User:Krixano

Hello! I am a Theology graduate, and I love studying LGBTQ+ Theology and Jewish Theology. I also minored in Computer Science.

After spending time reading what happened to User talk:Clarawood123 in various places, including here and here, I have decided that Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia as none of the editors care even remotely about accuracy, and I have decided that admin abuse and toxicity, the stonewalling, and @User:jytdog's carelessness about the WP:3RR guideline, and @User:Bbb23's uncalled for guilty until proven innocent approach to Clarawood's situation during the "sockpuppet" investigation, as well as how much support jytdog received tells me that I do not belong anywhere near this place, and I will be continuing to warn everyone against using Wikipedia and towards using something reputable, like Britannica Encyclopedia, which has better articles in general, and many that are free.

Frankly, Wikipedia's culture based on what I have read is that of a full-blown internet cult. No thanks, I'm out.

P.S. In support of Clarawood123, because what the mods and other editors did to them was completely uncalled for, I'm sharing their original Clarawood page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarawood&oldid=714622457

Examples of Abuse by the Cult Mob

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User talk:Montanabw&oldid=718559870

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User talk:Irene000&diff=prev&oldid=719813469

Talk:Swami_Premananda_(guru)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=807788285#Soaringbear_needs_a_timeout

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_227#Arbitrary_break

My Experience with Wikipedia So Far

Midsize Jake over at wikipediocracy wrote the following:

It's the way you're framing the issue. Who are the "many people" - other Wikipedians? People who are already fully inculcated into the system, including many of our own forum members? That's a loss of perspective right there, but it's understandable because Wikipedia zealously discourages attempts by its users to maintain non-internal perspectives; it's practically written into the rules.

More importantly, "shitty advocacy-driven content" is hardly the only deficient content people try to insert into Wikipedia; it's just one category (or maybe two categories) in a very large bestiary. Maybe you're focusing on it because it happens to bother you more than it bothers others? This is a big part of what makes you a desirable participant from the system's perspective, but I guess the question for you is, how do you convince people that your behavior is entirely (or primarily) based on wanting to "improve the content" as opposed to satisfying some sort of perverse need to engage in online fighting within a pseudo-scholastic context? And are you ever bothered by the notion that the system treats your content-dispute opponents as being just as desirable, participation-wise, as you?

My point would simply be that Wikipedia, far from helping you convince others that your motives are altruistic, provides no help at all because structurally, its entire existence depends on people having motives that are based on a perverse need to engage in conflict. Who the enemies are isn't the "structural problem" any more than scary wild animals or biting insects are the essential problem of walking through the jungle; as far as the jungle is concerned, they're just part of the environment. You have to ask yourself, if you're walking through the jungle shooting at anything that moves and spraying insecticide everywhere you go, are you good for that environment, and do you really belong in it?

But since that's an analogy for Wikipedia, it seems jarring and wrong somehow - because when you walked into the jungle you thought you were walking into something else, due to the fact that the sign said something like, "This way to the Museum of Nice Things." But once you realize that's not what it is, you're too addicted to what you're getting from the system to leave.

My experience is perfectly consistent with this. Wikipedia is structured like a cult. It has no real judiciary process to wrestle with disputes in a way that brings the correct outcomes and a sense of justice. Rather disputes are handled as a popularity contest, and much like cults, there are unspoken rules that new users are expected to absorb over time, and anyone who dares disagree with an admin will see the whole mob run them over. It takes a guilty-until-proven innocent approach, and new users are condescended and "hazed" as a way of inspiring compliance and reducing individual identity. This is certainly not a new criticism, as Wikipedia has been described as collectivist before, as mentioned in the Criticism of Wikipedia page. I go farther - Wikipedia is not just collectivist, it's a cult, and it was structured that way deliberately because it keeps people in the ecosystem and working. But like all cults, the community devolves into toxicity and frequently pushes away outsiders.

P.S. This essay on clueocracy is untrue and complete BS.