Changes

Disturbed character (view source)

Revision as of 13:04, March 1, 2016

581 bytes added , 13:04, March 1, 2016

Line 184: Line 184:

===[[Wikipedia]]===

−

Although Wikipedia (WP) can be regarded as usable on very technical matters, on subjects with popular appeal it often requires a moderation by so called ArbCom (Arbitration ~~Commission~~) which is however usually, despite the claims on neutrality, very [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|biased]] when trying to solve the disputes of editors. It has been claimed that there are some rather disturbed individuals that run WP via this ArbCom and the cadre of Administrators so that the members of the American Psychological Society (lately renamed to The Association for Psychological Science) should step in and have a rather unique function to mitigate this major defect of WP which is expected to ''"raise its head"''.<ref>{{cite web

+

Although Wikipedia (WP) can be regarded as usable on very technical matters, on subjects with popular appeal it often requires a moderation by so called ArbCom (Arbitration Committee) which is however usually, despite the claims on neutrality, very [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|biased]] when trying to solve the disputes of editors. It has been claimed that there are some rather disturbed individuals that run WP via this ArbCom and the cadre of Administrators so that the members of the American Psychological Society (lately renamed to The Association for Psychological Science) should step in and have a rather unique function to mitigate this major defect of WP which is expected to ''"raise its head"''.<ref>{{cite web

|title=Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that Anybody Can Edit. But Have You?: Comments

|publisher=The Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society)

Line 191: Line 191:

|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.

−

|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}}

+

|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}} For example, an editor was harassed and topic banned from editing on subjects that she cared about. She then left a message on her user page expressing great stress and stating that she was leaving WP and considering suicide. Concerned editors reported this to the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and the responsible WMF Staff member responded, "Took a look at this. Sounds of a very low credibility." The editor's death was later reported.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7428|title=Passing of editor Lucia Black|accessdate=March 1, 2016}}</ref>

== Notes ==

JDano

SkipCaptcha

3,995

edits