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 encyclopedias, 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 encyclopedias the idea behind wikipedia is that anyone can add their knowledge to the site, therefore not creating a encyclopedia like britannica 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, creating or otherwise monitoring 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 encyclopedia, 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.
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!)
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…
Amen, dude. Wikipedia can suck my lips until its ass bleeds. The only thing WORSE is wikinews.
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.
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.
g…..
Thent it is settled… wikipedia does suck ^_^
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!
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! :-)
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/
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 >.<
Hello. And Bye. :)
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.
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.
very intresting
It is easy to edit. Go to any hotspot, edit 3 times, get the whole hotspot banned from Wiki.
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.
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…
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.
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!
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
Worthless, chit-chat, a mere chat room.
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 ^_^
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.
haven’t you realized?, in wikipedia, you contribute, they delete your contributions and then they still ask you for donations… pay up bitch heheheh
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
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 ^_^’
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.
Does anyone here find the Wikipedia category, “Living people” useful?
Seems a bit broad.
i think everything in wikipedia is a bit broad…
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.
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
All guys say wikipedia sucks is a jerk! HAHAHAA you all is a jerk
one post at a time “wikipedia sucks” ^_^ or they will get deleted, the fact that we are all jerks might be right, but well just cause you say something doesn’t mean its true… you have to give evidence to claims, or else it just makes you look dumb ^_^
Wikipedia is ok for general research, but it SUCKS fucking ass to become a member of the fucking rat race people call wikipedia. The mods and admins always delete your shit that makes perfect logical sense and replace it with some stupid “biased” opion, then block you from editing anything for no reason at all. It’s kinda like a Canadian ran dictionary, pointless, conformist,pacifist,no bad nor good comments that conflicts with anything. When the assholes are confronted they respond to swearing or negative comments on a stupid edit made by someone who knows nothing about anything and responds to my pissed off comments with + only please.
By the way let the wars begin! Coloect the names of asshole mods and admins on a list and we spam them to death or give them super virus! The revolution has begun! Go forth!
that’s my point, wikipedia has its uses, but the community and admins around it are as elitist and disgusting as the people running britanica or any other old school encyclopedia, they know what is best, and fuck the rest >_<
Dead on about the power trips, bias, inaccuracies, and lack of journalistic integrity. Given the amount of money Wikipedia generates for the owners, I doubt anything will be done to make it a reputable site.
agree, like i said on the comments here, i of course still use wikipedia from time to time, but for sure i wont trust it and wont comment/edit/add stuff, AND FOR FUCKING SURE WILL NEVER GIVE THEM A FUCKING CENT… they don’t respect the users, so fuck them…
Glad i ran across this website.Added fiendish to my bookmark!
Sometimes it’s helpful such as looking up some game, rock star or ego-location but that’s about it. The admins get disgusted both with vandalism and the crappy articles that go up by the hundreds each day. It gets tiresome to delete and then explain to to the spammers and the ones who come to insult their schoolmates or employers, some business they are mad at or someone who has a personal opinion etc. You don’t find those things in a real encyclopedia. I was talking with an editor there recently and she said “it’s better than it used to be” and I said “bull, every time I go looking for something I usually end up fixing it”. I used to edit it but grew disgusted with it. I dare not look there for information there because my profs demand reliable info and it isn’t happening there. Go to the library, that’s your best bet.
This is why my instructors at college don’t want us to use Wikipedia as a source because it can be changed by people who don’t know any better.
I have TRIED to write two articles for Wikipedia, but both were rejected due to the editors not feeling it was important enough for publication.
Really?
So, the editors’ familiarity with a given subject matter is the be-all and end-all of deeming what is worthy?
In one instance, I hit “publish”, and upon reloading my page to see my article, I saw that it had already been marked for “Speedy Deletion”. Now, we are talking 5 seconds here. Seems some “editor” was just lying in wait, chomping at the bit for an article to spring up so he could dismiss it with a wave of his Cheeto-stained hand.
I entered into their “Discussion” (AKA the “Vain Attempt”) section and said there is no way he could have read a 2000 word article in those sparse few seconds, let alone also deciding it was not “noteworthy”.
His response?
“I’m a fast reader”.
…ummm…yeah.
Why not just claim “World’s Fastest – by 10-fold”?
I finally said “screw it”, and did what I should have done in the first place – published my articles on academically based research sites.
Now, I see they are doing their annual “Personal Appeals” for money, coming from the CEO of Wiki and his minions of suck-ups.
Not a dime from me will you get from me Wikipedia.
