Wikipedia (from 142 perspective): Difference between revisions

wikipedia can XML dump. See Special:Export.
m (moved from Wikimedia)
(wikipedia can XML dump. See Special:Export.)
Line 15: Line 15:
Correctly citing Wikipedia as a bad example, many insiders are decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture.  The Cunctator refers to its "vile mailing list", Robert Kaiser called it the "Nazipedia" (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about [[outing]] that seem to focus on whether a [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]].
Correctly citing Wikipedia as a bad example, many insiders are decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture.  The Cunctator refers to its "vile mailing list", Robert Kaiser called it the "Nazipedia" (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about [[outing]] that seem to focus on whether a [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]].


Use of the inadequate [[mediawiki]] software opens up other lines of criticism; Its custom software lacks basic capabilities like an [[XML dump]] - this is considered [[software imperialism]] by some and a [[bad copy problem]] by others, and a [[self-interested fork problem]] by still others.  This is perhaps not surprising, as, it will be those who are attracted to the idea of forking freely that will be attracted to both wikis and the GFDL...
Use of the inadequate [[mediawiki]] software opens up other lines of criticism; Its custom software is considered [[software imperialism]] by some and a [[bad copy problem]] by others, and a [[self-interested fork problem]] by still others.  This is perhaps not surprising, as, it will be those who are attracted to the idea of forking freely that will be attracted to both wikis and the GFDL...


Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia.  There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not.  There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content.  He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc..
Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia.  There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not.  There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content.  He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc..
Anonymous user