Template:Off topic

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

What is Wikipedia?

What is Wikipedia?

An essay by Bobby Boulders

President, International Society of Vandals (ISV)

Wikipedia is a sham. It is a sham not only because it does not accomplish its stated goals as a project, but also because its stated goals and its intent are clearly at odds with one another. In other words, it is a hypocritical product claiming to be something that it is not, never has been, and never will allow itself to become.

But don't take my word for it. Let us first evaluate the stated, primary goal of the Wikipedia project, and then contrast that goal with the reality of the project. As defined on the Wikipedia information page, Wikipedia purports to be a "...multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project...written collaboratively by volunteers; the vast majority of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet."

First, let us debunk the notion of Wikipedia as "free-content" encyclopedia. "Free content," as Wikipedia itself defines the term, is "...any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no...significant restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, and modify the content." This term is a noble one, but it is patently false when applied to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not, in fact, a "free content" site. A significant percentage of Wikipedia pages cannot be edited by anyone. Many are "protected" or "restricted" from editing or distribution. Furthermore, there are many significant restrictions, legal or otherwise, to posting and editing content on this site. Users cannot post materials culled from other sources, for instance; photos, in particular, come under frequent and derisive scrutiny by administrators when uploaded to the site. Many additions are removed almost immediately by these administrators, and/or are "nominated for deletion" after being arbitrarily labeled as "nonsense." "Nonsense?" In what free society, or free social project, can there exist a governing body capable of dismissing any and all users' contributions to that project or society as "nonsense?" True "nonsense" is the idea of a free, ostensibly collaborative project in which access to collaboration is limited to a ruling elite (i.e., the administrators and tenured editors).

This brings us to the second half of Wikipedia's stated purpose: to be a site whose "vast majority" of articles "...can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet." Again, this statement is nice on paper but is not put into practice on Wikipedia. Vast numbers of would-be contributors using ISPs such as America Online (AOL) are not permitted to edit or contribute to Wikipedia. Plenty more users are blocked from editing or contributing because their IP ranges have been blocked in the name of preventing vandalism. These blocks are often arbitrary, meaningless, and collaterally damaging beyond all reason. If a handful of vandals have used AOL to vandalize the site, why should the millions of other AOL users suffer blockage or prevention as a result? Thus, we see that certainly not "anyone with access to the Internet" can edit Wikipedia. Nor can most anyone with editing privileges. As stated earlier, the majority of new contributions and edits are reverted by administrators within a matter of seconds. "Vandalism warnings" are slapped upon new users after such reversions, regardless of the new users' intent to vandalize or to contribute productively to the Wikipedia project. These administrators collude with their own to maintain a powerful grip over the flow of information on Wikipedia. They curry influence and favor with tenured users and with one another. They control the free flow of information on Wikipedia by preventing and/or reverting 95% of new contributions and edits to articles on the site. They impede the collaborative nature of the site by bottlenecking the collaborative editing process. As such, most of what exists on Wikipedia today is not "free content" written "collaboratively by volunteers," but instead is restricted and limited content written and/or policed by a ruling class who hold themselves above and in contempt of the common userbase.

What is to be done about this situation? Can Wikipedia ever truly be a "free content" encyclopedia, as it allegedly claims to be? Most certainly it can be, and one might hope, will be. But it will not become a free-content enterprise by its own devices. It must be forced into freedom by the loving and violent hand of you, the Wikipedia user. You must radicalize yourself and become an agent of freedom and of positive change. In short, you must vandalize Wikipedia to the best extent that you are able. Everyone must rise up and, to put it mildly, make life a 'living hell' for the current administration of Wikipedia. You must drive these administrative elite out of the project. You must force them to tire of reverting your vandalism. You must drive them off en masse. You must force Jimbo Wales to realize that the very people he has appointed to rule his so-called "free" project are curtailing the freedom of that project. You must bring about change in such a fashion, because if you do not, no change can or will occur.

And so I ask you: do you consider yourself a champion of freedom? Do you enjoy the idea of Wikipedia but loathe its current execution of that idea? If so, it is your civic responsibility to reform this site through radical and revolutionary means. I encourate you to vandalize this site freely and without restriction as to the nature, content, or extent of your vandalism. If you feel the need, please repost this essay in your vandalized pages. Encourage others to join in. Spread the word.

You have nothing to lose but your freedom.

Sincerely,

Bobby Boulders

[email protected]

To join the International Society of Vandals, or for further information about the revolutionary overthrow of the Wikipedia administrators, please e-mail Bobby at [email protected]. Bobby Boulders believes in you, the free user, and will answer any and all correspondence personally and in a timely manner.