Why not hit up your “editors” for some cash, since the only service you provide is assuaging a thin veil of power and self-esteem for these basement dwelling mouth breathers?
yeah dude, its fucked up… they are fucked up, the funny thing is they used to brag about the other encyclopedias that they were to exclusive, that only experts could publish on them… but now wikipedia is AS exclusive and its a bunch of brats running the show…
hummm makes perfect sense, its way better to trust idiotic brats than experts in the subject!
Watch the video, they refuse to post anything about a very important lawsuit, and someone from NH is covering up for U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte’s policies against alternative media, which is precisely what Wiki portends to be, there is a blog link in the video description:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS89irco-5s
23 DECEMBER 2010
KingCast laughs as Wikipedia says the Nashua Telegraph is not a good enough secondary source for Kelly Ayotte information, but the Littleton Courier is.
I’m speechless. These guys are ridiculous. They show up and trash talk me, but I’ll bet you a scant few of them has ever worked for a large daily newspaper or edited a large weekly newspaper. And who the hell is this person in Manchester NH who is apparently on the Wiki Board of review? Do they have a conflict of interest? Inquiring minds want to know but the bullshit is going to stop. Other people will submit the same information and then let’s see what happens. They will probably lock the forum; I’m making a YouTube video about this, so there you go. Stand by your position if that’s how you’re going to be, guys.
So the Nashua Telegraph isn’t good enough for you? I will notify their staff immediately. But you said in another post that the Littleton Courier was good enough and the Telegraph dwarfs the Courier. And you expect the Union Leader and WMUR to run stories about this lawsuit? Please. Nor have they run any coverage of Liko Kenney’s lawsuit. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s staff is following my Tweets, unsolicited. But of course that means nothing to you either. DId the Mayor of Nashua ask what major press was covering my efforts before he and the Aldermanic Chamber presented me with a Mayoral Commendation, the closest thing Nashua has to a key to the City? Hell no. http://i45.tinypic.com/11qnzfs.jpg
So in the end, there you are waiting for the mainstream press to legitimize a story about alternative press being denied equal access. Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, here we come to the problem. You ask above “You don’t think it’s newsworthy that the GOP thinks it can pick and choose what reporters to allow” — it may very well be newsworthy, but we’re not writing a newspaper, we’re writing an encyclopedia, which has a whole different set of criteria for inclusion. –SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It is newsworthy because it is the position of Kelly Ayotte, as Friends of Kelly Ayotte is a named Defendant, DUH. Wiki is here to note her positions on major issues, and the Free Press is a major issue the last time I checked, or are you telling me otherwise my friend? Stop the nonsense. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2010/12/kingcast-laughs-as-wikipedia-says.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
what can i say bro, wikipedia is incredibly biased especially in some topics, in some sections like biology the editors are pretty good, but when you get into social, entertainment, economics, politics, its all shit, run by idiotic kids, no way around it, no point using it, no reason for you to care, just keep sending your stuff to news sites, blogs or other outlets that do want to hear your voice and point of view, they will pick it up, that should be your goal and concern, there is no point negotiating or caring about wikipedia, fuck them, what can i say… they suck ^_^
Wikipedia is the absolute triumph of quantity over quantity.
You have a winery, and then you have Coca-Cola. Both are very honest businesses which give salaries to alot of hardworking people.
Yet, one produces things that will make you evolve, live longer and better, and the other one produces absolute crap that gives you heart attacks and makes life in this planet just a little bit worse.
Has anyone else noticed how everything crap always comes from America ? It’s not even a pattern now, it’s a rule.
But what really pisses me off is that Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia, made all his money from porn.
Now he’s pretending to be an angelical figure trying to contribute to the world, having everyone’s interest (but his one) at heart.
Wikipedia receives $ 4 million in donations every year and he has the fucking audacity to beg for more. Wikipedia is not a charity and if people would donate that money to charity there would be hundreds maybe thousands of people who wouldn’t starve to death.
WikiPedia is overrun by too many Administrators on “power trips.” It is a pseudo-democratic organization that is run like a online totalitarian state.
@itsmethistime yeah the begging is cute, and yeah i agree they suck, wikipedia works like a pyramid scheme, only the top wins, the bottom is screwed everytime, and it also pisses me off how basically all google results start with a wikipedia page, they dont even care about other enciclopedias or the real site we are searching for >_<
@lou ohhh yeah, and its not even a google like “benevolent” dictator, its pure power tripping dictatorship, “dont like it? GET THE FUCK OUT!” kind of thing… its ridiculous