Why Wikipedia's Policy to Blacklist Blogs is Outdated and Wrong
This week we received an email from a reader telling us that he'd tried to add a link to ReadWriteWeb onto a Wikipedia article, only to get the message: "The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://www.readwriteweb.com. Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted." After a bit of investigation, we discovered that our site had been blacklisted by Wikipedia in mid-2008 and labeled as 'spam'! There is no explanation on Wikipedia as to why this happened. We certainly don't think we've done anything that would justify being blacklisted. So after some emailing and twittering, we found out that the way to challenge this blacklisting was to make our case on this Wikipedia page.
UPDATE, Sunday 15 February PST: RWW has now been removed from the Wikipedia blacklist. I still think that RWW should never have been on the blacklist to begin with, it was simply not justified. However it appears that my personal comments on Wikipedia, now and in the past, may have upset some people - so for that I offer an apology to the offended parties.
We soon discovered, however, that Wikipedia has a general policy of not accepting citations from blogs. We think that policy is ridiculous in this day and age. Not only that, but it is not being consistently applied - we appear to be the only professional blog on Wikipedia's blacklist! The whole sad and frustrating story is below.
The Curious Case of ReadWriteWeb vs Wikipedia
I made our case, as founder/editor of ReadWriteWeb, on the talk:Spam-blacklist page onWikipedia. After explaining the circumstances, I asked that we be removed from the blacklist: "We have no idea why ReadWriteWeb would be on the Wikipedia blacklist and we respectfully request that you remove it from there. We are a respectable and reputable tech news blog. RWW is a solid primary source which can act as a good citation for many Wikipedia entries."
The 'appeal' was soon declined by a Wikipedia administrator who goes by the handle of Hu12. This person (who doesn't divulge his real name) claimed that "Blogs, and Blog sites are Link normally to be avoided", going on to say that "ReadWriteWeb Fails Wikipedia's core content policies":
- "Verifiability"
- " Questionable_sources"
- "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
- "Self-published sources (online and paper)"
- "Reliable sources"
- "Self-published sources
Another Wikipedia administrator, Steve Walling, jumped to our defence, noting that ReadWriteWeb "has a defined editorial structure in its writing staff, and it is syndicated (center column) by The New York Times Technology section" and that "I could conceivably see using the site either as a source (though not as a sole one to assert notability), or simply as a good resource to link to in external links."
I followed up by also noting that ReadWriteWeb appears to have been singled out, as no other top blog has been put on the blacklist. In our view it is double standards to single out ReadWriteWeb for blacklisting under the 'blogs are to be avoided' policy. Not only that, but most other blogs in Technorati's top 20 have their own Wikipedia pages (we currently do not).
The Prosecution Quibbles
Frankly I had hoped common sense would kick in at this point, however Hu12 responded: "If a specific link is needed as a citation, an established editor (such as Steven Walling) can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis".
In other words, ReadWriteWeb must stay on the blacklist, but it's possible for "an established [Wikipedia] editor" to whitelist it on a case-by-case basis. Clearly this is unsatisfactory and fails to address the issue of why RWW is being singled out. Again, Steven Walling (who for the record I don't know) came to our defence:
"Hu, I'm saying that I think RWW is reliable and popular enough that it should be used in appropriate articles, and not just by established editors like me. A similar example here is TechCrunch, which would never hold up to WP:RS in say, a history article, but is used all the time to verify information about the field it covers, since it (and RWW) is a top source of trusted information in this arena. I'm personally okay with asking for a case-by-case exception, but as you can see in his first comment, there may be other people who aren't established who think that RWW is a legitimate resource for the 'pedia. I agree, and I don't see any reason for the site to be on the blacklist either. The 17th most popular blog on the Net doesn't need to spam us to get traffic."
At this point a Wikipedia user called KGyST labeled the decision to blacklist RWW "absurd and childish". Hu12 again responded:
"Even if I were to agree (and Steven Walling makes a wonderfull case, IMHO), Blogs despite the quality or form of publishing, still remain a WP:SPS which has inherent problems. Because Self-published work could potentialy be acceptable to use in some circumstances, is the reason why I suggested its use be on a case-by-case basis."
(our emphasis)
What Does Wikipedia Have Against Blogs?
