What will it take to starve this shithole and make it finally die?
> Dictatorial people who'll revert your entry under "Original Research" even though you know IT IS THE FUCKING TRUTH.
citation needed
> Edit wars.
citation needed
> Many education bodies HATE it.
citation needed
> What will it take to starve this shithole and make it finally die?
unencyclopedic tone, may require rewriting
I've only edited it a few times but I've never had a problem
The thing is, the model doesn't seem likely to die at all. It appeals to egotism and has a self-perpetuating hierarchy of wankery that will exist as long as the site has traffic. While there is a limited degree of quality control lest the site become discredited, what is lost in this process is non-bias
The Wikipedia model places quantity over quality in a manner slightly more focussed than general web articles and much more centralized. It is roughly the "google" hub of encyclopedic data, providing a projection for users to personalize much like personal websites only in a slightly uniform manner. What the site has done is successfully link together and integrate isolated personal sites into a cohesive whole. This doesn't mean that any of the people who run these sites are credible, non-biased, or not in it for petty personal reasons, but it does mean that it did become a major website.
Personally, I don't think there are many feasible alternatives on the web to this style if a site wants to be big. Enough quantity built up eventually yields some level of quality: What Wikipedia has done is tie together the bare minimum of compromise needed to engage the maximum number of users possible. It has effectively outproduced slow-moving scholarly or profit-based encyclopedias as a result
>Hmm I dont know what to say to this guy... LOL I KNOW I'LL CALL HIM MAD DUHUUHUHUHHUU
As the rest of you can clearly see, I have succeeded all too easily in upsetting the persons to whom Wikipedia's ``hierarchy of wankery'' (a vague, unqualified phrase if ever there was) is completely incomprehensible. Their impatient, reactionary behavior bespeaks quick tempers and the crippling inability to defuse interpersonal situations of elevated tension - traits which, when brought to an open forum of knowledge and debate, will only ever imply a childish stubbornness.
And now I shall await further data in order to justify additional retorts.
>>4, >>9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
please provide reliable published sources or your edits to 4-ch will be reverted
Lol I troll you
> encyclopedias
Your entire post is nullified by that single ``word".
Hey Look！
Time to wake up people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk63p6UkrlQ&NR=1
>>13
So user IDs are not freakishly easy to change for anyone who knows how to unplug their modem these days? Wow, how did Squeeks manage that?
>>15
If someone unplugged his modem to post "Derp" without being detected as a jisakujien, I think the joke's on him.
>>13
Note my use of the word "persons". Plural form of "person". Can't you read?
Hey! Hey! what do you say?!
I like wikipedia. I've had my arguments on .999..., but as a whole, it is useful and as reliable as any other single source created by humans. As for:
>" you know IT IS THE FUCKING TRUTH"
... whenever I hear this, it is always some crackpot saying that someone is satan. I'm not worried.
The best part of Wikipedia: spending hours cleaning up and expanding an article about a bit of 2ch culture, only to have it replaced a few days later with a redirect to the 4chan article, and no mention of the topic in the 4chan article.
However, I will say that Wikipedia is not the place to try to establish truth, we don't have the tools here. We listen to the reporting and we document that.