too quickly for create, probably writing about some "product" or linking to the website of a product. You might be surprised that gets tagged as spam, but if you open up Brittanica, how often do you see an article about a specific product ? little. So when you do write about those, those articles need to be well founded, referenced, etc. to make sure that it doesn't turn into some sort of advert (even if not with that intention). It's one of the most difficult types of articles to writer properly.

You may call them neo-fascist rule-book geek zealots, i say it are people who are not bullshitting around. Don't be offended, read, learn, try again. Ask other wikipedians to help you, that usually works quite well. You may have 20 years of experience in IT, but you have no experience in Wikipedia, and as far as I can see little in internet social networking: ("If you lot have real jobs then I'm surprised, and if you treat people face-to-face the way you have treated me and my efforts here, then lord help the people you work with. I have never come across such a zealous, rediculous, pack of barking dogs." Dude. it's the internet, when have people EVER treated eachother online like they would in real life)

Conclusion: Dont get so stressed out, ask for help and try again.

cccc said...

I'd be happy to look into any problems you have been having. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page explaining what happened.

-Mark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654

dave souza said...

Er, see Godwin's law: the first to say neo-fascist looses - that's the first Geek Law ;) Anyway, afore ye lose the heid, do note that your article lives on, and your tourist edits are still in place - what other article did you write? I've left an explanation at User talk:Badcop666, and Raul will no doubt help out. Now what is this email thing? {ducks}

yashar HaKodesh said...

Wikipedia is constantly attacked by a countless amount of vandalism, vanity articles, advertising and other forms of nonsenses. Many volunteers act as wikipedia's immune system, removing the junk as fast as they can while at the same time keeping the good. Sometimes good stuff gets deleted also. Its kinda like an autoimmune disease. If wikipedia was not protected by these people you would see wikipedia in a lot worse condition. While they could do better, overall I think they do a pretty good job.

Peregrine said...

Yeah, wikipedia's got more rules than a hound has ticks. Creating new articles is especially rule bound. Unfortunately, a lot of editors are convinced to participate by what they percieve as the lack of an article. Basically, they throw themselves into the deep end. I'm not sure that this bodes well for wikipedia, because it takes a while to learn the rules, and they may be turned off the project before then.

-Peregrine Fisher

Connor said...

It seems that despite your rude welcome, the pages in question have been revived and improved. Please check out your talk page to see comments left in the last day explaining the process and apologizing for the way you were jumped on.