Posted on 10/03/2019 7:32:57 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj
Have Absolutely Had It With Wikipedia's Nonsense & Tyrannical Editors
As someone who has been on Wikipedia for over 12 years, I've attempted on countless occasions to try to make my own contributions to the website. Besides correcting minor errors, my one main specialty was bringing up-to-date information on individual locations, going state by state. Meticulously researching census records, maps, online resources, etc. to try to improve said pages. It's a time-consuming endeavor, but I figure if it's helpful to others, perhaps a kid working on a research project, it's worth it.
Not anymore.
I'm sick to death of the blowback from attempting to "dare" improve the pages of individual communities. It was bad enough several years ago working on the state of Alabama (yeah, working in alphabetical order) only to have one editor summarily delete my contributions despite said research. I later moved on to working on Alaska, which was woefully out-of-date, and had not so much as a single thank you, but a snarky editor/mod who deleted and then made light of my contributions.
Then came this week. I was working on Arizona, and was slammed with a swarm of editors deleting everything I put into the articles, never mind I cited exactly what/where/when and how my research was done. Just removed and warned. I blew up (mildly) at two mods and told them if they wished to be of help, to go over the work/research line by line and locate what kind of "references" would satisfy their appetites. The final straw was trying to locate something as simple as an incorporation date for a particular city. Try as I might, I could not find the date anywhere online. I actually dared email the city manager who promptly replied and provided a pdf copy of the resolution from the '80s. I told her I would put the info on Wikipedia. It was removed THREE times and I was attacked for putting up "unsourced material." The last time was today. I was researching villages that were no longer in existence and had the temerity to change their designation to "ghost towns" and everything swiftly deleted by these same bullies this evening.
Y'know, I have absolutely had it with these power-hungry editor thugs who seem hell-bent on wanting to keep the place free from updated facts and hide behind "references" excuses and claiming "no original research permitted !" The whole damn website is FULL of original research or references to original research. Without it, there'd be no website of facts.
I would love to do this research and pages for another website that doesn't attack/criticize and remove it at the drop of a hat (and mind you, THIS ISN'T POLITICAL !), but I cannot seem to find one. Conservapedia barely exists and I'd have to create a page for every locale (and probably HTML, etc., which I'm not very good with), which would take eons to do. I'm just simply baffled otherwise. But I'm not going to toil one more second for a website that regards my meaningful contributions as a nuisance. Eff Wikipedia.
Eff Wikipedia
They're obviously not worth a bucket of cold goat phlegm
It would be a monumental task. Tens of thousands of pages would have to be created in order to do so, and hardly anyone looks at it.
They’re not even fair on the historic stuff, since that’s part of what my work entails.
Lookup Stefan Molyneux to see the slanderous attacks in his bio on Wikipedia. And it is, to the letter, all "locked down" to prevent any changes not authorized by the "Tyrannical Editors."
That wouldn't work. They would see his IP address in a heartbeat and know it was him.
A good many people operate with the assumption, often heard and repeated, that “knowledge is power.” So they guard what they perceive to be knowledge, and do so on their own terms.
They do not know you. Somehow they are in a position to exert contrary efforts over your hard work. That has to be frustrating to say the least.
Anyway, given your willingness to apply yourself to facts, there must be some way you can do this kind of work and gain the satisfaction of seeing fruit. Have you considered teaching (if that is not something you do already)?
Check out this piece from wikipedia on Ned Price, who some are speculating is the whistleblower. I put **** around the area of concern. Wonder if Kushner could sue =>
>>>>>>>>>>
Discussing the recent disclosures of the developing information related to ****Kushner’s apparent involvement in a Russian attempt to interfere in the 2016 presidential election****, Price said, “I am confident in saying that my clearance would have been immediately revoked had I, as a career CIA officer, been accused of a fraction of these activities.”[27]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Price
Thanks fieldmarshaldj. I gave up trying to correct errors and omissions, because there are Wikipedia mods who are just officious ***holes.
I’m guessing their idea of “original research” is to make stuff up, just like the MSM does. Most information on liberal politicians featured on Wikipedia, read like their campaign literature.
No doubt. That’s how they roll. The little thug editor threatened to report me for being mean for daring to respond to and call him out on his crap.
No, not a teacher. Health stuff prevents me from working a normal job. Trying to be productive in some sort of way with the research I like to do. I work on it for myself and don’t HAVE to share it, but what good is it to have it and learn it and not share it with others ? And here is the thanks I get for trying.
I don’t even attempt to read those current bios. They’re just lies and propaganda. Every center-right person who has a bio there should go over every word on their page and sue for libel if so much as a letter is incorrect.
I’d like 5 minutes in a room with some of these thugs. They’ll be wearing my “original research.”
Yup. The stuff on lefties is puke-inducing ass-kissery. For the normals and the straights ? Every hateful thing they can think of, and they can “cite” it as “valid” by going to some leftist blog or article and < ref >”referencing” < / ref > it. A nice circle-jerk.
Re: They would see his IP address in a heartbeat and know it was him.
Easily solved by investing $100 in a used laptop.
