List of Websites Critical of Wikipedia Options

[Selina]

Criticism of Wikipedia is often relegated to outside the system itself, due to the possibility of censorship or banning if an administrator decides they don't like what you say. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
There's plenty of fluff hyping Wikipedia on Wikipedia itself so there's no need to include sites dedicated to praising Wikipedia (if there is such a thing), however Wikipedia does have some positive points and well-written articles get included.

Here's some so far:

The Guardian: Can You Trust Wikipedia?
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/s...1599325,00.html

The Register: Who owns your Wikipedia bio?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/
Article criticial of Wikipedia.
"It's also like playing a game in the sense that playing it has no consequences. If something goes wrong, you just restart. No problem!" -Jimbo Wales on Wikipedia
"Wikipedia as a massively scalable, online role-playing game, or RPG. Players can assume fictional online identities - and many "editors" do just that. And drive-by shootings are common."

The Register: Wikipedia: magic, monkeys and typewriters
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/24/wikipedia_letters/
Mostly letters from previous Wikipedians who decided to stop editing.
"At first I thought Wikipedia was a great idea and started writing about the subjects I know with an academic take on them. [...] In the end I couldn't recognise my articles after about a week, and a few months later there was nothing left of them, having sufferd zillions of re-edits, irrelevant sentence adding and re-writes due to NPOV actually meaning MPOVNSE -my point of view, not someone elses. [...] I just gave up and let the idiots who THOUGHT they knew something about the subject or those with a vested interest in making things look good take the helm."

Why Wikipedia sucks. Big time.
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillin.../06/000623.html

Why Wikipedia Must Jettison It's Anti-Elitism
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25
Article by Larry Sanger, co-founder (along with Jimbo Wales) of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Watch
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
Mostly concerned with Wikipedia privacy issues. From Daniel Brandt, also the owner of the Google Watch website. He raises an interesting question: Who should be sued for a defamatory Wikipedia article?

A Criticism of Wikipedia
http://www.kapitalism.net/thoughts/wikipedia.htm
Well-written article discussing the problems with Wikipedia. Lots of good points. Author claims to have been subjected to Denial-of-Service attacks by the 'Wikipedia cabal' after publishing it on his website.

WikiWatch
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm
Blog. Updated frequently. Good general criticism of Wikipedia, but also gets into the nitty-gritty of it (i.e. discusses specific articles). The author is a librarian.

Swastikipedia, by Jason Scott
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000100.html
Article focusing on the unreliability of Wikipedia

Wikipedia and the Future of Social Computing, by Ross Mayfield
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25
A paraphrase of a speech by Jimbo Wales, pro-Wikipedia stance but accepting that he is the unelected "constitutional monarch" of Wikipedia.
Has some interesting comments.

http://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=958
"The present generation of bloggers seems to imagine that such crassly egotistical behavior is socially acceptable and that time-honored editorial and filtering functions have no place in cyberspace. Undoubtedly, these are the same individuals who believe that the free-for-all, communitarian approach of Wikipedia is the way forward. Librarians, of course, know better."

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm#Byrne2
"In general, Wikipedia is a game. Nobody making policy decisions is getting their knowledge of the Iraq War, stem cells or Social Security from Wikipedia, so in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what Wikipedia says. But when they start writing biographies of living individuals, that can have real-world consequences on a person's life. It's not a game to those people."

CNet's review:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Wikipedia/4505-3642_7-31563879.html

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcont...y_20051205.html
"Wikipedia should not be cited in the media nor anywhere for support because it is no different than quoting various anonymous sources who have no knowledge of the topic or who have fibs to spread about the topic."

[Donny]

Wiki-fiddler, wiki wanker and pediaphile are derisory terms for Wikipedia editors invented by journalist Andrew Orlowski of the online IT newspaper The Register{{ref|big_book}}.

Orlowski has written several generally hostile articles about Wikipedia in the online IT newspaper The Register. In these articles, Orlowski called Wikipedia editors "wiki-fiddlers"{{ref|big_book}}, or "wiki wankers", and "pediaphiles", perhaps a pun on pedophiles. Supposed characteristics of a Wiki-Fiddler include

1. making pointless edits, such as adding commas, merely in order to increase edit counts, and move up the "hierarchy" of Wikipedia,

2. Although the project has no shortage of volunteers, most add nothing: busying themselves with edits that simply add or takeaway a comma. These are housekeeping tasks that build up credits for the participants, so they can rise higher in the organization.

   {{ref|quality_problems}}
3. having little expertise,
4. driving out people with actual knowledge of a topic,

5. We increasingly hear of experts who attempt to contribute to the project being repelled. If you're an expert, and you want to help Wikipedia, be prepared for months of fighting - usually with people who don't know what they're talking about.

   {{ref|monkeys_and_typewriters}}
6. adding irrelevant material to articles,
7. being a

   small coterie of self-selecting wiki fiddlers'

   {{ref|big_book}},
8. youth. Wiki-Fiddlers are described as being "children" and "spotty teenagers". Wikipedia is described as the "children's encyclopedia".

Wiki-fiddlers are also accused of misrepresenting subjects by populating Wikipedia with minor trivia rather than central facts. Orlowski points out, in particular, Wikipedia's entry on Buckminster Fuller and its focus on Eric Drexler:

''For example, if you consult the world's most useless online text, the captive Wikipedia, you'll see Fuller's entry is a plug for Eric "AI" Drexler.''{{ref|buckminster_fuller}}

and the lack of an article on Mary Midgley:

''Needless to say, there's no entry for Mary Midgley''{{ref|big_book}}

Five hours after this article was published, an entry in Wikipedia for Mary Midgley was created.

The consensus building process of Wikipedia is also ridiculed. Orlowski describes Wikipedia in terms of "monkeys trying to type Shakespeare" and quotes a statement

''a source whose organizing principle appears to be that twenty jackasses make an expert.''{{ref|not_linux}}

To support his case, Orlowski also quotes from articles{{ref|faith_based}} by McHenry Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in which McHenry describes the gradual degeneration of an article on Alexander Hamilton during a process of multiple edits:

''In fact, the earlier versions of the article are better written overall, with fewer murky passages and sophomoric summaries. Contrary to the faith, the article has, in fact, been edited into mediocrity.''

and by Nicholas G. Carr{{ref|amorality_web_2.0}} in which Carr quotes from the Jane Fonda and Bill Gates pages of Wikipedia. The response of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is also described.{{ref|quality_problems}}

''Excellent article! Well balanced and thoughtful! Ok, well, entertaining anyway.''

According to the results of Google searches{{ref|google_wiki-fiddler}}, Orlowski's term ''wiki-fiddler'' has not achieved widespread currency beyond its originator. However, it has been adopted in other ''The Register'' articles{{ref|wikipedia_growth}}.

Orlowski has also commented on problems with self-edited biographies on Wikipedia{{ref|who_owns_bio}}. Beginning with the cases of John Seigenthaler Sr., falsely labelled a Kennedy assassin in a Wikipedia article, and Jens Stoltenberg, similarly falsely labelled a paedophile in a Wikipedia article, he goes on to contrast the experiences of three people who tried to edit their own biographical articles, Daniel Brandt, Jimmy Wales and Cory Doctorow, and demonstrates that Wikipedia is inconsistent in allowing or denying users the right to edit biographies of themselves. He quotes Daniel Brandt on the inconsistent application of the Wikipedia rules:

''All the rules are cancelled if they like you, and all the rules are enforced up the hilt if they hate you.''

and_suggests

''Trying to massage one's reputation out on the toxic wastelands of the web can go one of two ways. If the attempt is successful, it leaves you looking as foolish and vain as Doctorow. If unsuccessful, it guarantees an energy-sapping defeat.''

Orlowski went on to find fault with Wikipedia for failing to help track down the defamer of Siegenthaler{{ref|moral_responsibility}} entitled "There's no Wikipedia entry for moral responsibility". A Wikipedia article on moral responsibility was created shortly afterwards.

He also critically reviewed a favourable article in the science journal Nature on Wikipedia{{ref|science_comparison}} and claimed in another article that Wikipedia's article on paedophiles is

''perhaps rather more sympathetic than an average parent or judge might be to this predilection''{{ref|ten_million}}

External links

[*]Andrew Orlowski's personal website

References/External links

• {{note|antiwarslogan}} Andrew Orlowski, Anti-war slogan coined, repurposed and Googlewashed in 42 days, The Register, 3rd April 2003.
• {{note|orlowski_faq}} Andrew Orlowski's FAQ
• {{note|six_things_about_bubble}} Andrew Orlowski, Six Things you need to know about Bubble 2.0, The Register, 7th October 2005.
• {{note|big_book}} Andrew Orlowski, Wiki-fiddlers defend Clever Big Book, The Register, 23 July 2004.
• {{note|not_linux}} Andrew Orlowski, Why Wikipedia isn't like Linux, The Register, 27 October 2005
• {{note|quality_problems}} Andrew Orlowski, Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems, The Register, 18 October 2005
• {{note|buckminster_fuller}} Andrew Orlowski, Buckminster Fuller on stamp duty, The Register, 14 July 2004
• {{note|monkeys_and_typewriters}} Andrew Orlowski, Wikipedia: magic, monkeys and typewriters, The Register, 24 October 2005
• {{note|amorality_web_2.0}} Nicholas G. Carr, The amorality of Web 2.0
• {{note|wikipedia_weakness}} George Haff, More Wikipedia Weakness, 20 September 2005
• {{note|faith_based}} Robert McHenry, The Faith-Based Encyclopedia, Tech Central Station, 15 November 2004
• {{note|universities_obsolete}} Andrew Orlowski, Wikipedia 'to make universities obsolete', The Register, 07 September 2004.
• {{note|emergent_people}} Andrew Orlowski, Wikipedia's Emergent People fail to impress readers, The Register, 15 September 2004.
• {{note|google_wikifiddler}} User:Jeremygbyrne/Wiki-fiddler
• {{note|wikipedia_growth}} Gavin Clarke, Wikipedia eclipses CIA, The Register, 7th September 2005
• {{note|who_owns_bio}} Andrew Orlowski, Who owns your Wikipedia bio?, The Register, 6th December_2005 $
• {{note|moral_responsibility}} Andrew Orlowski, There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility', The Register, 12th December 2005
• {{note|science_comparison}} Andrew Orlowski, Wikipedia science 31% more cronky than Britannica's, The Register, 16th December 2005
• {{note|ten_million}} Andrew Orlowski, 10m for a Wikipedia for grown-ups, The Register, 19th December 2005