> I tried to correct the nonsense written on the appalling Wikipedia page 'Concrete Ship', only to find myself 'Indefinitely Blocked' from updating Wikipedia. Their grounds were that by citing referenceable facts from this website, I was 'self-promoting' apparently. Self promoting history ? History that has been meticulously researched and is completely free to access ? I then had the audacity to argue with one of the tinpot dictators that run Wikipedia such that I was banned from 'Talk' as well. Closed minds, fake history. This is only important because when you research anything, Wikipedia comes out top. The text then gets repeated ad nauseam. That's the problem...the nonsense on Wikipedia is extrapolated and propagated many times over. For everyone that reads this, a hundred will read Wikipedia and attach what is written to their photo or video. This fact alone means that there is a responsibility on Wikipedia - one that they take extremely lightly - to ensure that statements have adequate and reputable citations. Wikipedia is not a source, Wikipedia is never a source
Pretty strong sentiments - anyone else have this sort of experience? Bit of a bunker buster if the assertions within hold weight...
edit: found the talk page referenced [0]. It's popcorn-worthy at least.
I’m immediately reminded of John Siracusa’s rant about Wikipedia on his old Hypercritical podcast. This is a lengthy rebuttal from (presumably) a Wikipedia lover that includes a link and timestamp to the original podcast segment [0]
I agree, verifiability makes sense, and truth can’t really be claimed without verification, and so it’s a confusing argument to say: truth should be above verifiability; but I must admit: I find it very strange that some people have information about them on their Wikipedia pages that they’re not able to correct despite _being the person_ because one can only cite a source.
The problem of circular citations exists as well, where an article is cited which itself only cites another article, and it might loop back on itself.
People not being allowed to edit their own page (and by extension, anyone that comes without verifiable info because they could be agents of said person) is an unfortunate need. I refer you to the oft-sockpuppeted page of former airline exec Frank Lorenzo [0]
> I tried to correct the nonsense written on the appalling Wikipedia page 'Concrete Ship', only to find myself 'Indefinitely Blocked' from updating Wikipedia. Their grounds were that by citing referenceable facts from this website, I was 'self-promoting' apparently. Self promoting history ? History that has been meticulously researched and is completely free to access ? I then had the audacity to argue with one of the tinpot dictators that run Wikipedia such that I was banned from 'Talk' as well. Closed minds, fake history. This is only important because when you research anything, Wikipedia comes out top. The text then gets repeated ad nauseam. That's the problem...the nonsense on Wikipedia is extrapolated and propagated many times over. For everyone that reads this, a hundred will read Wikipedia and attach what is written to their photo or video. This fact alone means that there is a responsibility on Wikipedia - one that they take extremely lightly - to ensure that statements have adequate and reputable citations. Wikipedia is not a source, Wikipedia is never a source
Pretty strong sentiments - anyone else have this sort of experience? Bit of a bunker buster if the assertions within hold weight...
edit: found the talk page referenced [0]. It's popcorn-worthy at least.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Concrete_ship#Nonsense_hi...