DAVID SIMPSON'S NANOPEDIA
These are articles I would normally have contributed to Wikipedia, but lately conditions at
Wikipedia have become intolerable. I now publish new Wikipedia-like
articles here instead.
* indicates an article I originally wrote for Wikipedia that has since been deleted.
I've reproduced the article here, where it can't be deleted.
The Case Against Wikipedia
I spent a number of years editing Wikipedia, contributing material on physics, mathematics, and
other subjects I knew something about. Here's my advice to anyone interested in getting
involved in editing Wikipedia: DON'T. Just don't do it. If you decide to contribute
something to Wikipedia, here's what will happen:
Technically, Wikipedia has a “civility” policy (WP:CIVILITY), but I'm told that
this policy is long dead, particularly when it comes to behavior by administrators. From what I've
seen, there's nothing resembling civil behavior going on with Wikipedia administrators.
- Your contribution will be deleted within minutes. Typically it will be by some administrator
who will indicate that you've violated some Wikipedia policy like WP:IAR, WP:WAX, etc. (whatever
those mean). Or maybe they just don't like what you wrote, for whatever reason.
- If you ask why your work was deleted, you will be called names, cussed out, bullied, threatened, and harassed.
Your integrity and motives will be questioned. Out of spite, administrators may
vandalize your user page or delete any previous contributions you've made.
- If you decide to report the abusive behavior, especially if it's against an administrator,
you will be put on a kind of “trial”. You will be accused of being the problem
for reporting the abuse.
Again your integrity and motives will be questioned; administrators will search through all your
past edits, looking for something they can threaten you with. Again, you'll
be called names, bullied, threatened, harassed, and cussed out by administrators who will
be circling the wagons to protect the bullying administrator whose abusive behavior you were reporting.
I found that two Wikipedia administrators who are particularly bad about this kind of bullying are:
- “Arthur Rubin”
- “Future Perfect at Sunrise”
Bottom line: Wikipedia is a very corrupt, very hostile environment, being run largely by
childish, bullying control freaks. Stay far away. Life is too short,
and it's just not worth the aggravation.
What Others Have Said
This is an excerpt from James McKay's blog, from his article “Are Deletionists Harming Wikipedia?” (Feb. 2, 2010).
The problem is that there is a massive disconnect between Wikipedia?s users—casual visitors who often
don't even bother to create an account—and its overlords—the regular, active Wikipedians
with edit counts in the thousands or even tens of thousands and an encyclopaedic knowledge and
understanding of its policies. It is at its most striking in the whole inclusionist versus
deletionist debate. And the deletionists are alienating a lot of would-be Wikipedians.
It turns out that this is one of the biggest criticisms levelled at Wikipedia by occasional editors.
People come onto the site knowing nothing of Wikpedia's policies, but plenty about
some—possibly very niche—subject. They make half a dozen or so edits, then return a week later to
find that their article has been deleted with no apparent explanation. Or perhaps it will be flagged
with a deletion debate, crammed full of arcane and cabalistic abbreviations such as WP:NFT, WP:NOTE,
WP:V, WP:WAX, WP:SOAP, WP:IAR, and so on, all pointing to Wikipedia's byzantine and convoluted
policies, guidelines and procedures. What kind of impression does this leave the casual editor?
That Wikipedia is a hideout for a bunch of antisocial, bureaucratic teenage control freaks—a
kind of online equivalent to the kids on the beach who kick the sandcastle you've just spent three
hours building into your face. And since first impressions count the most, they will go off, never
contribute anything else, and rant on blogs and forums about how insular and out of touch with
Real Life these Wikipedians are.
Why is this harming Wikipedia? Because these are the people who contribute the overwhelming
majority of substantive, meaningful content to the site.
And from Nicole Hamilton, quoted in the Wall Street Journal:
The problem of the so-called “deletionists” is totally out of control on Wikipedia.
These are, so far as I can tell, completely self-appointed topic police who go from one article
to another deleting pretty much anything they don't like. Now, certainly, if they were making these
decisions in topics where they actually had some particular domain expertise or knowledge,
I'd say, fine. But that doesn't appear to be what's going on. To me, it just looks like a plain
ol' power trip for idiots who know basically nothing about anything except Wikipedia's rules,
which, also as pointed out in the article, are getting to be about as labyrinthine as the IRS code.
Bottom line, Wikipedia is falling over of its own weight.
I may be contacted at: