Wikipedia IS fiction

by: Scott Grayban Tuesday, April 18th, 2006
1,364 visitors have read this article

This article is only a base for one of my thesis in political science and is only in part of my final report. However, I am going to argue Wikipedia’s lack of policy at a political science debate at Washington State University in Seattle,Washington next month that is going to be taped and aired on PBS.

Wikipedia is usually POV biased and not a reliable source. The article’s I was involved with are very WP:POV (Point-of-View) especially the articles about religion like Jesus (33) and political like Cuba (47).

The editors that control the writing’s are usually WP:POV, biased, rude, abusive, and love to attack anyone that opposes them. One article I was trying to work on, Cuba, and get a Neutural-Point-of-View(NPOV) article written, I was repeatedly attacked because I would not agree that Cuba was One-Party State with no democracy. Yet that is not true by the facts I sourced (5)(Fn 1). Even one source I presented from the University of Columbia even shows a clear, even if a weak one, democracy (4). These editors then started personal attacking and insulting with blantant slanderous comments to anyone that oppsed them (69).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social club. The site founder, Jimbo Wales, has stated repeatedly that product comes before process. If the rules– including civility rules– interfere with the goal of writing a usable encyclopedia, they are to be ignored or modified. Dr. Carr and I are both professional historians and editors experienced as anyone around here. We know how to deal with the crackpots, cultists, and cranks who attempt to wreck articles. Trolls often manipulate naive third parties into thinking that they’re acting in good faith; but admins and mediators should be bullshit detectors. If propagandists are sabotaging articles, the administration is supposed to help legitimate editors deal with trolling, not enable trolling. 172 | Talk 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (9)

Reference: 1 (78) – Jim Wales does support this type of action.
Reference: 2 (77) – WP article on it
Reference: 3 (17) – Snapshot of [[User:172]] defending his actions in use of Ignore all rules

If this is what Wikipedia consists of then there articles are worthless, biased, unreliable and most certainly WP:POV because that statement clearly defines that when anyone who feel’s they “are right they MUST impose that thought on others at all cost”. These same people claimed they are some sort of Dr. in something that they wouldn’t tell and would not prove there credentials (5). Although I am sure they are lying because no scholar would conduct themselves in this manner. Even the UN Security Council behaves better when the member’s are criticized.

The lead editor, Dr. Carr, if you want to call him him that, actually does a personal attack on me….

I have editing here for nearly three years and I have learned that robust tactics are needed to defeat communists, cultists, cranks and vandals at many articles. It is frequently necessary to engage in multiple reverts to achieve this, and many articles have been rescued from evil-doers because editors are willing to risk blocking under this stupid 3R rule in the interests of Wikipedia. At Cuba I will continue to revert as often as is necessary until the communists are defeated. If you supported rather than obstructed me the job would get done quicker. Adam 01:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (69)

I ask for admin to help out and made many complaints about the actions but not one admin would help. Simply for this reason I would never use Wikipedia as any sort of accurate documentation.

WikiPedia is flawed by the statements made by Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, as stated above. It shows a clear POV view and does not reflect a “true” encyclopedia of any sense of that word.

Their MEDCABAL, a very low and unproductive mediation group, only stirs more hate within the discussion by forcing the same issues back into the dispute instead or reading the past talks and sorting out from there. That is not needed.

Wikipedia also has something called RfC or Request for Comment. I’m not quite sure what another comment will do in POV articles but I do know that the majority of the admin on Wikipedia say the RfC is pointless and very unproductive most times.

So where does this all lead? No place. Wikipedia does not have any clear policy on WP:POV disputed articles. There is no enforcement of removing users that insist on disrupting the community-at-large and have them removed. There are plenty of good editors there that simply have there hands tied by the small numbers of narrow-minded people that are determine to undermine the fact’s of sources presented and only there to cause strive and confusion within discussions.

Admin have also stated they are reluctant to get involved because they claim they are not “Police”. So what is there role? What is the admin’s part in keeping Wikipedia as a reliable source? Who set’s policies when no one wants to get involved? Policy changes are very hard to get going because you need at least 2 wikipedians to agree just to get the ball rolling. Then you have to gather all your evidence and facts and present them for the policy change instead of using common sense, Wikipedia has instead made this process just as confusing and hard to get enforced if not even changed.

Even when Admin have clearly avoided the arguments of commmon-sense and instead use the “written or non-written” guidelines it undermines the overall goal of what Wikipedia should be.

I am just not sure the bold statements that Jimbo Wales has made on TV and interviews actually and truely reflect the inner workings and actions of its community.

Wikipedia has one major and serious flaw. There is no top authority paid or not paid that can objectively make rulings on disputed articles. It is a self-governed and ruling body consisting of admin that don’t want to get involved and users determined to ruin a article based on POV’s and doing anything they can to make that happen.

Footnote
I would like to thank all the Admin that in majority where un-helpfull and the 2 users, Adam Carr (56) and 172 (39), with there helpfull comments and insights in writing this article. It has been writen to be as WP:NPOV as possible and pointing out the flaws of Wikipedia and there unwillingness to change/modify/enforce NPOV articles. I also would like to thank all the users in the Cuba Talk page (34) that also proved that a neutral-point-of-view will never be allowed and there sole purpose on Wikipedia is to troll and disrupts its goal of a WP:NPOV abritration and the authorities of Wikipedia have 1) been un-productive 2) refuse to get involved or 3) simply ignore it because its easier.

I am sure that this article will also get me a pretty good grade for my political science course since this assignment was to get inside the inner-workings of Wikipedia and get a conclusion of its neutrality statements they impose on there website and Jimbo Wales has claimed.

An exceptional congrats to Sdedeo (32) for his attemp in providing a NPOV mediated article even though it was un-productive at the end because the infiltration of saboteur’s to undermine the goal of Wikipedia and the NPOV status of the Cuba article (47). See his attempts here (7) and here (5).

Scott Grayban
Chief Editor

Sources:
1. Columbia University Study on Cuba’s democracy (44)
1.1 Study on Cuba’s slow growth to democracy (28)
1.2 US Government’s own statement that Cuba is on the way to Democracy (16)

2.) Further proof that POV will be enforced even when dealing with people who are determined to make an article conform to their ideological proconceptions, it is necessary to adopt robust tactics. (34) – Stated by Adam Carr (56) and in that same section he states, “I was asked to review this article, which I had not previously seen, because BruceHallman and Scott Greyban(spelled wrong, its Grayban) were running it as their own private Fidel Castro fan page.” However, looking at the history of that article and talkpage I came into it well after he had dominating control over it. And his accusations of Bruce and me as some sort of Fidel supporter’s is absolutely incorrect and baseless and violates [[WP:CIVIL]] (36). And yet the so-called admin at Wikipedia allow such conduct by its member’s show’s clear refusal to enforce any standards of a encyclopedia after many repeats of the slander on the talk page, 6 times by my count.

In defense of the claims I am some sort of Fidel supporter or communist, I served in the United States Military (3) for 20 years and have 14 ribbons and 3 citations (8). And find the actions of Adam and 172 totally as a personal attack on my character as a veteran and American that supports freedom in every sense of that word.

Saboteur:
Meaning #1: someone who commits sabotage or deliberately causes wrecks

Personal note: I am debating in filling a lawsuit against Wikipedia and this Adam Carr for allowing such personal attack’s to continue when the goal is it ruin a person’s reputation which are slanderous and liable. Something that Wikipedia is used to already.


Update!! – 2006-04-18 13:23:18 PDT
Although I’m not even working on the Cuba article Adam Carr still seems to think that slandering me is still acceptable. See this (34). How arrogant can this person be? Maybe a stupid one to say such things without anything to back them? Little does he know…… tiny minds must live in tiny worlds and come to Wikipedia to express there tiny intelligence by talking big and slandering reputations. Oh Mr. Carr you are so wrong. I intend to sue your gay ass and make sure the Australian Parlament knows your evil actions of insulting a Military Service member and his service to protect freedoms.

All Content Copyright © 1998-2011 Scott Grayban | All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Get cheap web hosting at BORGNET dot NET (107) plans start @ $25.00/month
Make a small loan of $25, Make a big difference – Kiva.org (156)
Remote Area Medical® (RAM) (146) Pioneers of No-Cost Health Care

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

ESN Copyright:
© 1999-2014 Scott Grayban - All Rights Reserved

Share: Social bookmarking
del.icio.us:Wikipedia IS fiction · digg:Wikipedia IS fiction · spurl:Wikipedia IS fiction · wists:Wikipedia IS fiction · simpy:Wikipedia IS fiction · newsvine:Wikipedia IS fiction · blinklist:Wikipedia IS fiction · furl:Wikipedia IS fiction · reddit:Wikipedia IS fiction · fark:Wikipedia IS fiction · blogmarks:Wikipedia IS fiction · Y!:Wikipedia IS fiction · smarking:Wikipedia IS fiction · magnolia:Wikipedia IS fiction · segnalo:Wikipedia IS fiction · twitter:Wikipedia IS fiction
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments Off | Trackback Disabled | Email This Page Email This Page | Print This Page Print This Page
  • META

  • Latest Tweets

  • Terrorist Attacks

  • Polls

    How important is our security against Islamic radicals in the US?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...
  • Blogroll

  • Family / Pets

  • Islam

  • Site Mirrors

  • Webhosting

  • wishlists

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Tag cloud