Changes

5,719 bytes added , 19:59, 26 July 2010

Line 1: Line 1: +

Welcome to '''The Wikipedia Point of View'''.

Line 7: Line 8:

But it has become apparent that the NPOV policy has failed Wikipedia in many areas. This has happened for many reasons, to be documented in '''The Wikipedia Point of View'''.

−

~~== Pseudoscientific topics ==~~

+

*"If there’s one thing I hope people take from this sort of issue, it’s that there really is a “Wikipedia perspective” on almost any controversial subject. As you’ve recognized, that perspective is extremely insular and values “civility” – which translates to '''“avoidance of all negative reactions to, or personal criticism of, established Wikipedians”''' – above almost anything else, including morality, accuracy, and fairness. Meanwhile, Jimbo & Co. realized a long time ago that drama and controversy are just another recruitment strategy. Jimbo in particular won’t step in to try and quell it unless his personal interests are threatened". ("Somey" of [http://wikipediareview.com Wikipedia Review]).

−

* ~~[[Neurolinguistic programming]]~~

+

*Encyclopedias are compendiums of ''settled'', ''broadly-agreed'', and ''largely non-controversial scholarship''. They are not newspapers, they are not research journals, they are not book reviews, they are not giant rubbish heaps of every possible theory on any given topic. This is why Wikipedia is either: a) not an encyclopedia at all; or b) the world's worst encyclopedia. (Gomi of Wikipedia Review).

−

** [[List of ~~Neurolinguistic programming companies]]~~

−

** [[Directory:~~The Wikipedia Point~~ of ~~View/The_Structure_of_Magic | The Structure of Magic]]~~

−

* [[Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing]]

−

* [[What the Bleep]]

−

* [[Global warming]]

−

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia ~~Point of View/Studies on Neurolinguistic programming | Studies on Neurolinguistic programming]]~~

−

== ~~History~~ ==

+

*"... the currently seriously malfunctioning Wikipedia experiment, which has gone from being a well-intentioned experiment run by a few nerds to being a source of defamation and misinformation so powerful that it's having a genuine and noticeable corrosive effect on the world's media. One of the key issues in that is the discussion of the pros and cons of the Wikimedia Foundation's almost unique decision to allow children unrestricted access to positions of authority in which they're obliged to make serious ethical and legal decisions (often on extremely sensitive issues, such as the ethics of publishing material likely negatively to impact real-life medical diagnoses, the ethics of a charitably-funded educational institution maintaining a large-scale collection of hardcore pornography, or the appropriate way to handle defamation on a massive scale, which is beyond the ability of a rapidly shrinking volunteer group to control completely). Many people feel that people below the age of legal responsibility should not be taking decisions of this nature, and that allowing them to do so has serious moral and legal implications for the adults involved". - Eva of Wikipedia Review - [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28039&st=60&#entry214736]

+

* "Essentially the Pol Pot view that the scientists should be down in the mud weeding plants along with everybody else, if they haven't already been executed. I've compared the structure of WP to the Khmer Rouge more than once. Nobody gets killed, imprisoned, tortured, fired, censored, or had their books or papers burned on WP, but that's not because nobody would be willing to, I think." Milton of Wikipedia Review - [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=29724&view=findpost&p=239288].

+

* "As I have said previously, I consider many Wikipedia users, and particularly administrators, socially dysfunctional computer geeks with no normal interpersonal social skills. To compensate for that lack, they live in the virtual world of Wikipedia, where they pretend that enforcing perceived violations against Wikipedia rules (which rules exist no place but Wikipedia) is actually doing something worthwhile. That personality defect, so common among Wikipedia users, does not make them charming company, and getting thrown out of WP and into the real world is always a refreshing change. " - Parting shot from Banned user:Kwork [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malcolm_Schosha&oldid=293326095].

−

* [[~~Port Arthur Massacre (~~Wikipedia)]]

+

==The main sources of bias in Wikipedia==

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Deviants|Deviants]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Fans|Fans]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Quacks|Quacks]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Cult|Cults]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Activists|Activists]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Cranks|Cranks]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Conflict of interest and Wikipedia|Conflicts of interest]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Governments|Governments]]

−

== ~~'Alternative sexuality' topics~~ ==

+

== Plagiarism ==

−

* [[Directory:~~The Wikipedia Point of View~~/~~Wikipaedophilia~~ | ~~Wikipaedophilia~~]]

+

* [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Flying Toaster RfA|Flying Toaster RfA]]

−

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/~~Pederasty~~ | ~~Pederasty~~]]