So the crux of the issue, according to Hu12, is that blogs are a "self-published source" and therefore shouldn't be used as citations on Wikipedia. Leaving aside the important point that ReadWriteWeb appears to be the only professional blog that is being excluded based on that policy, let's look at Wikipedia's definition of "self-published source":
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources.[5]"
The definition goes on to say that self-published work may be used "in limited circumstances", but the key point here is that blogs are not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable form of media.
This is a sadly out-of-date definition of a blog. As another Wikipedia commenter, Alexander B. Howard, noted in this discussion: "This distinction between 'blogs' and 'newspapers' is worse than archaic; it fundamentally dismisses the immense disruption in the media industry."
Oh The Ironies
It's also deeply ironic that Wikipedia - a poster child of the Web 2.0 revolution, the read/write user participation Web - fails to recognize the validity of "self-published" media. Wikipedia is by its own definition a "self-published" work, created and edited by thousands of amateur volunteers.
In our specific case there's a further irony: the world's most famous newspaper, The New York Times, syndicates ReadWriteWeb on the Technology section of its website. In other words, 'old media' recognizes the validity of blog content. Yet Wikipedia, supposedly as 'new media' as it gets, does not. Frankly, it's sad and pathetic.
I'm hopeful that common sense will eventually prevail and that not only will ReadWriteWeb be taken off the Wikipedia blacklist, but that Wikipedia will change its outdated policy to exclude blogs from being cited in its pages (even though this policy isn't actually being enforced, outside of the RWW case).
Getting back to our quest to get our site off Wikipedia's blacklist. As of writing, another anonymous Wikipedia administrator Gnangarra has waded in with an even more narrow-minded view than Hu12's:
"...the blogs are written by freelance writers and published without editorial review. The writers are then paid by the number of hits to the article which meant that the writers were spaming WP articles with links back to their article."
Well, that's not only wrong (we don't pay our writers based on hits or page views) but it again evades the central questions: why are professional blogs not viewed as citation-worthy and why is RWW the only major blog being singled out? You can follow this case on the talk:Spam-blacklist page onWikipedia, as it continues to be played out.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I just posted about this, too. I couldn't believe it when I read that debate. Too funny.
The more fundamental problem is that the control of wikipedia is basically a circle-jerk. If you're in the circle most any things is acceptable, if you are not then the submission is not and no amount of logic, irony, or precedence will change the outcome.
Over time their behavior will steadily reduce the importance of Wikipedia.
Roger
Blogged .. Wikipedia blacklists Read Write Web - Goes into the dark ages ..
http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2009/02/wikipedia_black.html
Richard,
I'm a longtime Wikipedia editor (and friend of Steven's, which is how I became aware of this).
I am sympathetic to your concern, and have a general suggestion about your approach.
You are dealing with two issues which, from Wikipedia's perspective, are fundamentally different and mostly unrelated to one another. I would suggest you ponder this distinction as you refine your request.
The first is the spam blacklist. The blacklist is intended as a defense against malicious spam, nothing more. It is not a reflection of Wikipedia's editorial approach. So, the easy case to make is that RWW is a responsible site, and should not be included on the blacklist. I suggest you focus your energy there.
The question of whether blogs are allowable as reliable sources on Wikipedia is much more involved, and debating it on a general level will be an exercise in frustration. No, it is not applied consistently; and yes, many Wikipedia editors have poor understandings of the relevant policy and guideline.
The important thing about the policy and guideline is that they allow for a fair amount of editorial discretion in determining whether a specific blog or blog post may be acceptable as a source for a specific article. So, getting RWW removed from the blacklist is a crucial first step to allowing Wikipedia editors to engage meaningfully in that debate on individual articles.
If you DO want to influence the policy (and I don't think that's the best approach for you), I would strongly encourage you to find ways to frame your criticism in specific suggestions, for example: "WE (not "you") should adjust this paragraph of this policy, to read as follows...."
Wikipedia's volunteer editors hear numerous offhand criticisms of policy and guidelines, that reflect little understanding of their history and value, and offer no substantive suggestions. Associating yourself with that approach is the last thing you want to do.
Best of luck -- I like RWW and hope to see more of your work in the future, whether via Wikipedia or elsewhere!
"Conflict arbitration at the Wikipedia", an article from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation, which is very to the point: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/conflict-arbitration-at-the-wikipedia/2009/02/10
LOL, Richard! To add more to your amazement, did you know that Wikia Search monetizes with Ads by Google? To me is becoming slowly very clear that Wikia & Co is no longer what it used to be. The administrators act like Wikipedia is their own domain and they assume rights they shouldn't assume. Content is published preferentially - no one will delete pornography pages and links for example. I think you should be proud to be on their "black list" - RRW is a quality resource. Wikipedia is in decline. :)
Richard,
I have known you a long time, and I think everyone knows that RWW is about as good as it gets in the credibility zone. As for my friend Jimmy's wonderful piece of web artwork, well Mihaela is right.
I cannot tell you how many discussions I had with jimmy and even Angela about an ocean of issues, but being banned should not overly stress you. I just discovered one of many massive cases of spamming the resource for Sitepoint, and the reply to my inquiry was something to the effect that I should enter a discussion over it.
Hell, the community was already discussing this particular incident, and I just wanted some data to show the instances. I can tell you, there were likely hundreds if not more by one site alone. If I had the time, I wager I could find tens of thousands of links to everything from Billy Bob's house of hussies to Porn Utopia for that matter.
In fairness, the community does have an unfathomable job if you think about it. But, as for being responsive and open, I think those days have long since passed. it is a shame, what a wonderful work that site was.
I am sorry for your trouble. I am actually more sorry that what we envisioned several years ago, a new age for openness and collaboration, may not arrive for some time. It saddens me also that an extraordinary person like Jimmy, is often at the mercy of some real Cretans (how does that happen). Keep your chin up and I will hammer the hell out of them for you in a day or two. :)
Always,
Phil
Who the frak is Hu12?
Posted by: ahockley.myvidoop.com
|
February 13, 2009 2:27 PM
Wikipedia stinks and is a dis-service to our industry. I started calling for a boycott of them by the online video industry last year.
Support The Online Video Industry: Boycott Wikipedia
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2008/07/support-the-onl.html
more hypocrisy by Wikipedia and its 'editors.' They say "anyone" can edit, but that is of course only if you are part of their little circle of geeks with nothing better to do. If you actually have a life and valuable info to provide, tough luck, you are screwed!
Its cases like this one with RWW that continue to discredit Wikipedia in my mind, and limit my use.
Good luck, Richard, you are right and I support you 100%.
Well, I am surprised and disappointed by this information. That doesn't negate my vast respect for Wikipedia, but I do agree the policy is anachronistic and should be changed. There are a fair number of Wikipedia entries which are themselves not terribly authoritative (and I have no problem with that because sometimes some information is better than no information) so I think they are in a bit of a pot-calling-the-kettle-black situation here.
Ranting about policy on Wikipedia isn't going to solve the problem. You're not going to shift the culture of Wikipedia all by your lonesome (or even with a cadre of bloggers).
What's going to solve the problem is thinking about how what you want helps the encyclopedia and its readers, within the framework of existing policy. I think being able to link to RWW improves the encyclopedia, which is why I support removal from the blacklist.
Saying that Wikipedia as a whole is just plain wrong, or doesn't understand a movement that it helped spearhead, just because you feel you're being treated unfairly in one instance is an emotional reaction that I understand. But it's not productive.
Not only are citations to blogs verboten, Jimbo Wales has personally intervened to declare that some blogs may not even be referenced in a registered user's personal talk pages.
So, for example, these articles...
• http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Wikipedia+Governance
• http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Malwebolence
• http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Wikipedia+Rules+Games+Drama
...cannot be referenced or discussed on any Wikimedia-sponsored project (including Wikiversity).
Don't sweat it. You'll get removed from the blacklist, and probably very shortly.
Of course it isn't Wikipedia's policy to blacklist blogs - it's just that the nature of Wikipedia is such that any policy or guideline is applied inconsistently, capriciously, and sometimes punitively.
If you get too histrionic about it or have too many people dropping by to post in support, you run the danger of getting on the wrong side of some of the more intractable admins, and then you'll stay blocked (and risk having a very negative article written about you). Unless you want to have to sleep with Jimbo to get your article fixed, I'd lay off and let cooler heads prevail.
Incidentally, there are currently 81 links to readwriteweb.com from Wikipedia, so I think only unregistered (i.e., IP editors) accounts are unable to add it.
Maybe more pressure needs to be applied. Will share this post via Twitter. Others can RT. Good luck! Sounds very frustrating, unfair and questionable.
Impatiently waiting for moderation of my recent comment about the inaccuracy and incivility of this blog post, I replied more extensively on the WikiProject Oregon blog.
@A Respected Editor:
No, I'm an admin on Wikipedia and I wasn't able to link to RWW. Not sure how those 81 links got there -- perhaps before the site was blacklisted?
Posted by: wikiprojectoregon.wordpress.com
|
February 13, 2009 3:09 PM
See my article about this phenomenon. I quote myself:
Interestingly enough, I was able to use TechCrunch as a citation source in a recent entry I wrote about Connectbeam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectbeam (reference #2)
@wikiprojectoregon.wordpress.com: You're right, Pete! I guess those links pre-date the blacklisting.
apparently, there is some sort of bias being shown by wikipedia here.
The policy of not finding *a certain caliber* of blog, with substantial visibility, to be a credible source for Wikipedia is certainly anachronistic. Highly respected scholarly journals often implement a "peer review" process-- it's true that blogs are self-published, but in the realm of social media, there is a CONSTANT, UBIQUITOUS, if unofficial, "peer review" process and exchange that goes on between experts in the field (and scores of other interested parties) to ensure quality-control for content that's being produced. This is the nature-- and a primary benefit-- of *social* media.
It seems that Wikipedia needs to focus on establishing its own criteria for what constitutes a credible blog... because ignoring the validity of this type of publication really isn't an option anymore.
Thanks all for your comments, especially to the Wikipedia admins (A Respected Editor, Steven Wallings, Pete Forsyth and others). Just want to respond to something A Respected Editor said in comment #14.
"If you get too histrionic about it or have too many people dropping by to post in support, you run the danger of getting on the wrong side of some of the more intractable admins, and then you'll stay blocked (and risk having a very negative article written about you)."
I'll admit that I sometimes lose my cool in these situations, but I find that statement to be pretty troubling. Isn't the point of Wikipedia to be an objective resource of information? There's something very wrong if "intractable admins" feel they need to exercise what power they think they have by making emotional decisions. I understand that people get emotional, I certainly do from time to time. But I am amazed that Wikipedia would let that kind of behavior happen from its admins. Isn't there a policy about that?
Wikipedia is the online Reader's Digest. It has entertainment value but nobody takes it as a serious source of credible information that they wouldn't verify somewhere else.
I have had similar problems with wiki.
I'm an embedded protocol developer and I write/update industrial protocols. I was updating an article on wiki and linked back to my own site for a more technical side of things (information for engineers not general people). The link got removed (I understand why and agree accept it), soon followed by tag on the article for fast deletion. The article was two years old, was created by someone else and provided value... I "challenged" the "editor" on the talk page about the deletion... we argued a bit until the article was deleted. Soon after a lot of my other edits started getting reverted in other articles by the same editor. Again we argued a bit (on the talk pages) this continued for a about 3 months until I gave up and reported him.
Wikipedia isn't what it use to be. I refuse to contribute to it any more.
Richard, I think we could all use a refresher of the kind of approach you were employing back in 2005 when, it would appear, the issue of links to RWW originally came up. Would you say this is work that reflects well on your work, and is compatible with a collegial environment of volunteers? In retrospect, do you find it surprising that your site was added to a blacklist by the people you were communicating with?? I'm not saying their decision was correct, but it's hard to fault them for being unsympathetic to your approach.
"+
I would appreciate it if people did not delete references to my work. Frankly it is idiotic and I don't mind calling a spade a spade."
"Who's the idiot that keeps removing External links? I've added those back."
Posted by: wikiprojectoregon.wordpress.com
|
February 13, 2009 5:15 PM
Richard, I totally support your arguments here, and I also share your frustration -- after having my own very awful experience with their silly system.
This is just more proof to me that Wikipedia is losing its mojo. We'll see if they're smart enough now to wake up, get their collective heads out of their asses, and realize they have a brand they ought not to f*ck with.
regards,
Graeme
www.tech-surf-blog.com
www.twitter.com/graemethickins
It's sad and ironic that a respected A-list blog doesn't get a link, yet the long history of article inaccuracies, astroturfing, and outright deception continue. Don't let your high school kids source Wiki for their papers.
It really is ironic that the poster child for user supplied content is banning blogs, especially when so many Wikipedia articles are flagged with needing clean up or sounding like ads, or not containing citations. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Also ironic, is that newspaper sources sometimes just cut and paste blog content and call it their own. Would that make something suddenly a verifiable source?
wikiprojectoregon.wordpress.com, why does it matter if Wikipedia editors are sympathetic to me? Their job is to be objective.
