Wikipedia

From Metapedia

Revision as of 19:37, 22 November 2008

Wikipedia is an online, multilingual, web-based, 'free' content encyclopedia project founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001. It was the largest encyclopedia till recently available on the Internet - except the new independent Chinese Wiki "Baidu-Baike" (White-Cyclopedia): now with 1 100 000 articles, half-billion users, and its fastest increasing on internet. Wikipedia tends to have edits of a liberal-leftist position designed to brainwash a younger generation.

As of September, 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 8.2 million articles in 253 languages. The English Wikipedia edition passed the 2,000,000 article mark on September 9, 2007 with a total of over 609 million words, roughly fifteen times as many as the largest edition of Encyclopædia Britannica. But its formal primate now is heavily competed by the accelerated giant Chinese "Baidu-Baike", because from early 2007 Wikipedia's growth is gradually slowered, and now the increasing of this Chinese 'White-Cyclopedia' on the internet is triply faster than Wikipedia's growth. Wikipedia's articles have been written collaboratively around the (Euro-American) world, and formally can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet (but then are strongly censured from its ideological administration). Wikipedia's name is a portmanteau from Hawaiian word wiki (a type of collaborative website) and Greek enkyklo-paideia. Its main servers are in Tampa, Florida, with additional servers located in Amsterdam and Seoul.

Recent crisis

From its establishing in 2001 up to 2004, in its early rather progressive time, Wikipedia appeared to be a promissive multilingual project of the open free encyclopedia on internet, and its main problem then were the unregistered vandals. From 2005 till now it entered in another regressive phase of leftist domination, internal conflicts and increasing anarchy, where its main problem became an aggressive internal army of the ignorant liberal-leftist administrators now promoting: blocking all academic specialists, a false 'neutrality' but left ideological censure, bureaucratic demagogy and destructive hypocrisy, falsified blurring and elimination of taboo-topics by dominating clans and outvoting, and other dishonest deviations. Especially nations with weak democratic traditions, e.g. in Russia and Balkans, continuously misuse the "NPOV" slogan for persecuting users with other views, and from other nations. This all provoked the recent forkings of separated Chinese, Russian, Swedish, Philippine and other increasing wikis. Due to such trends E. Goldman, T. Claburn and others prognosticated Wikipedia's blocking and its complete disaster at the end of 2010, but recent events suggest this was even too optimistic. From spring 2007, Wikipedia's growth was slower, number of newer articles diminished, and also it entered in a major financial crisis partly patched by donations. Moreover from mid September 2007, the fanatic administrative erasors attacked just the main Wikipedia's leadership: Then within Wikipedia erupted so far the strongest collision of really neutral inclusionists and radical leftist 'erasors', suggesting its accelerating disaster in 2009 or even earlier - or at least an immediate forking of the main Wikipedia in two parallel English variants of the inclusionist' and left erasors' Wikipedias.

Wikipedian viewpoints

The next critical review of the ethics and sociology of 'Wikipedians' is founded on dozen similar texts accross the internet (cited down), completed by experiences in twenty Wikipedias on different European languages. The famous 'neutral' point of view (NPOV), i.e. an approximative centrist political position, was at least partly applied in early Wikipedia of 2001-2004. Then from 2005, there increased an evident internal aggression of liberal-leftists that so became now the majority of Wikipedian administrators, and so the subentire Wikipedia then shifted leftwards. Recently these ones gradually directed this initial 'NPOV' toward a real and majoritary LPOV i.e. Leftist Point of View, that now became a sacrosanct dogma of nearly all Wikipedias. Therefore many articles that disagreed with this leftist POV gradually were deformed and falsified; other articles on undesirable topics and persons by their organised and diriged upvotings (or without any confirmation) recently are widely erased and eliminated i.e. they became falsely 'unexisting' ones in such left-oriented Wikipedia. Actually at beginning of 2008, about a quarter of Wikipedian articles are yet evidently leftist, and also the rest ones are gradually in the way to became so; this increasing leftism is now especially evident in English, German, Russian, Croatian, and in some other Wikipedias.

