|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash 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 - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
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 @ http://www.thearidsite.org).
My
inspiration came from another website known as
"The Orange Papers"
(http://www.orange-papers.org).
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
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog