Changes

|url=http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2010/december-10/anyone-can-edit-wikipedia-have-you.html#.UI166YbAGCc

|url=http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2010/december-10/anyone-can-edit-wikipedia-have-you.html#.UI166YbAGCc

|quote=As a professor of electrical engineering who contributed a great deal to WP, I would like to suggest that the members of the APS have a rather unique function to play there. My experience with WP has been fine on very technical matters, but on subjects with popular appeal there are very active and peculiar Talk page discussions that in my case led to eventual expulsion from WP. My take is that there are some rather disturbed individuals that run WP via ArbCom and the cadre of Administrators. I wonder if possibly APS members will be able to devise a useful method to deal with this major defect of WP, which I suspect indeed will raise its head.

|quote=As a professor of electrical engineering who contributed a great deal to WP, I would like to suggest that the members of the APS have a rather unique function to play there. My experience with WP has been fine on very technical matters, but on subjects with popular appeal there are very active and peculiar Talk page discussions that in my case led to eventual expulsion from WP. My take is that there are some rather disturbed individuals that run WP via ArbCom and the cadre of Administrators. I wonder if possibly APS members will be able to devise a useful method to deal with this major defect of WP, which I suspect indeed will raise its head.

|accessdate=2012-20-28}}</ref> The editors and administrators who are supported by ArbCom often exhibit antisocial tendencies such as breaking the civility rules (''"No one gives a shit about bible verses, Convervapedia is that way"'') when dealing with people who differ in opinions compared to their own.<ref>{{cite web |title= Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |author=Noformation |date=December 12, 2011 20:38 (UTC) |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephfo&diff=prev&oldid=465515202|accessdate=December 22, 2013}}</ref>

|accessdate=2012-20-28}}</ref> The editors and administrators who are supported by ArbCom often exhibit antisocial tendencies such as breaking the civility rules (''"No one gives a shit about bible verses, Convervapedia is that way"'') when dealing with people who differ in opinions compared to their own.<ref>{{cite web |title= Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |author=Noformation |date=December 12, 2011 20:38 (UTC) |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephfo&diff=prev&oldid=465515202|accessdate=December 22, 2013}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|[[User:PeterKa|See Also]]: ''"Wikipedia's Sue Gardner and her favored bullies couldn't figure out how to get a visual editor to work. But they did know how to drive off conservative users. Although I had eight years experience and 33,000 edits, I could still be dismissed with a "You're done here" and a form letter from Arbcom. ... A permanent ban is Wikipedia's most severe penalty. But it's not like I went on some exciting rule-breaking rampage. I was summarily banned for doing things I had been doing for years. I was never given second chance or even a warning."''|group=note}}

== Notes ==

== Notes ==