First off, thanks to everybody that’s taking the time to look at this.

I’m a journalism student at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee writing a research paper on internet culture. My project is a look at Wikipedia and those who edit it. I’ve found that the dynamic of this forum is quite interesting in how it interacts with Wikipedia. What I am looking for are a couple volunteers that wouldn’t mind answering a few questions via email about their experiences with both Wikipedia and this site. Nothing to probing, mainly things like “why are you a member?” “why do you think sites like wWkipedia Review are important? and similar questions that will help me identify what bring people together on this type of forum.

Whether you’re new or old to this site, it would be a great help to my research to get some first hand accounts. Also, if you would like to respond but remain anonymous, I will assign your responses a number and refer to them as such in my research. For those who are interested, I want you to feel comfortable helping me out with this so feel free to ask me any questions you may have.

If you would like to help please post here, PM me or email me at mdkempen@uwm.edu and I will send you the questions. Once you have them you can answer as many of them as you feel comfortable with.

Thanks again for taking the time to review this post.

Sincerely,

Michael Kempen

Why don't you just post the questions here?

We should also ask: how did our young friend find WR? And if he is an editor on WP, what is his account?

Is this your artistry, mdkempen? If so, I love it. I'll send you an e-mail, so that we don't clutter up this thread.

Gregory Kohs

I'd be happy to make myself available for an interview. You might also want to see if Cedric is still available. Both of us did similar interviews a few years ago for a European grad student who wrote his Masters Thesis and several peer-reviewed journal articles on Wikipedia Governance and related topics.

You may also want to look into the work of Michigan State's Benjamin Keith Johnson, who also conducted some background interviews with people from Wikipedia and from Wikipedia Review.

He issued a consent form prior to engaging anyone in an interview, and respondents were paid with a $10 Amazon gift certificate.

At least they do things right at Michigan State.

Right, Johnson did it right. Indicated his name, insitution, name of his advisor, obtained consent, was approved by the schools human subject review committee and distributed his paper to the participants. A student preparing a less formal paper for an undergraduate class might not be expected to provide all this information and safe guards, but real name and name of instructor seems like a bare minimum.

I sent him an email requesting a copy of his introduction letter and human studies consent. We'll see what I get. It's not like my email address is a closely-held secret.

Wow, I’m pleasantly surprised to come home to find so many responses. Thank you all for taking an interest in this.

I would like to start by saying that this is for an undergraduate class and I am no expert when it comes to conducting this type of research involving participation from actual human sources so please bare with me. If something doesn’t seem right I’m not trying to be sneaky, I am most likely just unaware.

I’m going to try and work through some of the questions that have been raised from top down.


SB_Johnny - I have no problem posting the questions publicly and if that would make people more comfortable I can.


A Horse With No Name - I found WR during an afternoon spent searching through sites related to Wikipedia. Honestly I simply stumbled upon it and, after spending time on the site reading the introductory post and some other general content, realized that it provided a view on Wikipedia that I had not yet encountered but was very interested in. As for the question of my editor name, I have not edited Wikipedia and therefore do not have an editor name to share with you.


Greg - Yes that is my work. Some stuff I did for a photography class this past summer. I’m glad you like it.


On the issue of consent forms,
This paper is for an undergraduate course and will not be published, it will simply be handed in, graded, and then returned to me. Consent forms are something I was unaware of. My professor never mentioned them and in general made this interview process seem like a much more casual process which is why I must apologize for how unprepared I am on the issue.

If it would make participants more comfortable I can see what I can work out in getting a form put together.

She did tell us that anyone who we were looking to interview was free to contact her for any reassurances.

Barbara Ley
barbley@uwm.edu

You may also view her information on the departments website



I really appreciate all of your interest in this and want to get everybody comfortable with what is going on. I may have missed something so if this hasn’t addressed your questions accurately please let me know and I will try and answer them more directly.

I sent an email just for whatever.

By the way, is it me or is his teacher kinda hot?

I might be willing to bear with you, but if actual humans are involved, I'm not taking my clothes off unless there are supermodels involved. (And I don't mean just photos! )


If you (and your instructor(s) are not going to publish any results, my general impression is that consent forms shouldn't be necessary - though they wouldn't hurt, I suppose. Simple misunderstanding IMO, since you didn't state that in the initial post...?

Nevertheless: Given that you're not publishing, it's actually a bit "selfishy" to conduct a survey among people that's only going to be seen by one person. I'm not saying you'd be a bad person for it, but posting the questions publicly here would be nicer (unless there's some personal-info reason not to do so)... and don't forget, there's also the poll feature if you'd be interested in that.

Oh, and welcome to WR, yada yada!


In a somewhat nerdy sort of way, sure, absolutely.

I probably should have qualified that with a "for an Assistant Professor and Graduate Director of a Department of Journalism and Mass Communication" (so, yes, "nerdy").

Subject to verification this satisfies my usual concerns about such surveys. You don't claim to be more than what you are, identify yourself and your instructor. We have and anon "researchers" show up before who were less than forthcoming about purpose, use, method etc. You seem alright.

Yep, you can PM me. And yes, it would be better if you at least privately identify to me your name, your prof's name, and name of the course.

Am I missing something here?

Please do that. Those of us who are comfortable with posting our answers openly and publicly can do so here, and others who wish to respond by e-mail can do that as well.

I also expect you might get some (hopefully helpful) feedback on posing a good set of fair questions. Part of the challenge of journalism is learning how to ask the right questions.

Hey, you're doing my shtick!




My friends call me Horsey -- my intimate lady friends call me Stallion.

You can PM me -- I would be glad to offer observations of where WP works and where it stinks to the sky.

To paraphrase a popular WP saying, drop the schtick and step away from the Horsey.

Most of his questions were rather on the mark. This one, though, gave me the heebie-jeebies:

I actually changed that question slightly because it wasn't exactly what I was trying to say. The way I had it written original implies that Wikipedia is actually kept as factual as possible, something that even before I found this site I did not quite believe. However there are some that would claim that, in theory, that is how the site should work. Whether it does or not is another story. I modified the question slightly to try and correct it.


Minus that change, below are the questions that Greg received and was nice enough to answer.





Thank you for your participation. Please answer all of the questions that you feel comfortable with. If by reading any of these questions you feel that I have misunderstood key believes or purposes of WR please make note of it. Also feel free to make any additional comments and elaborations, as they will aid me in creating an accurate picture of the WR community to analyze in my paper.

Do you edit Wikipedia?

If yes, how often do you make edits?

If no, what is your involvement in the Wiki community?

Do you use or are you involved with any of Wikipedia’s sister projects? To what effect?

Do you believe Wikipedia is, or has the potential to be, a reliable source of information? Why or why not?

How long have you used WR?

What was your original purpose for joining WR and has that purpose changed at all since you first became a member?

On average how much of your time on WR is spent discussing topics directly related to Wikipedia?

Do you believe that your reasons for using WR are generally aligned with other members? In what ways do you believe they are similar or different?

In relation to Wikipedia what purpose do you believe WR serves?

Why do you think it is important for Wikipedia users to have a site away from Wikipedia to interact?


In theory, sites like Wikipedia require community involvement to maintain their integrity, especially when it comes to the peer review that is supposed to keep information as factual as possible. Do you believe that the structure of Wikipedia helps it meet this goal? How does WR play a part in this success or failure, if at all?


As I’ve browsed through the postings on WR I have noticed that the community seems very leery of the Wikipedia Foundation and others who have control over the site. When I started this project my knowledge of the internal workings of Wikipedia were fairly limited and I was unaware of many of the issues that WR raises. As a novice in this situation is there anything that you would suggest I look into so that I may better understand the position of WR members and their views on Wikipedia?

That's "Wikimedia Foundation".

College is fun. You're clearly learning stuff.

You could start here http://www.wikipediareview.com/The_Six_Rotten_Pillars_of_Wikipedia with the 'Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia', written by 'Cedric' who is one of the contributors here.

My own bugbear with Wikipedia is the problem of controversial subjects which tend to attract whose interest is not neutral. For example, pornography (many of the editors seem to have connections to the porn industry), 'alternative medicine', global warming, nationalist topics. Also, more sinister, the pedophilia articles are the source of constant attention from pedophiles. This article http://www.wikisposure.com/Wikipedia_Campaign gives you the background.

I am currently banned from the project for my (admittedly strident) criticism of a system that allows this to go on.

Actually, our young college friend should consider using the word "blacklisted" rather than "banned."

Wikipedia's sieve-like structure allows people to return with different accounts, known in Wiki-talk as "socks." This situation is freely acknowledged even by the members of the Arbitration Committee, and several of them have no problems with this -- you should ask Risker, the old lady member of Arbcom, about her penchant for protecting some sock accounts.

Thus, no one is technically "banned" since anyone can return and many do -- some even become admins!

However, since the individual behind the disabled account is not supposed to participate on the site that "anyone can edit," it makes more sense to refer to that person as being "blacklisted." If you recall during the Hollywood blacklist, a number of writers who were not supposed to work in the film industry wound up writing screenplays under pseudonyms. A few actually won the Oscar, and that development pointed out the impossibility of keeping these people from participating in their craft.

Do you edit Wikipedia?

Not any more. I did edit it for a spell, about 2 or 3 years ago.

If yes, how often do you make edits?

At the time, I was editing on a daily basis.

If no, what is your involvement in the Wiki community?

Nowadays, it's mostly as a critic who is concerned about accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

Do you use or are you involved with any of Wikipedia’s sister projects? To what effect?

After I stopped participating on Wikipedia, I participated briefly on Meta-Wiki, and then on Wikiversity, where I worked on a study project entitled, "Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia." The effort was ineffectual, as Jimmy Wales shut it down, declaring the course materials on managerial ethics to be "beyond the scope" of WMF-sponsored projects.

Do you believe Wikipedia is, or has the potential to be, a reliable source of information? Why or why not?

While it may have once had that potential, the evolution of Wikipedia over the years has rendered it increasingly unreliable as a source of accurate information of an encyclopedic nature. The site is still a very good repository for information on Popular Culture, but it lacks the requisite academic peer-review process to to rise to any realistic standards of accuracy, excellence, or ethics with respect to articles of an encyclopedic nature (especially with respect to biographies of living persons and articles touching on political issues).

How long have you used WR?

Since September of 2007, when I first ran into difficulties on Wikipedia.

What was your original purpose for joining WR and has that purpose changed at all since you first became a member?

My purpose then was to better understand what I had encountered on Wikipedia, and how to address the problems. My purpose has evolved since then, mainly in the direction of how to craft useful criticism of a project that now seems to be beyond salvation.

On average how much of your time on WR is spent discussing topics directly related to Wikipedia?

About half. The other half is directed to fulfilling the principles espoused in the WMF Mission Statement -- namely to promote general educational goals that WMF-sponsored projects are otherwise failing to support.

Do you believe that your reasons for using WR are generally aligned with other members? In what ways do you believe they are similar or different?

I suppose about 30% of my reasons are concordant with others here. My interest in analyzing and diagnosing the problems on Wikipedia are probably closest to others here. My interest in promoting education on selected topics relating to science or ethics may depart somewhat, and my interest in the use of satire and parody as a means to address the problems is probably most at odds with others here.

In relation to Wikipedia what purpose do you believe WR serves?

Increasingly, W-R provides an open and functional forum for discussing issues and problems which Wikipedia seems unable to address internally on its own.

Why do you think it is important for Wikipedia users to have a site away from Wikipedia to interact?

Because of the rampant corruption (primarily associated with the so-called "central cabal") that prevents Wikipedia (and sister projects) from hosting a critical review of the problems and issues.

In theory, sites like Wikipedia require community involvement to maintain their integrity, especially when it comes to the peer review that is supposed to keep information as factual as possible. Do you believe that the structure of Wikipedia helps it meet this goal? How does WR play a part in this success or failure, if at all?

The structure of Wikipedia, as it has evolved, suppresses the process of academic peer review. W-R has provided an alternate venue for such independent review, but the existence of W-R hasn't produced any notable change in the way Wikipedia suppresses the academic peer-review process.

As I’ve browsed through the postings on WR I have noticed that the community seems very leery of the Wikipedia Foundation and others who have control over the site. When I started this project my knowledge of the internal workings of Wikipedia were fairly limited and I was unaware of many of the issues that WR raises. As a novice in this situation is there anything that you would suggest I look into so that I may better understand the position of WR members and their views on Wikipedia?

You might want to digest some of the essays and analyses that some of us have written over the past few years. I've personally written about half a dozen such "think pieces," some of which are posted on the W-R Editorial Blog, some of which are posted (under my real name) on Google Knol, and some of which are posted at academic sites (including the School of Journalism at Utah State). If you have the time and inclination to read these, I can compile a list of links for you to find them.

Barry Kort (aka "Moulton" on W-R)

Do you edit Wikipedia?
No. I last edited articles on Wikipedia in March 2007 and abandoned my account later that month.

If yes, how often do you make edits?
n/a

If no, what is your involvement in the Wiki community?
None at all. When I left Wikipedia I was very much of the opinion that interacting with active users on any Wikimedia Foundation ("WMF") site would likely prove a waste of time and effort, and quite possibly productive of personal abuse. Despite pretensions to the contrary, Wikipedia and its greatest devotees are not very tolerant of any serious criticism. I am of the same opinion today, except perhaps more so.

Do you use or are you involved with any of Wikipedia’s sister projects? To what effect?
My only activity on a WMF site other than Wikipedia was once when I uploaded a couple of photographs to Wikimedia Commons.

Do you believe Wikipedia is, or has the potential to be, a reliable source of information? Why or why not?
No. As to the reasons, you can read my The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia essay here, which Peter Damian referenced above. The original thread with commentary from WR members is here. I would also suggest as background reading this blog post by Gomi, and this essay by Greg Kohs ("Thekohser").

How long have you used WR?
Since March 2007.

What was your original purpose for joining WR and has that purpose changed at all since you first became a member?
My original purpose was mainly to learn more about the way that Wikipedia is really run. I was pretty angry when I arrived here. When I still edited Wikipedia, I didn't pay hardly any attention to the internal politics of the site. I was there merely to start or improve articles; I had no interest in becoming an admin or acquiring any other "flags". Then came the Essjay scandal, which exposed me to the irresponsibility and corruption of the WMF in a way I could not ignore. The fact that so many "wikipedians" were willing, or even eager, to excuse Essjay's fraud and the outrageous way Jimmy Wales handled it also deeply concerned and irritated me. After a few months here, I became more interested in participating in some serious criticism and analysis of Wikipedia. That led in good part to the essay referenced above.

On average how much of your time on WR is spent discussing topics directly related to Wikipedia?
At least 80% I think. We do have some non-Wikipedia forums here, as you may have noticed, but I don't spend that much time on them.

Do you believe that your reasons for using WR are generally aligned with other members? In what ways do you believe they are similar or different?
Member SB Johnny recently put it this way:

I identify with "Group C".

In relation to Wikipedia what purpose do you believe WR serves?
Hopefully to engage in that serious discussion SB Johnny referred to. It does, but not quite as often as I and some other members would prefer. It also serves as a place for those freshly injured by Wikipedia to come and blow off some steam. After an interval, some eventually settle down to some serious criticism and analysis. Others sadly do not.

Why do you think it is important for Wikipedia users to have a site away from Wikipedia to interact?
Because of the general intolerance of serious criticism on all the WMF sites, going right up to, and especially to, "God-King" and "Sole Founder" Jimmy Wales.

