How the Wikipedia Did Come to be Bad. An Essay by Stargoat
(1) Once upon a time, a man named Jimbo did create a website where the knowledge of the world might be stored. This website was called the Wikipedia and it was good.
(2) Many were the people who did come and they added vibrant knowledge to the Wikipedia. Most of the knowledge was useful. Some was not. The information was stored haphazardly and there was great inconsistency. But the information was there and it was good.
(3) Those who call themselves journalists did gaze upon the Wikipedia and mocked it. They stated that the Wikipedia could never work, for who would contribute? All could alter it. And information that was incorrect was placed upon it.
(4) And following the journalists and among the journalists were trolls, who did put incorrect information in the Wikipedia.
(5) But behold, for the many people who did come outnumbered the trolls who placed incorrect information on the Wikipedia. The incorrect information was usually found and replaced. And the Wikipedia did flourish and many more people did come to read and add vibrant information to the Wikipedia. And it was good.
(6) Then, some journalists decided that Wikipedia was a creditable source for news and when they came across incorrect information, they did complain and moan and carry on. But the people were learned enough to sift through the vibrant knowledge. As such, the people did not care for credibility, for Wikipedia was good and much information was stored, though haphazardly.
(7) But alas, certain cliques of editors of the Wikipedia did claim the title of Administrator. And certain cliques of Administrators did not trust the people's ability to distinguish between correct and incorrect information, though the people were learned.
(8) And the certain cliques of Administrators did remove the haphazard information. They justified their initial restraints on information vibrancy by claiming copyright violations. And with some gain of power, like all petty fool-tyrants, the Administrators lusted. By taking more power, they destroyed what was the Wikipedia. The Old Wikipedia was dead and the New Wikipedia took its place.
(9) The New Wikipedia was more difficult to edit. Many were the tags that were placed and these tags hung heavy on the articles and upon the people who did edit and create articles. The New Wikipedia took the information from the old Wikipedia, which was good, and attached needless and counterproductive rules, which is bad. And the people did look upon the information and indeed some could not tell a difference.
(10) But those who had added information saw it tagged for content violations and for notability and for references. The people who added information sighed and did say, "This sucks." Then they did stop adding vibrant knowledge and the Wikipedia did not grow as before.
(11) Thus endth the beginning of the story of the Wikipedia, which did start good, but became bad.
Short Brag List:
Chicago Great Western Railway
Good old boys
Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter
Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction
Union Station (Chicago)
United States Customs Service
Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence
History of Cambodia
Mutual Assured Destruction
Sword edge and sharpening