Comments on: Wikipedia Sucks

By: fiend

fiend — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:39:57 +0000

@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

By: Lou

Lou — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:50:57 +0000

WikiPedia is overrun by too many Administrators on “power trips.” It is a pseudo-democratic organization that is run like a online totalitarian state.

By: ItsMeThisTime

ItsMeThisTime — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:57:35 +0000

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.

By: fiend

fiend — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:37:44 +0000

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 ^_^

By: KingCast

KingCast — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:31:02 +0000

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. â€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast (talk â€¢ 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 â€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast (talk â€¢ contribs) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

By: fiend

fiend — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:28:08 +0000

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!

By: Hassan Ben Sober

Hassan Ben Sober — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:42:49 +0000

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?

By: Asnea

Asnea — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:10:24 +0000

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.

By: Emerald

Emerald — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:21:17 +0000

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.

By: Sharon Youtsey

Sharon Youtsey — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:55:07 +0000

Glad i ran across this website.Added fiendish to my bookmark!

By: fiend

fiend — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:23:13 +0000

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…

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:45:40 +0000

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.