Despotic leftist admins

For difference of other serious wiki-cyclopedias out of Wikipedia, the main Wikipedian writers are inexpert amateurs, ambitious dilettantes, failed students and eternal 'undergraduates'; the true academic experts there became rare and mostly blocked and eliminated by jealous incompetent administrators of liberal-leftist orientation. Instead of a serious education in collegial and constructive democracy of professional schools lead by excellent intellectuals and academic experts, these new fanaticized 'Wikipedians' are mostly formed by instant training of a passionate street demagogy in discussion forums lead by half-trained amateurs and controversial mediocrities. Their most aggressive administrators are some arrogant dilettantes violently imposing in Wikipedias their false leftist dogmas and primitive popcult prejudices. Of course, such incompetence of some dominating 'Wikipedians' and chiefly of leftist admins, resulted in a suspect quality and low verifiability in many Wikipedian texts. The average naive readers of Wikipedia accept them as the largest free database on internet (as it was in start), but now it is converted to a true leftist 'Bible' for brainwashing the public views toward the imposed left-liberalist dogmas.

Maximal three edits in 24 hours rule

Wikipedia administrators work with a primitive, but very effective rule. An editor is allowed to edit an article maximal 3 times in 24 hours consecutively. Lefitst administrators work typically in groups, while nationally minded editors work as individuals. The rule is based on that. How does this work?

• Editor edits an article
• Leftist editor #1 reverses (with brazen commentary)
• Editor re-edits the above article
• Leftist editor #1 reverses (with brazen commentary)
• Editor edits the above article
• Leftist editor #2 reverses (with brazen commentary)
• If Editor now tries to re-edit, he will be locked for at least 24 hours as a "punishment"

With the above method articles, typically handling Jews, Holocau$t, Communist and similar subjects are unchangeable for normal editors; leftist editors make them unmodifiable.

Juristic part

If an editor feels, he is handled incorrectly, he can start a kind of juristic process. That sounds very correct and "democratic". How does that look in reality?

• To enter a new proces is a horror. They modify the procedure to enter a new process frequently enough to discourage normal editors to do that.
• Judges are for example 16 year old editors from Singapore, or similarly experienced persons.
• Judges typically convict non leftist persons, and do not convict leftist editors, no matter, what they did.
• Process writings are deleted as leftist admins please. Only processes, that they liked, remain filed, others are immediately deleted without a chance to recreate them.

For example, in the English wikipedia they convicted editors because they wrote the original German names of villages onto maps and into articles: [1]

Forbidden names, disabled links

Wikipedia allows leftist administrators to forbid certain titles. For example, they forbid titles like "Jewish World Conspiration" and the like. It also allows to forbid links to certain web pages, leftist do not like. For example stormfront or jewwatch are such pages.

Wikipedia's incompetence

• Each literate intellectual can easily control Wikipedia's incompetence, by testing texts on next 3 topics well known to him: on his narrow homeland, on proper language and of his special job. This Wikipedia's test is often bad: 1/4 or more texts are false or stupidly inverse - or with general uninforming phrases only.
• Britannica vs. Wikipedia: both are on subequal level only in easily copyable general topics - but in specialized details, Britannica has mostly acceptable or lacking data, and Wikipedia is often false in many details.
• Among compared European Wikipedias, the worst and most dogmatic (strong leftist & anti-elitist) are English and Russian Wikis; the best, most democratic and expertised are French and Bulgarian Wikis. The other wikis are mostly in-between. If any academic intellectual or expert in a matter tries to correct evident errors in Wikipedia, the most frequent result is that an ignorant or malicious leftist administrator will reject the correction and return text to its prior stupid form. Additionally, most new articles that are contributed by true experts are usually massacred, inverted, or eliminated by leftist admins. Conversely, ignorant or amateur can persist for years so long as they conform to the prevailing Wikipedian dogma. So, Wikipedia is now the largest dilettante collection of different deteriorated information in the entire human history, i.e. a Stupidarium maximum generis humanae!

The deadly danger of Wikipedia

As another clear and condensed criticism on the main Wikipedia's failures, we reproduce here the partial comment from "Urban Semiotic", The Deadly Danger of Wikipedia ...:

"Encouraging signs from the Wikipedia project, where co-founder and überpedian Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work. Criticism of the project from within the inner sanctum has been very rare so far, although fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, who is no longer associated with the project, pleaded with the management to improve its content by befriending, and not alienating, established sources of expertise. (i.e., people who know what they’re talking about.)

Meanwhile, criticism from outside the Wikipedia camp has been rebuffed with a ferocious blend of irrationality and vigor that’s almost unprecedented in our experience: if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, … passionate, you haven’t met a wiki-fiddler. For them, it’s a religious crusade. ...

