List of Websites Critical of Wikipedia Options

[rockyBarton]

It seems to me tha the issue is not with the staff who run Wikipedia but the gaming that people are doing to the system. I don't see how a staff of what? 9 people, can possibly keep up after all of the people with obsessions. Who can keep up with people who spend a dozen hours a day on wikipedia. At some point people with an agenda just win a war of attrition. So long as Wikipedia relies on vollunteers to manage things, it will always be regarded as unreliable.

Here is an example of an agenda driven editor (Cirt) wikilawyering another editor into submission:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_...gious_movements

Amish
Why is a church that was founded in 1693 listed as a "new" religious movement? I can't see why the Amish church is on here? After over 300 years, doesn't it stop being "new"? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Described as such in The Encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the source. But doesn't common sense come into play at some point? Just because a single author calls it "new", is if forever new? Compared to Judaism, yes, it's new. Compared to a lot of the religions on this list, it's not. Take it a step further. 50 years from now, that book will still exist and still call it new. Will it still be new? (yes, I know it is a 1998 book, that's not the point). At some point, we have to use our common sense. The other part of the question is, since I don't have to book in front of me, I have to rely on someone else.....Did the book actually call them a new religion? The title is cults, sects and new religions. Amish would certainly be considered a sect. That wouldn't mean that the author called them a cult or a new religion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought of the Amish as kind of old. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of the point. The sect is over 300 years old. But some author may have called them now, so we throw common sense out the window and put him on this list. Most people wouldn't call an organization that is over 300 years old "new". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We should stick to WP:RS and WP:V, and avoid making up our own POV interpretations of what is or is not a "new religious movement". Best to stick to what is said on the matter by scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question edits on average 19 hours a day with a strong anti-cult obsession/agenda. They were banned 7 times for edit warring on related topics and were still made an admin.

Wether one agrees with these kind of editors agenda's or not, it can't be denied that they are bad for wikipeida.

[Trick cyclist]

Wether one agrees with these kind of editors agenda's or not, it can't be denied that they are bad for wikipeida.

Cirt made a magnificent edit to my talk page once:

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=...2&oldid=1051337

Cirt (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers! Cirt (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am just so lovable that people leave me messages like that. My girlfriend thinks so.

[NotARepublican55]

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Pub.../awp_index.html

[Jon Awbrey]

John Schmidt : Collaborative Learning

Incidentally, it seems to me that we could stand to have a somewhat better-organized listing of these sites, maybe along the lines of a Blogroll format, with just the links.

Jon Awbrey

[JeffB]

Thought I'd throw in a link Wikipedia and church discipline.

[MC10]

Thought I'd throw in a link Wikipedia and church discipline.

Wikipedia = church? Odd portrayal of Wikipedia, but oh well...

[Moulton]

It's not odd, as there is something in common between cults and religions.

Both are examples of belief systems and derivative practices adopted on faith, without the benefit of scientific analysis, evidence, or reasoning. Then again, the Scientific Method is also an instance of a belief system and derivative practices.

For that matter, belief in the Rule of Law (and derivative law enforcement practices) is also an instance of a cultural system adopted on faith, without the benefit of scientific analysis, evidence, or reasoning.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Tue 15th June 2010, 10:12am

[danielaword]

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.
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."

: YUP, THANX4THE INFO, GREAT STUFF, WIKIPEDIA-WATCH.ORG,
WIKISPOSURE.COM YOU CAN SUPPORT THEM BY SENDING DONATIONS TO:
Perverted Justice Foundation (Support)
703 Pier Ave. Suite B #154
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
: TIME TO STOP WIKIPEDIA SICK PORN!

[danielaword]

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.
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."

EVEN THOUGH ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA IS UGLY, EDPEDOS HAVE LESS PEDOS THAN PATHETICWIKIPEDIA'S WIKIPEEDIA'S WIKIPEDOS, SAD!

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.
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."

EVEN THOUGH ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA IS UGLY, EDPEDOS HAVE LESS PEDOS THAN PATHETICWIKIPEDIA'S WIKIPEEDIA'S WIKIPEDOS, SAD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=302022861
pedo cant edit jewbo allows it, goes to show you how wikipedia is low!

[Milton Roe]

Why Wikipedia Must Jettison It's Anti-Elitism

Gets points for being self-referential, at least. The original Sanger article didn't have the apostrophe. Needless to say, it needs fixing.

[Moulton]

List of English-language Knols about Wikipedia

(Sorted by Pageviews, as of 26 Nov 2009)

[danielaword]

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.
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."

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Goodbye its shame they had to go but i saved important pages, they had wikitruth on these no good wikipedoidiots!

[Globule]

http://www.wikibuster.org in French
See also its project http://www.wikibuster.org/index.php?title=...site_alternatif

[Michaeldsuarez]

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?

wikipedia-watch.org appears to be down.