Yeah you fucking heard me, wikipedia point blank sucks, sure it has a lot of information, but overall having a lot doesn’t mean it’s good or that it’s relevant, for the usual information wikipedia is like all other enciclopedias, but what did set those fuckers at wikipedia apart is gone, I’m not saying this because most of my (more than reasonable) fixes and new pages were mostly all deleted, because they don’t adhere to certain pre-requisites that they’ve imagined, mostly idiotic.
Ok, I’ll be more specific, unlike other enciclopedias the idea behind wikipedia is that anyone can add their knowledge to the site, therefore not creating a enciclopedia like britanica that is created by a selected panel of experts in their fields, but a place were knowledge can be more ample, that can focus on obscure subjects, that can give a more broad view of all the possible subjects, but No… those preposterously sybaritic imbeciles at wikipedia run that shit with just a few people that share the same values and mentality and create or otherwise monitor the content made by others, so wikipedia is just like Britannica but with added overhead and with lack of expert paid knowledge (that although not superior per se, are at least a safer bet), so wikipedia sucks as an enciclopedia, as a social community/experiment is not that bad, wait… what am i saying? Everyone that uses wikipedia are a bunch of squirrel molesters, i have nothing but contempt for everyone of you, i quit, and everyone else should quit as well.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Yep. It sucks. Man, does it ever suck. Occasionally I’ve gotta look at it for text-checking purposes, to make sure content I’m given by my students is not plagiarized directly from its web pages. Most of the time, no matter what article I’m looking at, I’ll find some significant error. How anyone can seriously think that a “wiki” model can lead to anything remotely reliable is beyond me
However, Wikipedia has made one good contribution to modern culture. It has provided a never-fail diagnostic sign of identifying those who are mentally challenged or who lack integrity. Any time you see someone cite Wikipedia as a source for any serious purpose, you can be sure that person posesses a second-rate intellect. And any time you see someone who writes for Wikipedia, you can be sure that person wants the dubious thrill of being “an authoritative, published source” without having to pay the price of tens of thousands of dollars and years of grueling study. Expertise does not come cheaply. Except in the minds of Wikizealots. To them, if you blather about three different topics, you’re mildly interesting; and if you blather about three hundred different topics, you’re a “valuable contributor” (as if anyone knows enough to speak with any level of authority on that many things!)
February 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I think everything has good and bad points, but in this case, they have way to many bad points, its just a self serving hype system, it works and feels like all those other “social communities” but without the ability to put .gif backgrounds… ohh and the relevance of the content is almost to the point of having the same merit…
November 13th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Amen, dude. Wikipedia can suck my lips until its ass bleeds. The only thing WORSE is wikinews.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I find the worst part of Wikipedia is the Admin system. It is a system of power, and has effectively cut the community in two. The Admins (and their supporters who want to be admins), and all the others. I don’t trust Wikipedia for the most part due to these power hungry wannabe tinpot dictators.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Wikipedia does suck. I’ve noticed some so-called information they publish is clearly biased and sometimes has hidden political agendas in there, especially when the information deals with certain people. I would suggest finding information from other more reliable sources in order to avoid the politically correct neo-nazi falseness.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
g…..
January 25th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Thent it is settled… wikipedia does suck ^_^
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I hate Wiki! I am in a banned and wanted to post my banned on there. and those assholes took me down. it’s info on my band oh my god one word spelled wrong. jerkoffs DROPPING LOADS ALLOVER WIKI’S WEBSITE FUCKING ASSKISSERS!
May 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Wikipedia has a problem in which everything the moderators/researchers whatever the hell they call themselves get their cross reference info by simply Google-ing it. There is no real world research. That’s right, there was a thing in the archaic world before the world wide wtf called books, newspapers and magazines and in these books, newspapers and magazines were pages, not web pages but paper pages, with info on them and you had to actually read and do real cross referencing for information. In the words of the classic televison show The Prisoner, “We want information.” Sadly, wikipedia is no longer the future of encyclopedia style info but is a place for useless shit edited by people with grudges or approved by others who feel they are superior due to their “job” at Wikipedia. The only good thing about my new dislike over wikipedia’s brush off of anyone disagreeing with them is that I’ve rediscovered Encyclodia Britannica and old fashioned at the library cross referencing info. Suck it Wikipedia because you bastards suck ass.
PS: yeah, my web space page is a myspace page. I’ve got no shame and no tastes! :-)
October 31st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Wikipedia does indeed suck, but we can strike back; use the images on this page against them: http://thewebserviceblog.co.uk/2008/10/31/wikipedia-sucks/