Again I wish to emphasize that my drawing of the distinction between Wikipediots as a species and Wikipedians as a genus is carefully considered, is charitable to all those who may be deserving of human charity, and does not condemn whole cloth all who participate in Wikipedia, not even the Anglish contingent thereof.

Indeed, I can even cite notable cases of Generic Encyclopedes who act like specious Wikipediots only under circus-scribed conditions, like when they don the mantles of their ArbClonic Irresponsibilities.

It may help to think of the slim rude line between Wikipedians and Wikipediots in the following way:

It is very like the distinction between a Grasshopper and a Locust, really the same critter, but when a critical mass of them find themselves assembles under conditions of grass root insufficiency and thermone hyperstimulation, they sic transit gloriously mundanely over some sort of critical threshold, grow thick, horny carapaces, and act altogether like transformed creatures, Asininely Metamorphosed and not in any kind of Golden Ruly manner.

Really, they can’t help themselves, they are the victims of biochemical factors beyond their own control.

There are certain people, like my self and Mr. Awbrey here, who are so committed to an anti-WP stance that we find it difficult to use the word “Wikipedian,” simply because it implies a false respectability. It’s also a reaction to the near-obsessive use of the word “troll” by those being referred to. Meanwhile, I myself like to use “WP’er” because it’s a bit more value-neutral, but “Wikipediot” is actually in wider usage.

I’ve also seen “Wikipudlians,” “Wikipoopians,” “Wikiwankers,” “Wikipedophiles,” and “Wickedpedians,” just to name a few of my personal favorites… Anyway, dismissing an argument based on the use of a common epithet is somewhat disingenuous, possibly even a complete cop-out.

Of course, this is all just my two centavos.

Just because I wear sunglasses doesn’t mean I’m blind.

Usage Note —

The term “Wikipediot” is already e-scounced in The Urbane Dictionary (TUD) as a synonym for Wikipedian True Believer, to it, or not, one whose critical faculties are not entirely intact.

The use of the term “Wikipediot” therefore, is intended as an act of charity in that it does not chastis/ze all “Wikipedians”, a term that may then be used to refer without prejudice to anyone who edits or perhaps but avidly reads Wikipedia.

Though, of course, we all reconis/ze the dangers inherent in that.

Of course, the argument totally lost its punch with the second half. Jon Awbrey did what he does best - he just blindly attacks Wikipedia and its users as usual - how can one possibly have his arguments be taken seriously (”scholar”) when he refers to Wikipedians as “Wikipediots”?