... Especially since Wikipedia’s material is replicated endlessly on the web: it’s the first port of call for “sploggers” who create phoney sites, spam blogs, which created to promote their clients in Google. Wales was responding to author Nicholas Carr, who in a dazzling post on the transcendent New Age “hive-mind” rhetoric that envelops the “Web 2.0″ bubble, took time out to examine the quality of two entries picked at random: Bill Gates and Jane Fonda. He wasn’t impressed by what he saw. “This is garbage, an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids that adds up to something far less than the sum of its parts,” he wrote."

Experts on exiting Wikipedia

Below are the informative professional critics of some top-notch experts who have recently left en.Wikipedia (notes from their User sites):

• User:Bertrand_Meyer - "Please do not believe anything you see on Wikipedia articles. If you are tempted to, please try the following experiment for a few weeks: write on an important subject that you know and care about; write your best, making sure to apply the strictest standards of scholarship and objectivity. Don't spend too much time on it, but just do it right. Then wait a little. You'll understand". See also User_talk:Bertrand_Meyer, he said the core of the problem was the fear of self-promotion: " (...) Such is the fear of bias and self-promotion that people will shoot you down not for what you write but for who you are. While understandable, this fear leads to a gut-level anti-elitist attitude which I find regrettable."
• User:LPFR - "I stop any further collaboration with WP. It is worthless to write anything if any low-level knowledge and high-ego person will "correct" your writings. I think that WP is doomed to represent the "mean-street-knowledge" level. I was puzzled reading the scientific level of serious wikipedians (as project members). You seldom or never found University teachers or retired academic members. The best you found are engineers or thesis students. Of course, you do not need to be old or have academic titles to know things, but it helps. I now understand why there are so few university teachers and experienced people. Last edits in this article washed out my last wishes to be useful."
• User:Ste. Anne - "This is not (and likely never will be) an encyclopedia. It is more like the large filing cabinet stuffed with clippings, half finished projects, notes, the travel pamphlet collection, manuals for obsolete software and long discarded small appliances, and odd photos etc. that sits in my den and that I will sort through someday". Concludes with reference to (article|Discourse on holiness#Appreciation of the teachings|casting pearls before swine).

Totalitarian segregation

For impose its falsified 'neutral verity' (i.e. leftist dogmas) to readers, the deviating Wikipedia now applied the most extreme and dishonest totalitarian methods: blocking all other undesired viewpoints as false 'spam'. This new wiki-dogmatism is quite sufficient reason for the existence and use of other alternative wikis as Metapedia, Wikislavia, and new Stormwiki.

External links

• The main Wikipedia's portal
• Giant Chinese 'White-Cyclopedia' (Baidu-Baike)
• Uncyclopedia

Critical references

• Boles, David W. “The Deadly Danger of Wikipedia and Corrupt Community Research.” David W. Boles’ Urban Semiotic. 16 Mar. 2007 - 15 Nov. 2007 [2]
• Meta-Wikislavia: Despotic Wiki-juntos
• Wikislavia: Wikipedia's agony
• Judical Inc: Wikipedia - Unbiased Encyclopedia or a 'Jewish Tool'
• Wikipedia, a Techno-cult of Ignorance
• Wikinfo: Critical views of Wikipedia
• Conservapedia: About Wikipedia
• Conservapedia: Bias in Wikipedia
• Conservapedia: Ritual Defamation
• Eric Goldman: Wikipedia will fail within 5 years. 2005
• Eric Goldman: Wikipedia will fail in four years. 2006
• Thomas Claburn: Law professor predicts Wikipedia's demise. Information Week 2006
• Konrad Lischka: Wikipedia Gruender darf nicht mitschreiben. Der Spiegel 2007
• David Sarno: Wikipedia wars erupt. Los Angeles Times 2007
• Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé
• Wikipedia Bias list on Conservapedia.
• Wikipedian growth and disaster (in Russian): the most detailed criticism of Wikipedia so far
• Wikipedia criticism on David Duke's forum.
• Wikipedia on Race ‘World’s biggest encylopedia’ serves up propaganda.

Reference

• Original compilation with added commentary, after GNU-license from above listed references, and from prolonged critical insights in twenty European Wikipedias. The intoduction only of this article was a modified text from Wikipedia, and other subsequent paragraphs are combined from Wikinfo, Wikislavia, and listed references. This article is an original compilation available under GNU/GDFL.ru:Википедия

sib:Википеддя