In theory, sites like Wikipedia require community involvement to maintain their integrity, especially when it comes to the peer review that is supposed to keep information as factual as possible. Do you believe that the structure of Wikipedia helps it meet this goal? How does WR play a part in this success or failure, if at all?
Wikipedia actually lacks any sort of functional peer review process. Indeed, traditional peer review processes are utterly abhorrent to the "free culture" zealots that dominate Wikipedia, since they involve experts and "elites". As for its governance structure, as I explain in my essay, it resembles nothing more than a primitive feudal society, which is hardly up to, or even that interested in, the task of ensuring accuracy. As far as WR having a role here, I do not think it does, nor should it. This exposes a divide in we "Group C" people, in that some of us believe Wikipedia is still salvageable, and the others believe it to be a lost cause already. The first faction (which I call "The Wikipedia Improvement Association") want to use the relative freedom of WR to discuss and resolve upon the reforms needed to sustain Wikipedia. The second faction, also known as "The Hasten The Day!" faction, believe that the "free culture" zealots should be left to do what they do best: destroying Wikipedia's reputation. In this way, The Day, being the day of The Great Wiki Ragnarok, can come all the sooner to the relief of us all.

As I’ve browsed through the postings on WR I have noticed that the community seems very leery of the Wikipedia Foundation and others who have control over the site. When I started this project my knowledge of the internal workings of Wikipedia were fairly limited and I was unaware of many of the issues that WR raises. As a novice in this situation is there anything that you would suggest I look into so that I may better understand the position of WR members and their views on Wikipedia?
In addition to the material suggested above, member Derktar, with key assists from Kato and Anthony, composed an excellent Wikipedia timeline (with an index, no less) that you can find here; and this amusing glossary by Herschelkrustofsky.

Do you edit Wikipedia?

Yes.

If yes, how often do you make edits?

I have been actively contributing since June 2008, and I have been an administrator since August 2009. I generally make several dozen edits per day.

Do you use or are you involved with any of Wikipedia’s sister projects? To what effect?

I am an administrator on Wikimedia Commons, although my work there is far more limited. I occasionally upload pictures that I have taken that would be useful for Wikipedia articles, or browse for useful pictures for myself.

Do you believe Wikipedia is, or has the potential to be, a reliable source of information? Why or why not?

I believe that generally, Wikipedia is a fairly accurate source of information, especially for broader and more general things about history, popular culture, and the sciences. However, I do believe that one should be cautious about using Wikipedia, and should never rely on it for a singular fact because of the dynamic nature of the site. While one can generally rely on an article as a whole to stay the same over time (or increase at best), one cannot rely on single facts to stay the same day-to-day.

How long have you used WR?

I have been a registered member of Wikipedia Review since December 2008. I have made about 150 edits since I registered.

What was your original purpose for joining WR and has that purpose changed at all since you first became a member?

I originally joined to correct a misconception that was written about myself. However, since then I have commented on a number of other topics, and I use Wikipedia Review to keep abreast with an alternate and often more skeptical view of events on Wikipedia.

On average how much of your time on WR is spent discussing topics directly related to Wikipedia?

At least 90%, I would think.

Do you believe that your reasons for using WR are generally aligned with other members? In what ways do you believe they are similar or different?

My reasons for using Wikipedia Review are probably more generally aligned with lurkers, or those who read but do not comment on threads, as I generally do not comment on a thread unless I have something very specific and pertinent to say. I am not terribly interested in lambasting or defending individual editors or the project as a whole, so I often keep silent in those threads.

In relation to Wikipedia what purpose do you believe WR serves?

I believe that Wikipedia Review serves as a very valuable role in relation to Wikipedia. It is important to have an external criticism site where editors can speak candidly and often harshly about some of the problems that affect Wikipedia. In an ideal world, these problems would not exist or could be discussed openly on Wikipedia, but as the editing environment can be unfriendly to criticism (or to those who have gotten themselves blacklisted from Wikipedia for other reasons), Wikipedia Review is a useful place for those users to provide their critical viewpoints.

I won’t pretend to be eloquent enough to answer the final two questions.

That's a shame -- the lambasting side, at least, since there are plenty of characters who could use a spin on the barbecue grill. If you need any special Lar-related material, just PM me -- I got tons of Lego jokes just waiting to be used!

(These are the same as the responses I emailed.)

Do you edit Wikipedia?

I edited Wikipedia extensively between December 2004 and September 2006, and then somewhat less often from September 2006 through October 2007.

If yes, how often do you make edits?
If no, what is your involvement in the Wiki community?

During the period of heaviest activity I would make as much as several hundred edits a day. During my active editing period I was a community leader, active as an administrator and briefly as a member of Wikipedia's "Arbitration Committee"; I have since become a vocal and active critic of Wikipedia.

Do you use or are you involved with any of Wikipedia’s sister projects? To what effect?

I was, for a time, an administrator on Wikimedia Commons, although I allowed those privileges to lapse.

Do you believe Wikipedia is, or has the potential to be, a reliable source of information? Why or why not?

Wikipedia, in its present form and with its present governance, is not capable of being reliable. While much of the information in Wikipedia is correct, there is no way to predict, at any time, whether any given article is in any way accurate. Virtually all articles are constantly subject both to essentially random mutations and to continual, deliberate efforts to introduce distortions by parties with vested interests. Basically the only way to tell if a Wikipedia article is accurate is to already be knowledgeable about the topic in question, and if you're already knowledgeable on the topic why would you be consulting Wikipedia anyway?

How long have you used WR?
What was your original purpose for joining WR and has that purpose changed at all since you first became a member?

I became aware of Wikipedia Review in late 2005 or early 2006, and read it occasionally in the context of my role as a community leader in Wikipedia. At that time my opinion of WR was generally hostile. After my initial departure from Wikipedia in September 2006, I spent more time reading Wikipedia Review, and eventually joined it in June of 2008. Prior to joining WR I had used my blog (http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com) as a vehicle to express my feelings on Wikipedia; I also participated in the shortlived WikBack forum. After my decision in April 2008 to change the focus of my blog, I found that I still needed an outlet to talk about my dissatisfaction with Wikipedia, Wikipedia's community, and Jimmy Wales, and Wikipedia Review served that purpose. It still serves that purpose.

On average how much of your time on WR is spent discussing topics directly related to Wikipedia?

I rarely talk about topics not related to Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review. I have other outlets for such discussions.

Do you believe that your reasons for using WR are generally aligned with other members? In what ways do you believe they are similar or different?

My five and a half years of experience with Wikipedia and its surrounding community have been a sharp learning experience in the importance of understanding what motivates other people to do what they do. I'm not going to try to develop a typology of motivation for Reviewers; there's at least five main ones and probably some people who fail to fall within that typography anyway.

Wikipedia is clearly harmful to some people individually, and arguably harmful to society as a whole, and needs to be adjusted to remediate those harmful tendencies, or if it cannot be so adjusted, shut down. Further, I believe that Jimmy Wales, morally and ethically, does not deserve the indicia of success which he has inured to himself by his association to Wikipedia and wish to see him brought down as he rightly deserves. I am offended by dishonesty and Wikipedia is not merely rife with it, but in fact actively encourages and rewards it.

My participation in Wikipedia Review is intended to help me and others better understand Wikipedia so that we can deal with the ongoing problems Wikipedia creates, and insure that the mistakes made by Wikipedia are not repeated elsewhere.

In relation to Wikipedia what purpose do you believe WR serves?

Wikipedia Review was originally a venue for those banned from Wikipedia to complain about their plight. Many, but by no means all, of these people were banned with good cause (even if they themselves cannot or will not understand that). The ones who were unfairly banned (and even a few of those who were fairly banned but who have sensible comments to offer nonetheless) are the useful participants in Wikipedia Review. At this point Wikipedia Review is the best available forum for people to discuss Wikipedia's problems. Wikipedia is actively hostile to honest self-criticism. Anyone who engages in serious criticism of Wikipedia or Wikipedia's leadership (especially Jimmy Wales) within any space controlled by Wikipedia or Wikimedia functionaries will quickly find themselves silenced or marginalized. This is largely because Wikipedia has become a personality cult centered on Jimmy Wales.

