Sun 22nd July 2007, 8:35pm
QUOTE(JohnA @ Mon 23rd July 2007, 6:37am)
How about the rest of you who don't speak fluent bullshit? What is wikiabuse for?
Purpose of Wikiabuse:
1. To outline all misuses of administrative priveleges by Wikipedia administrators to the point where people get unjustly banned, articles get altered, and generally assist in creating an inaccurate encyclopaedia in which fact is displayed as fiction, and fiction as fact.
2. To outline all administrator activities for analysis if required to the purpose of 1 above.
3. To highlight people who assist administrators covertly, as secondary accounts or acting on their behalf for the purpose of 1 above.
4. To highlight people who have been prevented from editing Wikipedia due to their intention to produce accurate information, especially with regards to people who were banned for being experts in their given field.
5. To highlight web sites and organisations that have demonstrated examples where Wikipedia has presented fact as fiction, fiction as fact, and so forth, that have not been permitted to be represented in Wikipedia.
I mean the whole reason why we are here is because we feel passionately that Wikipedia is presenting a false view of the world, and we are concerned about the damage that this may cause to teenagers today, who will end up as adults in the future and bring to us a world that has a distorted version of reality. This is primarily why we are all here, and why this web site exists. Some of us got banned while trying to push truth on Wikipedia, but we aren't here just to whinge about being banned. So what if you are banned? You can always create a second account and secretly edit if you really want to. It isn't a big deal that you get banned from somewhere. You can go somewhere else, start your own wiki, and so forth. The issue is that of truth.
It is true that "history is written by the winners" and hence all history is tainted, but in reviewing history we can account for this inherent bias. We know that most everything written from the roman era is false and historians have spent decades, or even centuries, trying to correct their version of fact in to something a bit more accurate. We know that this kind of thing continues to happen today, especially with regards to the world's most powerful countries (USA, Russia & China) and to a lesser extent countries like UK, Japan & Germany. But we can all account for this. It may be difficult to account for your own nation's alteration of truth if you live within that country (or in many ways it may be easy to do this) but you can get perhaps a more balanced account from outside of that nation.
But for historians now to have to deal with the adjustment of truth through Wikipedia is something that is increasingly becoming a reality. Wikipedia has already changed truth on many important issues. They write something and that is copied on to Google, which in turn is copied in to many other web sites, which are used as sources, for newspaper reports, books, and so forth. And whilst there still do exist many people who go to lengths to research something properly, how many people really care to look through it all to check these things?
It may only be 0.5% of articles on Wikipedia that are deliberately false. I have no idea of the numbers. I do know of at least a dozen, however, that are false not simply because of vandalism, but rather because of ownership of the articles that prevents the article from ever becoming accurate. A falsehood that eventually becomes known as truth. This is truly Wikipedia's greatest flaw. Who really cares about momentary vandalism, even the likes of what happened to Seigenthaler? What matters more is if for some reason people really believed that Seigenthaler was an assassin, if that became known as truth.
Wikiabuse may have had different aims to Wikipedia Review, but they can be linked in a lot of ways. Wikitruth has different aims too. But we are all critical of Wikipedia, and I think that we can help each other out.