Re those comments of mine from 3 years ago. Firstly that's an eternity in the online world and RWW was a totally different entity back then than it is now. But even so, I'm not saying I'm perfect and I sometimes lose my cool. However, I'm not an admin for an online encyclopedia that claims to be objective.
Your arguments against wikipedia's policy are spot-on.
Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, looked down its nose at Wikipedia as a "self-published source." Now Wikipedia thinks it's King of the Pedias?
There's some supplemental information that can some *only* from blogs.
I am going to use a *very* niche example here that many will probably dismiss, but keep in mind that *narrow focus* is what the Internet *is all about*.
This is a Wikipedia entry for Interster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interster
My blog is the *only* blog on the entire Net to have supplementary information about this series:
http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/interster-episode-two-saboteur/
(see preior links at end of post too)
Who else can Wikipedia point to for people interested in that? The New York Times? Fox News? It's a very narrow interest and it took Wikipedia *years* to get that Interster entry itself! And where is anything *outside* of that entry that *verifies* any of it?
My blog is not about to go anywhere unless WordPress itself shuts down. I recognize the historical value of things on the Internet, so even though the blog has been completed, I'm never going to delete it.
How many other instances like this can people come up with? Wikipedia is making a fool of itself.
Richard, as a self-proclaimed expert in things Web 2.0, I would expect you to have a pretty good understanding of the difference between fighting a steady stream of spam and making careful editorial decisions.
Fighting spam takes a lot of work, and requires numerous quick judgments. Especially for a large site like Wikipedia or RWW.
Anyone engaged in good faith spam fighting will recognize that those quick judgments are occasionally made in error, and will be open to correcting them. (In this case, nobody -- especially you -- was making an effective case for why links to RWW should be included on Wikipedia.)
As you can see, Wikipedia editors here and on the Wikipedia discussion page are nearly unanimous in their support for your position.
However, your evaluation of the process that got us here is myopic, reactionary, egotistical, and inaccurate.
I'd suggest that you quit while you're ahead; it's clear that your site will be removed from the blacklist. But your grandstanding is only reflecting poorly on you and your site.
Posted by: wikiprojectoregon.wordpress.com
|
February 13, 2009 5:59 PM
>>>But your grandstanding is only reflecting poorly on you and your site.
Grandstanding? Is that what a justifiable argument is called these days?
Face it, Wikipedia has gotten entirely full of itself and ossified. It no longer embodies the spirit that birthed it.
I can understand the need to vet content. But when, as I've pointed out with my niche example, the *only* word is Wikipedia itself while there are clearly *supplemental* sources to verify or amplify an entry, it becomes farcical for Wikipedia to defend its position.
I was just at another entry tonight where the supplemental links -- which I'm sure were vetted as "not being blog" -- were *dead*. So all this grandstanding by *Wikipedia* -- which is what it is -- is turning it into a bad joke.
How long will it be before someone decides we need a *new* web encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not invulnerable.
"syndicated by The New York Times" should have been the kicker...
Wikipedia has a point - someone's personal views should not be considered as a citation. Do not forget that RWW is a blog and NOT a news service or research agency. So "officially" RWW articles CAN NOT be used as a citation source.
@Richard: My earlier comments were somewhat flippant, but they do reflect my opinion of how things are done at Wikipedia (and I'm speaking from a fair amount of personal knowledge here). Many people who have been involved with Wikipedia sooner or later come to see it as a form of MMORPG. I view it as an online community which, like any other online community, has its own norms and rules above and beyond the stated purpose. Many of the people who spend the most time of Wikipedia (which includes most admins) are acting out some role for themselves that they can't find in their real lives. Who else would be spending hours a day arguing with people about whether or not their garage band is "notable" or removing the word POOP from articles when a bot can do it faster?
Anyone looking at the situation objectively can see that your site should never have been on the spam blacklist. In true Wikipedia fashion, Pete is trying to make it seem like it's your fault because three years ago you said some slightly intemperate things. This is one part misdirection and two parts blaming the outsider (i.e., you) who is threatening the online community.
If it isn't fixed by tomorrow, come visit http://wikipediareview.com/ where the disgruntled hang out, but remember that the enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend.
http://www.gardenyacicek.com
Wow, this is a great article and the best point it how WikiP is structured off the web, yest web-content is the red-headed step-child...
Richard,
You and your readers may be interested in perusing a few related threads at The Wikipedia Review:
BADSITES Goes Global
COI Bot
Characters Who Need To Be Watched
Jon Awbrey
RWW is removed from blacklist, we'll see how permanent it will be.