+

* [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Steve_Smith_Plagiarism|Steve Smith Plagiarism]]

−

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/~~The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality~~ | ~~The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality~~]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Roger Davies plagiarism|Roger Davies plagiarism]]

−

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/~~Wikibestia~~ | ~~Wikibestia~~]]

+

== Administrative corruption ==

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/TBP|TBP]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Law|The Case of Law]]

== Sceptics or scientists who have been blocked from Wikipedia ==

Line 34: Line 43:

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Dpeterson | Dpeterson]]

* [[Peter Damian (Wikipedia editor)]]

+

** [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Editors Trade Union]]

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Peter Damian Evidence | Peter Damian Evidence]]

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/ScienceApologist | ScienceApologist]]

Line 55: Line 65:

== Editors who are not sceptical ==

−

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/FT2 | FT2]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/FT2 | FT2]] - see also [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/FT2 on Animal Films | FT2 on Animal Films]]

== Guide to Wikipedia ==

Line 75: Line 85:

== Criticism of Wikipedia ==

−

+

* [http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php Nature's Flawed Study of Wikipedia's Quality]

* David Blomstrom ''[http://knol.google.com/k/david-blomstrom/wikipedia/1i6e04re3w2kp/5# Wikipedia: The Online Reference Anyone Can Edit]''.

* Carl Hewitt ''[http://knol.google.com/k/carl-hewitt/corruption-of-wikipedia/pcxtp4rx7g1t/5# Corruption of Wikipedia (http://wikicensored.info)]''

+

** [http://cid-34e006e39d8b691b.office.live.com/self.aspx/Public/Corruption/Corruption%5E_of%5E_Wikipedia-150.pdf Full version here]

* Kohs & al: [[Criticism of crowdsourcing]]

* [[Wikipedia scandals]] (see also [[Wikipedia Vandalism Study]])

* [[Wikipedia Vandalism]]

+

* [[Creative Vandalism on Wikipedia]]

* [[Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia]]

* [[Worst of Wikipedia]]

+

*[[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikimoney-a|Wikimoney-a]]

+

*[[Multiple account abuse (Wikipedia)]]

+

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing Civil POV pushing]

+

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filll/Disgusted Disgusted] - interesting material on possible vote-rigging.

+

* [[The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia]]

+

* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080229/sam-vaknin-wikipedias-six-cardinal-sins Wikipedia’s Six Cardinal Sins] by Sam Vaknin

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Criticisms of Wikipedia - A Compendium|Criticisms of Wikipedia - A Compendium]]

+

* [http://thewebserviceblog.co.uk/2008/10/31/wikipedia-sucks Wikipedia sucks] - better than the title suggests.

+

*[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19776&view=findpost&p=191959 Highly educated people have better things to do with their lives than entertain nutcases] - nice comment by taiwopanfob of the Wikipedia Review.

== Wikipedia Review ==

Line 88: Line 109:

* [[Wikipedia Review]]

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia_Review (Criticism) | Criticism of Wikipedia Review]]

−

* Members of WR who are now also here include [[User:Giggy]] ([[User talk:Giggy|talk]]), [[User:Alison]] ([[User talk:Alison|talk]]), [[User:Proabivouac]] ([[User talk:Proabivouac|talk]]), [[User:Moulton]] ([[User talk:Moulton|talk]]), [[User:Jon Awbrey]] ([[User talk:Jon Awbrey|talk]]), [[User:Blissyu2]] ([[User talk:Blissyu2|talk]]).

+

* Members of WR who are now also here include [[User:Giggy]] ([[User talk:Giggy|talk]]), [[User:Alison]] ([[User talk:Alison|talk]]), [[User:Proabivouac]] ([[User talk:Proabivouac|talk]]), [[User:Moulton]] ([[User talk:Moulton|talk]]), [[User:Jon Awbrey]] ([[User talk:Jon Awbrey|talk]]), [[User:Blissyu2]] ([[User talk:Blissyu2|talk]]), [[User:Naerii]] ([[User talk:Naerii|talk]])

+

== Strange or crappy articles ==

+

== Wikipedia and Academia ==

+

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects School and university projects]

+

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOMJ List of missing journals] A list of academic journals about which Wikipedia does not yet have articles.

+

== Amusement ==

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Essjay|Essjay]]

+

* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Sam Blacketer controversy|Sam Blacketer controversy]]

Ockham

3,209

edits

Changes

Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View (view source)

Revision as of 19:59, 26 July 2010