mercoledì, gennaio 04, 2006

Wikipedia vs Anarchopedia

Da un confronto tra Wikipedia ed Anarchopedia risultano tutte le deficienze di Wikipedia, improntata ad un ipercontrollo e ad una gestione gerarchica che paradossalmente sono impotenti davanti a quell'inaccuratezza e a quella diffamazione che hanno portato alla nascita di Wikipedia Class Action.

Molto interessante anche l'articolo originale in lingua inglese, in cui si legge:

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", R. K. called it the "Nazipedia" because he believes there is viciously anti-semitic bias (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about outing that seem to focus on whether a GodKing or sysop power structure [1] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the Wikipedia itself.

As a concrete example of the tyranny which exists at the Wikipedia, note that there are no rules requiring "proof" (of any sort) before a user is banned -- there are only guidelines and such, but not actual rules. The result is that it is the responsiblity of a banned user to prove their innocence; and somehow defend themselves against the cabal.


As defined on

The following has been said about Wikipedia on

  • "Wikipedia is a great idea in theory, but in practice, most of it's a waste of cyber-ink. It's supposed to be a massive open-source encyclopedia. To its credit, it contains some quirky, interesting information not found anywhere else. However, it also contains factual inaccuracies and political garbage. The bulk of its most influential contributors (the ones with power) are ideological morons, each of whom has to put his/her opinion into every article, even on topics like Norse mythology or basket-weaving. Petty squabbles dominate while factual integrity and cooperative production are made tertiary priorities. The worst aspect of Wikipedia is the "cabal" of like-minded, influential, long-standing contributors who dress their views up as "consensus" and use their sysop privileges to bully anyone who disagrees with them. As an interesting footnote, the encyclopedia was also implicated in a 2004 character assassination effort by a band of anonymous right-wingers against Mike Church." (2 December 2004)
  • "Online open text encyclopedia, the quality of whose articles varies widely because the quality of the contributors varies widely. A large number of its two hundred billion trillion articles consist of recycled news releases, wishful thinking masquerading as fact, axe-grinding, and hobbyhorse-riding. On the other hand, some sections include many articles written by people who know what they're talking about." (30 June 2004)
[1] The sysop power structure of Wikipedia is to put it very simply, fascistic. Would be users are banned by ISP address and user name (even if the computer they are using is a public one; i.e., in a library), and can be banned infintely. The admins are self-important and spiteful; they will edit out perfectly useful and accurate information because of 'guilt by association'; again a banned ISP number or name. Self-appointed Little Gods. Anarchopedia should contrast this with free and open access to all. Power to the People!

1 commento:

Anonimo ha detto...

Più leggo quello che scrivi di wikipedia più mi viene l'orticaria.