Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

The problem with Wikipedia
  by Dr Bomb

I know something about Wikipedia: They don't want people "in the know"
to write the articles. The mantra is "no original research", even if the
article would benefit by someone who has all of the facts, inside and out.

So Wikipedia is fine for "fun stuff". But for research it tends to be
watered down by the faceless and nameless pseudoanonymous masses.

For example: A website I put together years ago was a thorough
well-researched critique of the 12-Step pro-addiction industry known as
"The ARID Site" (it's still up @ My
inspiration came from another website known as "The Orange Papers"

Question: Do you really think people like me and Orange would be able to
put together a huge bunch of links to rare documents and other stuff
which is denied to exist by the groupers within "The Rooms"? Then have
that stuff published on Wikipedia? Or worse, having to keep the entry
free from malicious edits by the currently-addicted who haven't quit but
remain "in recovery", as in still addicted? And any fool can end an
addiction cold turkey (I was one of those fools).

That's why websites like ours exist. It's called "editorial control" and
we pay the bills so that the content remains alive. We say what we like
and don't hold ourselves accountable to nothing else but where the facts
lead. Throw that content into a third-party proxy, such as Wikipedia or
some other space which isn't owned and operated by the writers and
editors themselves, there's no guarantee for that content's longevity.

Y'see, such censorship is done to "protect people". And you'd think we'd
all be reasonable adults here? Or, in my case, when dealing with "Rubber
Events International" (REI) in New York, it's a great way of silencing
criticism and presenting the illusion that all is well in the world (I'm
still engaged in my legal complaint against REI while juggling my work
as a pharmacy tech who is finding my own levels of responsibility
increasing with a matching salary to boot).

So yes, it's all about responsibility. Wikipedia and its hacks can't
handle that so they'd rather censor in the name of "neutrality", never
mind if some inconvenient truths get shoved down the memory hole. So
instead the messengers get shot down instead of showing to the world the
corruption within this world or even within Wikipedia (much like the
"International Association of Rubberists" (IAR), who won't do anything
about the REI criminals running a rigged event in its name and logotype,
some of whom are longtime members of the IAR).

Look at it this way: Anyone can put a website up. And anyone can publish
anything. Too bad that very few people take the time and effort to put
forth a lot of research and fact-finding. I look at my legal complaint
and, with that and the combined amount of mandatory overtime at work for
about five months, it's enough to make someone with lesser stamina to
call it quits. I'm just lucky I got where I did so far to get the legal
gears grinding.And, in all of that research, I learned more about that
seedy fetish undeground than many others who willfully remain blind. I
even learned that one of my friends was nothing more than a
backstabbing, spineless asskissing coward. But since then I've found out
who true friends are. And they're my best inside sources in my
investigation and legal complaint.

So that's the problem of Wikipedia: It's just not a stable resource
because of its own self-centered clique. But, for fiction, it sure is fun.

-- Dr Bomb

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .