Essay:What's wrong with Wikipedia

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 18:45, April 3, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:What%27s_wrong_with_Wikipedia&oldid=83649"