Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Highlighted for Posterity _ The Six Sins of the Wikipedia

Posted by: Google News

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0-0&fd=R&url=http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp%3FID%3D1911%26cid%3D1%26sid%3D19&cid=0&ei=Y1-fRND6M4fyoQKvo-noDQ
Global Politician, NY - 41 minutes ago
It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and implodes. It poses such low barriers to entry (anyone can edit ...

Posted by: Google News

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0i-0&fd=R&url=http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp%3FarticleID%3D11109&cid=0&ei=0uOnRNDeCoX2owKw6-ygCQhttp://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0-0&fd=R&url=http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp%3FarticleID%3D11109&cid=0&ei=0uOnRNDeCoX2owKw6-ygCQ
American Chronicle, CA - 1 hour ago
... to the Government of Macedonia. It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and implodes. It poses such low barriers ...

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE

Finally, my name as well as references to my work were removed from a few articles (for instance, from the entries about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Narcissism (Psychology)). At least one of the "editors" who were responsible for what appears to be a vindictive act ("Danny") claims to be somehow associated with the Wikimedia's grants commission.

Sure enough, simply removed. No explanation given in the first case, and possibly even libelous edit summary in the second:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=60920641&oldid=60811747
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissism_%28psychology%29&diff=61035508&oldid=61035302

I wonder if the recent discussion here that centered on narcissism led them to suspect that Vaknin and Hushthis are the same person? (Or even Vaknin and myself?) It's completely absurd on the face of it, but for some people, writing that uses a lot of academic/intellectual terminology (or if you prefer, "psychobabble") tends to look pretty much the same -- especially if they don't actually read it, or even try. And we're all painfully aware of their (apparently incurable) world-size problem.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

There's a longer history behind the Sam Vaknin story:

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:VXIG3j5UogwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vaknin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Vaknin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samvak

"Danny" is Danny Wool. It's not surprising that Wool went around deleting stuff once Sam Vaknin's case was brought to the attention of Brad Patrick, as indicated in Vaknin's article.

Vaknin is one more person who is ticked off at Wikipedia. But unlike some who get ticked off, he has years of experience with Wikipedia and knows how it works. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11109 is a rather good summary of what's wrong with Wikipedia.

Posted by: guy

How on earth did he get his article deleted? He's notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia bio.

Posted by: Newsvine

From the page:

http://irma.newsvine.com/_news/2006/07/02/275792-the-six-sins-of-the-wikipedia

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE

How on earth did he get his article deleted? He's notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia bio.

It must be the WP:SCREW_THE_OUTSIDER policy.

1) If they don't like the semi-notable outsider, and the outsider wants his bio, then delete the bio.

2) If they don't like the semi-notable outsider, and the outsider wants his bio deleted, then keep the bio.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 2nd July 2006, 8:41pm)

Vaknin is one more person who is ticked off at Wikipedia. But unlike some who get ticked off, he has years of experience with Wikipedia and knows how it works. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11109 is a rather good summary of what's wrong with Wikipedia.

Agreed. And the proliferation of such articles, combined with more scandals of the Adam Carr variety, spell the end of Wikipedia as we knew it.

Posted by: Google News

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0-0&fd=R&url=http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060703WikipediaIsSatan.html&cid=0&ei=NY-pRJKtDYeSogLp6P0X
WebProNews, KY - 1 hour ago
Wikipedia doesn't like Sam Vaknin, and the feelings are mutual. ... The editors at Wikipedia decided to eradicate Vaknin (who's that again? ...

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Google News @ Mon 3rd July 2006, 9:40pm)

Perhaps Vaknin ought to receive an invitation from the Review. I also note with satisfaction that "Wikipedia cabal" has entered the public lexicon, along with "Wikipedia Hive-mind."

Posted by: Newsvine

From the page:

http://irma.newsvine.com/_news/1901/12/13/275792-the-six-sins-of-the-wikipedia

Posted by: Google News

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0-0&fd=R&url=http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/20049.html&cid=0&ei=t8tURfyAOcySHaHs4cwM
The Conservative Voice, NC - 43 minutes ago
It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and implodes. It poses such low barriers to entry (anyone can edit ...

Posted by: LamontStormstar

This is really good Also their

[

QUOTE

]Lacking quality control by design, the Wikipedia rewards quantity. The more one posts and interacts with others, the higher one's status, both informal and official. In the Wikipedia planet, authority is a function of the number of edits, no matter how frivolous. The more aggressive (even violent) a member is; the more prone to flame, bully, and harass; the more inclined to form coalitions with like-minded trolls; the less of a life he or she has outside the Wikipedia, the more they are likely to end up being administrators.
[

]

What they said. I notice on Wikipedia, accounts with few edits are bullied by all the admins.

Posted by: guy

Only six sins? They need our friendly statistician to check their arithmetic.

Posted by: Somey

This one actually came in already, way back in June:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2258&view=findpost&p=11946

And it already got moved into the "Highlighted for Posterity" subforum. I'm not sure why the Conservative Voice waited so long to post it - maybe they're all on vacation this month?

I'll probably move these posts in there too, and merge them, in a few days. Don't let me forget!

Posted by: Poetlister

QUOTE(guy @ Fri 10th November 2006, 10:49pm)

Only six sins? They need our friendly statistician to check their arithmetic.

I think they mean six types of sin, not six acts of sinning. Cf the Seven Deadly Sins.