Essay:What's wrong with Wikipedia
This is my own personal essay and is not intended to represent the views of Conservapedia, its webmaster or senior staff. Any sysop is free to delete or move it.
Wikipedia has consciously engendered an anti-elitist attitude which reflects both the idealism and the shortsightedness of its founder(s).
I like the idealism which allows the uncredentialed to puncture the balloons of institutional arrogance and speak truth to power. I dislike the haughty, snide rejection of academic expertise. Particularly on religious, scientific and philosophical matters its coverage is weak, spotty, and often terribly biased.
Early policy developments seem almost calculated to drive away experts. I waited for 5 years, to see if things would settle down and the burgeoning popularity of the site would encourage genuine experts to contribute. With the notable exception of little-known climate modeller William Connelley, hardly any of them wants to dive in.
For what treatment is accorded them? Anyone can revert their entries, without so much as a reason. There are no sanctions against frivolous edits, and crews of like-minded POV pushers can easily capture an article (or an entire series of articles) and work in concert to censor any information which challenges their POV.
Ironically, this anti-elitism was supposed to be a reaction to censorship. It has itself become censorship. Wikipedia has become the monster it was fighting against.
- Thanks for contributing this original work. You may want to place something in the title to attract others to contribute here, such as "Essay" or "Original Work." As in a university, I think original work is essential to maintain the vitality of an intellectual endeavor. I think this is a major flaw to Wikipedia that it bans all original work.
- I agree with your points above. There is a brain drain at Wikipedia, as the least common denominator forms a mob and bullies higher quality contributors. It does not take a bright guy long to decide he doesn't need to have his work bossed by anonymous, biased, and often uninformed strangers. The smarter editors leave. Larry Sanger is trying to create a type of home for them, but I doubt that will work either.
- I think a coherent group of principles are essential to make this type of project work. Even people who disagree with some of the rules are glad they are there to curb mobocracy. The rules against obscenity and gossip, for example, are essential. Wikipedia could eventually collapse for lack of those rules alone.
- History shows us what happened with the "neutral" French Revolution and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. I think Wikipedia is headed in the same direction. I expect in-fighting to continue there and I think more bright editors will ask to join us here.--Aschlafly 16:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)