@wikiprojectoregon you are hilarious, each of your comments on this post shows more and more the elitist attitude of wiki admins and fanboys. You talk to Richard like he is below you and needs to listen up to what a mighty wiki admin has to say.
Get off your high horse!
@arespectededitor if you are so respected as you self proclaim, why not link back to who you are? Why the secrecy?
i think this is a fascinating article and case study. i can see why they blacklisted you, but that should have been against you personally not the blog for some comments that you made 3 years ago.
I read your blog occassionally, because it was starting to get referenced and digg'd - so obviously the wider community thinks it is a good source of web 2.0 info. the fact that your syndicated by NYT only adds to the arguement that you should be removed, and rightfully that has happened.
i'm still curious to the general debate of whether blogs can be a seen as a credible source of information, not only for wikipedia but also for reference purposes (academic and in general). what about blogs outside the top 20?
This is even more funny as you know the huge wikipedia fail in germany three days ago. I couldn´t find an article written in english, so hopefully Google translate will do it:
#1 Newspaper in Germany wrote: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,606912,00.html
Search Google Blogsearch for "Wilhelm + Wikipedia"
The simple way to bring Wikipedia down to size and stop the site's incredibly arrogant self-importance is to take away the source of its power.
Petition long and hard for Wikipedia to be either delisted or de-emphasised in the Google search results. Suddenly the tiger has no claws and then we could go back to using it as the flawed but sometimes useful resource it is.
Just had a look, and it appears that RWW has been removed from the blacklist.
I do have some sympathy with the predicament of accepting blogs as reference in general - it's always going to be immensely difficult to sort out which ones are valid. But for the individual cases of the top few blogs in the world, the rulings should be pretty simple...
My blog is linked by Wikipedia as an external resource ;)
whiile its good to see RWW of the list - what I STILL cannot understand is: why does wikipedia allow anonymous editors? Surely that cannot be right. Somoe of the editors who commented here are not anonymous but the original one is who banned RWW rgds Ajit
I know all too well about wiki and some of the admins who are 'dumb' truthfully.
I use to belong to a website that is adult only, but a social community similar to myspace, etc.
this site has NEVER been mentioned on wiki.
I tried creating this page for the admins of this website as I had gotten their permission to do so.
I had the information I needed.
I was shot down by KGyST and that last admin in your main article and my page was removed.
They did not BOTHER to research and find such a site did exist. They were saying there was no such thing, etc.
They were in the WRONG, but oh well f* them. They didn't bother to see the truth, blasted me and so It doesn't exist as so man other sites do not Exist.
IT's because of Idiotcy such as that...
that wiki has REAL lack of control of some so called 'ADMINS' that they need REAL admins who post stuff and SHOW the links aka PROOF.
they need better and stricter rules and yea I butted heads.
I was a member of wiki willing to help.
I got blasted by Idiotic Admins.
I won't HELP, Unless either they are revoked or a serious change happens that has them to realize hey there's more to the web than 'monitoring' sites posted on wiki and not giving a chance to see if it's all real, etc.
I followed the guides and rules that were there when I posted to the T.
So, I just wanted to let you know...
You're not the only one.
They need to realize there's mistakes being made by admins in their pages and so do something about it.
They need to realize that some these admins who think they know fact don't. and I had people backing me up, but that helped none because these very few ... Truthfully abused their 'adminship'. with bulls*.
I won't tell of the name of the site here.
but I am willing to discuss with others about it.
It's life.
I hope someone will wake up to smell the coffee burning.
Good Luck.
"@arespectededitor if you are so respected as you self proclaim, why not link back to who you are? Why the secrecy?
Posted by: Jmartens | February 13, 2009 11:38 PM"
@Jmartens: I would assume you are one of those people immune to sarcasm, but you call yourself "Jeff The Great", so that can't be true.
I was referred to as "a respected editor" by an admin who was simultaneously trying to block me for something that was actually completely innocuous but rubbed this person the wrong way. I wasn't blocked, but I've seen people blocked, banned, and generally slandered for all manner of petty reasons that have little or nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Conversely, on a daily basis I see admins do things that would get other people blocked in a heartbeat.
I'm here publicly criticizing Wikipedia admins - why do you think I'd want to make myself a target of retribution? It's not like I'm blowing the whistle on government spying, it's only Wikipedia so you have to take it with a grain of salt. I've got my own reasons for being there, which I prefer not to share.
1 2 Next