Obviously, he enjoys the work, and he has every right to know if he has been black balled as a Conservative.
It’s obvious from that series of posts that you have a group of self-congratulating, fiefdom guards who don’t really understand the advancement of knowledge or that an encyclopedia is merely, at heart, a compendium of original research. This comes out of our public school teaching that you can only regurgitate what you’ve been taught, no original thinking allowed. You can only report on what someone else has already done or said. Even fifty years ago, I saw the signs of hide-bound thought being clamped down. No matter how tight my logic chain of original thought, no matter what level of proof I could argue, I would inevitably be marked down in grade for NOT SOURCING WHAT I WAS PROPOSING OR ARGUING FROM SOME OTHER AUTHORITY!
It was inevitable that original thought or research was to be clamped down on unless it supposedly came from some one with the proper credentials, someone with some alphabet soup behind their name, otherwise, these snobs would not accept it. Logic and proof, even presented before their eyes was not acceptable, because they’d been taught it had to be approved by the hoary anointed high priests of what ever field the subject was. It did not matter that these nabobs of orthodoxy were often protecting fiefdoms of long debunked and disproven drivel, often outdated by much more recent discoveries, or were politically motivated incompetents, long past their prime, just protecting their prior, but now disproved, or out-dated contributions, often fearful their income streams from textbooks they authored would be curtailed or even ended, bypassed in favor of more up-to-date scholarship. They’ve put themselves in the position of gatekeepers, —Jonathan Swift’s "flappers" for the members of their disciplines, who flap the ears of their peers if they think they should hear something, or flap their lips if they think the peers should say anything—who must be appeased with the approval of peer-review and citation in new thoughts in their fields even if it causes stagnation or even the complete blockade of new thinking.
What these WP editors fail to grasp is that today, something approaching 70%-80% of published academic research articles are twaddle, faked research to meet the "publish or perish" demands of academia. There isn’t any facts or truth in them. . . and very little original factual research. Even the peer-review is a joke. It’s more of the same self-congratulating, circle of knowing winking at each other being published in journals that exist merely to publish twaddle.
Yes, but that was 20 years ago. Problem is, once you slap a name on a website like that “Conserva-”, it’s already being limiting. Truth IS Conservative, so it doesn’t need for a modifier to be on it.
Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter didn’t slap an ideological name on it (even if they ended up all being leftist-controlled), and also had a ton of help behind it.
When I’m checking pages there on Conservapedia that haven’t been touched or edited in 4 years, that’s a BAD sign. That means nobody is looking at it. Worse, yet, the site is already 13 years old.
My focus is exclusively on places/locales in the U.S., trying to work state by state. I’d like to have a website started that focused on that in a similar setup to the Wiki pages, with only minor alterations.
Here’s more twaddle from another page “debating” my research, and my response... (third paragraph)
Benson, Arizona[edit]
I would appreciate input about whether this edit at Benson, Arizona is original research. User:DJ xxx used personal correspondence with a city employee to support an edit, and now that editor and I differ on whether this is original research. I searched online for a published source to support this edit but have not located one. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I don’t think that this will qualify as a valid source, simply for the reason that WP has no way to know if the document was tampered with or altered in any way. Also, the editor says they “Provided pdf copy of scan from City Manager of resolution from city records. Cannot scan to Wikipedia.” Which means we basically have to take the editor’s word that they received this information. Now, I understand WP:AGF, but I think that is taking the concept a bit far. As such, I think it fails WP:VERIFY. Clearly, if a city underwent a change like that, there must be a verifiable source which can be used: a local newspaper?Onel5969 TT me 16:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I cited the date (Jan 1985), where it was received from (Benson), when it was received (10/1), and from whom (the City Manager). I cited the resolution, which is not available online because there is no way a town of that size has the resources and manpower to put up documents from long-ago council meetings (and same goes for trying to find an article from a tiny town newspaper from that long ago). The whole point of CONTACTING the City Manager was because that information wasn’t available online ! I’ve been making edits and contributions for 12 years almost explicitly on this subjects of cities, towns, villages, ghost towns, et al. Still not enough. Yes, because someone is going to tamper/alter with a document of an almost 34-year old resolution of a town council and the set date the election was held to upgrade the status from town to city. You bring paranoia and silliness to a whole new standard... and with the standards you boys set, you’re going to have to delete 90% of what’s on this entire website because — guess what — it’s “original research.” Perhaps 95%. Good job, kids. DJ (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
General Semantics in relation to the Internet: “The Map is not the territory!”
General semantics is about the meaning of meaning.
In this case, the Internet is the “map,” reality is the “Territory.”
That is what these bozo editors fail to grasp.
Somebody, somewhere, had to do the original grunt research to post it, publish it, somewhere on the internet which was the original purpose of Wikipedia. Not everything is yet digitized and on the Internet. Some data, like this Benson, Arizona, city resolution will never be put on the internet unless someone like you has the time and interest to do the “original research,” ferret it out, and puts it there. Otherwise it will remain in a dusty, dead tree file drawer until it’s someday thrown out in a general purge of old files by an ignorant clerk, or gets destroyed in a fire or other catastrophe, or is just abandoned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.