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/
January 16th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I agree, wikipedia sucks.
I used to like it, but over the years I’ve realized how crappy it is. The writing-style is awful, often chatty. Most articles that are remotely controversial are full of little snipe-comments by the various sides (“Supporters of prop. 1345 say . However, they are clearly wrong because of this study. However, this study was flawed and this other study shows that they are right.” – only subtler).
Sorry I know I wrote this comment badly I can’t write coherently when I’m sleep-deprived >.<
February 1st, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Hello. And Bye. :)
March 1st, 2009 at 9:21 am
I think the main issue which fiend pointed out, is being overlooked. As a collection of “peer reviewed opinions” – in other words, an encyclopedia, it fails at being just that. It is not a reliable mirror of “currently accepted opinion”.
At the same time, it also isn’t a collection of information where the criteria is logical correctness and truth.
So, if something neither manages to reflect “accepted opinion” (peer-review approach), nor “logically correct information” (truth-based approach), then what is it?
I would be very happy to have an alternative to normal encyclopedia, where the criteria on what is accepted is not “someone else wrote it before, and the establishment blessed it”, but instead plain logical correctness (something which i strongly miss from normal encyclopedia). But since WP kicks contributors who want to do just that in the ass, yet at the same time is unable to get the peer-review approach right, the result is something which in a best case scenario is only a “first introduction” into a given topic, not more.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I wholeheartedly agree. Wikipedia sucks because of the admins, short-sighted rules, and arbitrary application of the rules. Wikipedia sucks big time. I spent the better part of a day researching references for an article I posted, and Mister SenselessTM marked it for speedy deletion, whereupon it was speedily deleted, never to be seen again. Then he had the nerve to “welcome” me to Wikipedia, which I’ve been contributing to for over two years. This caused me to examine their “five pillars” more closely, and it revealed that Wikipedia desires to be nothing more than a paper encyclopedia online, created for free by its users. But nothing more or better than that. Under those rules, my article was perhaps a bit uncommon, but was entirely appropriate for a web-based, user-generated knowledge base, which Wikipedia obviously is. But they refuse to join the new millennium they helped create. Well, I’m done. I changed my password to random characters, and removed my email from the account. I was actually considering donating cash to these power-mad fiends, but that’s not going to happen.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
very intresting
March 25th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
It is easy to edit. Go to any hotspot, edit 3 times, get the whole hotspot banned from Wiki.
April 27th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Let’s all petition Google, for instance, to simply add blocks to websites; that is, to permanently append a “-wikipedia” to ever search if the user so desires. Even better, they should publish the number of searches requesting wikipedia be blocked, so that wikipedia gets the message.
April 27th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
ohh come on, we can’t go on a “censoring trip”, if that was so, then if i didn’t like pornography so i would make google take it of, or i didn’t like Cuba, so all articles related with Cuba had to be removed, nooo the problem is how shitty wikipedia is, google is just doing what they are supposed, wikipedia has millions of internal links and other sites pointing, and of course google algorithms then get triggered and put wikipedia first…
June 18th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
It’s not about censorship; it’s giving the user more options. I would love to be able to default my Google Settings to -wiki -about.com . They’re nothing but glorified scraper sites.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:00 am
I agree. I love Canadian Bands and wanted to start with an article about a band playing on radionacross Canada as I type this. I wrote the article provided six independent links to newspapers, radio stations et….
the person who looked at the article never bothered to read through the links and immediately went to dump the article but I got it put on hold… and provided even more independent links and indepth informaiton on this band.
Then they finally ask me WHAT AFC articles the links refer to and I write back and spell it out..
Released two albums on a Major Label provide independent link for info… I list at least FIVE of the TEN criteria for being added… and you only need ONE… and this one guy who has NEVER written about any music at all… is trying to dump the listing… so someone finally challenges it… and points out that this article should be added and the guy dissappears for two weeks…another person ANNOYED that the guy dissappeared when challenged…. calls him out for dumping music/band listings… and this guy gets BANNED from WIKKI…
sadly someone needs to monitor the monitors…. they are NUTS!
July 9th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Yep they suck! I have called them a “click based forum on steroids” from day one. The fact that google puts them at the top of the page for anything you search is beyond me. You couldn’t un-ass them from the #1 position if you were the one the fucking article was referring to.
