User:Fall down/Wikipedia sucks
From RationalWikiWiki
Wikipedia has become a de facto monopoly that can't be challenged. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in several ways, and is unable to realise these flaws.
Contents |
[edit] WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V etc.
To start with, the largest problem is their 'reliable sources' policy (or 'no original research'). No real encyclopedia could possibly use it, and the only thing one can say is that it's just plain crazy. Stuff that clearly doesn't belong stays because there's a 'reliable source' and someone that will revert any removal without any real explanation beyond that. Things that should be obvious get deleted because someone doesn't like them and says 'original research'. This is especially flawed in scientific articles, as the people enforcing it are usually ignorant of the science.
[edit] The chemical elements
For example, this. One editor, clearly with no scientific expertise, mutilates a page without consensus because he can say 'original research'. Well, so it is; that whole page is, though I think it should exist nonetheless. The reference he put in to support the claim (Am. J. Phys. 76:509) actually does not. I doubt he even read it, or is capable or understanding it.
Another case is there insistence on using the IUPAC names like 'ununquadium' for element 114, which no professional physicist or chemist really uses. Again, their demented system says that because it is found in a 'reliable source', it can't be deleted.
[edit] Pseudoscience
Take a look at this (read the history of the page). True information about the "Brown's gas" hoaxes is deleted because it's not from a 'reliable source'. Why? - no good reason at all. Many people actually will be looking for that stuff, and given Wikipedia's comprehensiveness, it would be reasonable to debunk the nonsense.
[edit] Other
It's not just in science. They deleted this article, which had existed for a long time, because it's not covered in 'reliable sources'. Maybe it's a trivial topic, but Wikipedia has equally trivial ones, and it's something nearly every American knows about.
[edit] Power
Wikipedia has nearly no formal chain of command. The result, of course, is that an informal one gets created that's more tyrannical than a formal one would ever be. Anyone that's edited Wikipedia for a long time should be acquainted with this invisible power structure and their pathological secrecy, and the way they keep certain articles biased while claiming to be unbiased.
[edit] WP:3RR
The 'three-revert rule' is one of the most conspicuous ways in which they enforce their power. One might think the rule would increase fairness by establishing a fixed threshold rather than allow discretion. But that's not really fair, since disruptive edit warring can't be judged by number of reverts. In any case, the side supported by those in power can always attract enough supporters so that none of them exceed 3 reverts per day; thus they don't have to engage in any discussion, and generally don't.
[edit] WP:PEREN
This page is a laugh as it supposedly consists of bad ideas, yet is actually a list of good ideas to improve Wikipedia - there's a reason these proposals are perennial!
Let's look at a few. Note that many if not all of my criticisms below have actually been brought up by the proponents of these proposals.
- 'Enforce American or British spelling'
- The page presents two arguments against this: that it would require too much work and that it would result in more edit-warring. Actually, standardised spelling would not require any changes to be done all at once, but merely say that changing from British to American would be OK, but changing the other way (except perhaps on British-specific articles) would be considered disruptive. Also, that would actually reduce edit warring.
- 'Define reliable sources'
- This would be a significant improvement. The page argues that the definition can only be done using specific judgement, but in fact that is not done (see above section). To really implement that, one would need to have a system of experts in the subject to assess what sources are suitable, and Wikipedia refuses to use any sort of experts.
- 'Deleted pages should be visible'
- The page's main argument is that this would be legally inadvisable. However, this proposal would not eliminate real deletion, which would be used for any legally problematic content.
[edit] See also
- Wikipedia
- User:Fall down/page2 Outdated, but still true
