I don't believe a word of it. Wales claims to value the contribution of the person who is not necessarily credentialed or a specialist. This is simply not true. Try changing anything on Wikipedia to reflect THE TRUTH. The "editors" at Wikipedia will fight you tooth and nail. The LIES that have been published as fact about me on this CROCK OF LIES are legion. Wikipedia has AGENDAS. They use BLOGS as corroboration. In other words (and definitely in my case) they use opinion to evidence opinion and then they call it fact. The people who control it, abuse it. It is frequently not only inaccurate, it can be employed as a tool to carry out A SMEAR CAMPAIGN. It is a tool of revenge and vengeance and can have no relationship to what is REAL whatsoever. It says whatever the people who run it, and who guard their status righteously, want it to say. Outsiders are NOT welcome. Anything that questions the opinionated status quo is regarded as heresy. What is new about that. it is so elitist as to be patently absurd. The day will arrive when they will be sued and it is going to cost them. -- Tim Barrus

No need to wait to be in the comics, Wales. When gaming Wikipedia is well-enough established to be featured in a Dilbert strip, you're already there. (The "topper" says, "I'm the world's biggest expert on blah and if you don't believe me, wait twenty minutes and check Wikipedia!")

I just checked the three most slanderous entries on Wikipedia, all Native American subjects monitored by James MacKay. "VizJim." He qualifies as a non-credentialed person, though he's about to receive a mail order degree. I see you've hurriedly cleaned the slander up to be just this side of legal action. That is, now they don't say "this man is blah-blah," now they say, "so and so is alleged to be blah-blah."

Right. Ayn Rand is SO neutral.

Prairie Mary

I think perhaps someone got bitten by the fact they didn't read the guidelines when editing Wikipedia, if they think Wikimedia makes claims of being immutable or universally accurate.

Perhaps you should read something on formal logic, in particular "ipse dixit" (Argumentum ad Verecundiam). Just because there are experts, it does not mean that their opinion or input is immutably true.

Obviously, it'd be better if all the science articles were edited by scientists, but hey, that's a possibility in the future thanks to the existence of wikipedia itself.

Conversely - just because someone is not an expert does not mean that they cannot contribute factually accurate information to the wikipedia, either. It gives me a headache when people seem to think that wikipedia assigns itself some form of immutability, when it REPEATEDLY lists what it's intentions are within their guidelines and about pages.

It cracks me up when these types of nutjobs categorise wikipedia as a complete pile of shit, devoid of any form of use, completely corrupt, useless and abhorrent. Yet, they believe the mechanisms of oppression and subversion that exist within are unfailingly efficient.

Take off your tinfoil hat, you idiot.

The sacred editors at Wikipedia come to it with agendas. They pretend this is not so. Often, the agenda is to punish. A good way to do this is to use blogs as sources and then put that into a feedback loop. One blog says something and another blogs says the same thing and another blogs says the same thing and another blog says the same thing -- it must be true. Often, these are blogs created by the Wikipedia editors who are sourcing themselves. In other words, it's true because I say it it's true, and it's true because we have created enough fake links in the system to warrant first place search engine rank. It's a link farm. Argumentum ad nauseum. The irony is that it's become common knowledge that Wikipedia is employed as a tool for haters. Factually accurate information because it's on a blog? Patently absurd. Wikipedia is abhorrent because it's not accurate, and yet it parades itself as the last word on truth. Often, a truth it creates and sources and defends and staunchly wards off any perspective that the editors don't see as fitting into their agendas. They defend their "guidelines" religiously because they bend them to fit any situation they want, and always with impunity. What is nutjob about pointing out the fact that the thing is a scam where credibility is an algorithm loop where Joe says and Joe says and Joe says and thusly it must be true. Anyone who dares to articulate this REALITY is then slammed as being the perpetrator of untruth, themselves. Or an idiot. Or a nutjob. Or a con artist. Or whatever kitchen sink Wikipedia wants to contrive and then throw at you. Which must be true because Wikipedia understands the value of being front and center. What is idiocy is the rabid allegiance to a self-replicating machine that manufactures rhetoric. I have had numerous correspondence from these people and they write that they will "get" me if it's the last thing they do. Actually, it's the first thing they do. They make up the story and then they make up the source and then they scream blood that everything they say is the gospel truth because their guidelines are straight out of the Bible of guidelines. They make up their "guidelines" as they go along, leaping from hack job to hack job. The truth according to Wikipedia. It's like taking a whispering campaign and turning up the volume. The loudest hater in the room gets all the attention but it will be short-lived. Wikipedia is going to be a blip on the radar screen because the thing is so burdened with leaking agendas it just can't hold water. The truth it manufactures is amusing because it has finally reached the point where the only people who take it as an instrument seriously are the so-called "editors" or gatekeepers at Wikipedia. Imagine that. If I'm an editor then I'm an editor then I'm an editor then put it on a blog, source it, and I'm an editor.Get me?How many editors do you know who write to the people they're covering and threaten to "get" them.Ho hum.Tim Barrus