I was very pleased that for a change google allowed a page containing the word fuck to be on the first page for anything. That is rare…
For google:
“fuck wikipedia”
wikipeda
July 10th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Worthless, chit-chat, a mere chat room.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
well i beg to differ, chit chat would be something more akin to:
hello how are you, you look awesome tee hee hee, how was your day, hey i saw a movie last night…
the only thing worthless about these comments is your own… you have something to add (against or in favor) go right ahead that’s why there are comments, you just don’t like it and want to blabber around… then fuck off ^_^
November 18th, 2009 at 2:11 am
I also am tired of Wikipedia. Sometimes my well-written and “notable” pages, even with citaions included, get “speedily deleted”. Whenever that doesn’t happen, my contributions get reversed. I would appreciate if the people posted in the Discussion pages of the articles. That is what they are there for. Oh well. Wikipedia needs people submitting and the members don’t get paid. Some of them even donate money to Wikipedia!! I am going to contribute only to On Topic Media, BlogSpot, and Squidoo. That is where I have a chance of getting “paid” to submit to their websites.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
haven’t you realized?, in wikipedia, you contribute, they delete your contributions and then they still ask you for donations… pay up bitch heheheh
January 6th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
wikipedia is like those “free” online MMORPGs you see all over the place… you can sign up and play for a while but then the publishers spam the fuck out of your screen asking for money and the only high level players (wikipedia’s equivalent, the much despised ADMINS) are those who pay to play this “free” game
January 6th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
what i like is the huge contribution “message from wales” shit, its beautiful… so “information is free” and “save wikipedia” like… if wikipedia is finished we would all kill ourselfs, noo someone would copy wikipedia, put some pub on the side and make a boat-load of money, ohhh wait that exists already ehheheh ^_^’
February 11th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Yea they suck. I removed something that was not true and they fought hard with me.The subject is controversial so they posted it a a fringe theory. Maybe it is but there reasoning did not make any sense. They just make thing up to prove a point.I made a list of their arguments why it was a fringe theory.
Smiley face murder Theory
The majority were ruled as accidents- not true
Gannon wants a book deal-still no book
Pat Brown says Gannon’s theory is wrong because it does not fit her idea of what a typical serial killer will do-yea so?
No professional force is investigating them as murders-not true
They were drunk so blame it in the booze-many had a blood alcohol content that would make them legal to drive
smiley faces are common-smiley faces had horns and was not the only graffiti
cause I know more than the detectives that put a lot of time and effort working on the cases-oh really?
“No law enforcement agency believes that the drownings are linked in any way-false
because I just heard this stuff somewhere from some crackpot site-false
On a bigfoot article they used the opinion of an author of a book that debunked Bigfoot and a site called The Skeptics Dictionary as a citation.Now I don’t believe in bigfoot but to use someones biased opinion that bigfoot is a hoax with someone that has an agenda of debunking seems inappropiate. I added … according to the skeptics dictionary….so people would know the source. It was removed of course.I don’t like to be misled with false information even if something is a fringe theory. If you get fed up and throw one accusation back they don’t try to mediate, they just pick one person and threaten him.That would be me because most of the others are trying to sway people with their agenda.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Does anyone here find the Wikipedia category, “Living people” useful?
Seems a bit broad.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
i think everything in wikipedia is a bit broad…
March 11th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
I hate wikipedia. TELL EVERY ONE NOT TO VISIT THE WEBSITE, SO THEY WILL SHUT DOWN. IF NO ONE IS VISITING THE WEBSITE THEY LOSE MONEY AND THEY WILL SHUT DOWN. SPREAD THE WORD TO ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS. TELL THEM ABOUT ALL THE CORRUPT AND SELFISH THINGS THEY DO ON A DAILY BASIS. THEY ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS, OPEN TO CRITISM AND THE TRUTH.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
first of all why the fuck are you putting fucking caps? putting caps its the equivalent in real life of making your point by shouting and not letting anyone else speak, that just makes you look like a fucking moron…
and to answer your moronic caps only comment, wikipedia makes money by donations and sponsorships, they fucking don’t care if you visit or not, besides they have loads of google love (millions of first spot results for keywords), so they have loads and loads of traffic regardless :\ and yes they still suck heheheh