Wikipedia talk:Why Wikipedia is not so great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 High  This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

The duality of man[edit]

  1. Why Wikipedia is so great
  2. Why Wikipedia is not so great

how things change --71.214.40.129 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Deletes Everything[edit]

Wikipedia deletes everything I do and I'm not even breaking the rules. All the pages I made had valuable information and didn't need to be deleted... it wasn't a personal page or a page about my friends or anything like that. They didn't even explain to me why it was deleted. So you know what... **** YOU WIKIPEDIA!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.58.39.110 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia only deletes useless, offensive and questionable content. I guarantee you have not read the rules properly, if you did at all. If you say you know the rules, or even imply it, I call you a liar, and ask you to state your comments properly, without using offensive language. I encourage you to use Wikipedia properly and realize that if Wikipedia deleted everything, they wouldn't have millions of articles in existence. --MaksM8 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is fair. I got some deleted and some not (yet). But thruout i learn to survive intellectually. Its like a challenging game. Do not give up! -- Red1 D Oon 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no wikipedia. People on wikipedia delete what they think is useless, offensive or questionable, often without giving reasons. I have been on both sides of a deletion, and the difference between useful and useless often depends on the point of view. If you have had something deleted, check out [1] Jrincayc 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the rules seem to address all deletion criteria, there are very many rules on WP and it's difficult for a new user (such as myself) to navigate all of them, much less try to guess which specific criterion was applied. Hence why it's easy to think one's article was unfairly deleted, especially when one of the first criteria cited for speedy deletion is "patent nonsense". Can't anyone understand why a new user might feel offended when, hours after signing up for WP, their article is labeled nonsense, or spam? If you're going to put some thought into deleting an article, put some thought into explaining why. - LeaHazel 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly true that non-operational terms like "patent nonsense" (a Larry-Sanger-ism) must go, to be replaced by better terms. While we're at it, ditch Internet troll in governance debates, it means nothing other than "someone unpopular with someone else".

I am not complaining about any particular content being deleted - I stopped contributing due to frustration years ago! However I will say that I frequently encounter links to presumably useful, if relatively niche, Wikipedia articles - linked from numerous external sites - that have been deleted because they "smelled promotional," "did not meet notability guidelines" etc. Well, to the casual browser (me), these deletions remove content that was apparently useful and do not retain a copy so that I can judge for myself whether it is useful/notable information. There are not links to other articles containing the deleted content. There is always just a deletion log featuring an asshole or two stating their personal opinions why the article should be (hence was) deleted. Of course there's plenty of crap that does need to be deleted, but seriously Wikipedia how about making the deleted article available upon request?? 50.198.218.33 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Bias"[edit]

We shouldn't throw jargon at unsuspecting outsiders...

Of course, it's not that important, the explanations being under the heading...but I think it looks better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VKokielov (talkcontribs) .

It's not even accurate, as most users confuse editorial balance with editorial bias. Including the board.

IPA[edit]

The issue/position/argument form might be appropriate for this page, but it would tend to encourage "solutions" to be stated. Maybe better used on "replies".

Without it, it's actually impossible to keep positions cleanly stated. If people want to be able to take a very different position on any issue than anyone else, there needs to be a format for that.

Notability[edit]

The worst, most destructive of the "guidelines." If something is true and can be verified as true, it should be here. This should be a modern-day Library of Alexandria, a storehouse of all human knowledge. Thanos6 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can back up that claim since it is a case of Nobility vs. Quality which leads to a Deletion vs. Merging issue and I saw numerous deletions or deletion votes because Editors claimed it was not notable. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure the scribes of the Alexandria Library were a good deal more educated and literate than most Wikipedia editors. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

other languages[edit]

Translations will always lag behind edits in other languages, meaning that those who read wikipedia in different languages will get different versions of the facts. Some never get English versions. - thats doesnt sound bad at all to me. Some german articles are more accurate than their english sisters. TeunSpaans 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That is because the Germans have a well-deserved reputation for thinking clearly. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Blasphemy on Wikipedia"[edit]

This style is not entirely formal but Wikipedia ha became boastful of its profile and is lagging behind.Example is that you heard the word "shit".These pages itself are blasphemous

Wikipedia's Infiltration by Communism[edit]

While it was noted that Wikipedia can be used by people or groups promoting their own biased agenda, Wikipedia is particularly susceptible to being infiltrated by Cultural Marxists. Examples of Cultural Marxism include feminism, treating people with respect and multi-culturalism, all of which were developed by the Frankfurt School (which was founded by intellectual communists in 1923 in Frankfurt, Germany to develop brainwashing techniques to implement communism). The Frankfurt School moved to Columbia University, UC Berkeley, Princeton, Brandeis University, etc. in 1933 when it was kicked out of Germany by the Nazis. Articles that have a communist agenda should be clearly marked as such, since they fanatically resist legitimate corrections and criticisms. Wikipedia is an ideal place for communist propaganda posing as encyclopedic fact. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Already discussed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Communism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.180.118 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia should never be taken seriously as a source of knowledge or research tool[edit]

  1. Every article is a work-in-progress, where facts shift constantly, sometimes from day to day as editors quarrel about what should be included. So how can you trust what you read covers the subject adequately?
  2. If editors cannot write properly, how can you trust them to think properly? Many articles are written in appalling English This is true

.

  1. It is supposed to be neutral, but POV-pushers are not always contained, so how can you trust the information to be unbiased?
  2. The combative, not to say poisonous, atmosphere in Wikipedia editing is driving good editors away, leaving the field open to POV-pushers and inexperienced editors who have no grasp of the basic principles of Wikipedia editing (WP:FIVEPILLARS).
  3. I am concerned at how some editors have no idea of what an encyclopaedia is, and seem to treat some articles as a series of opinion pieces. This basic ignorance is worrying.
  4. Inaccurate facts can remain hidden for years, as there is no overall scrutiny. Pure chance governs whether inaccurate facts are picked up and corrected.
  5. Blatant inconsistencies within an article can lie uncorrected for months because of dithering and quarrelling among editors about how to handle facts.
  6. Edits are often inserted at random, making nonsense of reasoned passages. Again, it is the luck of the draw whether these are picked up and smoothed out.
  7. Too many editors now are, frankly, illiterate. (Just look at some article Talk pages.)
  8. Even if editors are literate, many are ignorant about MoS rules. I have even seen edits made correct according to MoS reverted later to the incorrect version. Quoting from citations is a free-for-all: the handling of quotations very often do not follow MoS rules. Again, I have seen quotations written according to MoS reverted to the wrong version.
  9. It is easy to see why not all articles have an A-rating. As a researcher I would not touch articles which did not have this rating.
  10. The citation method works well. I would sooner trust what I read in a citation than what I read in a Wikipedia article.

I have had first-hand experience of all of these things as an editor and am somewhat disillusioned with the WP project. I fear Wikipedia too often deserves the shaky reputation it has for reliability and objectivity. [Last comment redacted] --P123ct1 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • P123ct1: What cheap thrill do you get from bashing Wikipedia? Shame on you. 202.69.240.126 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
202.69.240.126 please, IF you have a criticism in regard to a content presented, present that criticism directly so that it can be responded to. Please also see WP:NPA. I have asked similar question in other situations but, in regard to the list above, On what point do you disagree? As far as I can see there is nothing unreasonable that has been presented. GregKaye 12:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Autoarchiving on this page[edit]

Can we please set up autoarchiving on this talk page? There are more than a decade old comments still hanging around, making it harder to locate any extant discussions.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism by users[edit]

[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakiph (talkcontribs) 08:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Bullying[edit]

Just a note: I used to contribute a lot on WP but was essentially bullied off the site. The "personal interests" section touches on this problem but perhaps not enough.

A common scenario: Editor A takes an interest in article X and finds an area where he/she can contribute. Editor B who has been involved in X has a particular bias about it and does not like what A is contributing regardless of how well it is sourced. Soon editor B engages a couple of his/her buddies (often buddies whose only interest is to pick a fight) and begin a cloak-and-dagger edit war with A. Eventually an administrator may get involved but, rather than understand the discussion, simply looks at which side has the most supporters and joins in the bullying of editor A. Ultimately editor A is chased away.

Unfortunately some of this is a human nature thing and is unavoidable. However, it would help if the administrators followed perhaps some stricter principles to discourage the bullying. Obviously the first one is never to think that multiple editors who have been involved with an article for a long time are more knowledgeable or more objective about the article than somebody who has just recently started editing. It is tempting to think that way but it is frequently false. And equally important it is important for an administrator to admit when he/she does not really understand the issue at hand rather than just assume that the side with the most people must be correct. In my experience, if an administrator has to be a little biased, WP is generally better served by administrators being a little biased toward the little guy instead of the gangs of zealots. It is often emotionally difficult to think that way since there are so many malicious editors out there, but WP is not best served by only defending the zealots.

--MC