Why do you think it is important for Wikipedia users to have a site away from Wikipedia to interact?

Wikipedia Review is not intended to be a place for Wikipedia users to interact, and in fact Wikipedia Review's leadership recently acted to segregate such interactions in a disfavored forum called the "Wikipedia Annex". The purpose of Wikipedia Review is to analyze, dissect, and understand how Wikipedia functions so that people outside Wikipedia can develop effective strategies for dealing with the damage Wikipedia causes. As far as I am concerned, there is no rational reason for any sensible person to participate in Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, all rational, socially positive motives for participating in Wikipedia can be satisfied by alternative means not involving Wikipedia.

In theory, sites like Wikipedia require community involvement to maintain their integrity, especially when it comes to the peer review that keeps information as factual as possible. Do you believe that the structure of Wikipedia helps it meet this goal? How does WR play a part in this success or failure, if at all?

The structure of Wikipedia is constitutionally incapable of maintaining the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia content. Wikipedia has no functional peer review processes; these processes are mainly used to score political points in the ongoing political games within the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia Review is, to the degree it is committed to anything, committed to the eventual failure of this system. The WR community is divided as to whether the system should be replaced with something else, or simply shut down entirely. I, personally, believe that remediating the problems without a revolution in leadership is impossible; I therefore believe that the best trajectory is for Wikipedia to fail completely, with the hopes that whoever starts the next similar project will recognize where Wikipedia went wrong and take steps to prevent a repetition.

As I’ve browsed through the postings on WR I have noticed that the community seems very leery of the Wikipidia Foundation and others who have control over the site. When I started this project my knowledge of the internal workings of Wikipedia were fairly limited and I was unaware of many of the issues that WR raises. As a novice in this situation is there anything that you would suggest I look into so that I may better understand the position of WR members and their views on Wikipedia?

I do not have any recommendations beyond recommending that you read the Wikipedia Review blog, the older posts in my own blog, and the sites linked to from these sources. The Wikimedia Foundation is functionally corrupt, largely because it takes after its charismatic leader, Jimmy Wales.

Dear Penthouse

I was editing Wikipedia one day when...

...I never dreamed anything like that would ever happen to me.

Signed
Mrs Trellis
Llandudno

Thanks to everybody for taking the time to help out. I've gotten a lot of great stuff to work with.

Do you edit Wikipedia?

Yes, despite being Indefinitely banned many times that includes new page creation. Recently, I have been writting about Jewish resistance and community in Wartime France and East Asia, and other related areas, which were surprisingly lacking in any coverage whatsoever, or had the usual utter garbage on them.

If yes, how often do you make edits?

Generally only a sufficient number to establish an account in order to challenge or make a point against POV or COI grinders on a locked article.

Do you use or are you involved with any of Wikipedia’s sister projects? To what effect?

No.

Do you believe Wikipedia is, or has the potential to be, a reliable source of information? Why or why not?

No, I do not recommend it as it is nor for the future. It is not a safe nor healthy environment. The Wikipedia has become a tool of malevolence from which society, especially education, needs to defend itself rigorously.

The theory was wonderful the application is doomed. The Wikipedia is just yet another Destructive Cult.

How long have you used WR?

Don't know ... 1 year perhaps.

What was your original purpose for joining WR and has that purpose changed at all since you first became a member?

Trying to understand the highly negative experiences on the Wikipedia. Venting.

On average how much of your time on WR is spent discussing topics directly related to Wikipedia?

Not a very clear question really ... isn't it all related to Wikipedia? Say, 99%. I am not here for any other purpose.

Do you believe that your reasons for using WR are generally aligned with other members? In what ways do you believe they are similar or different?

Superficially, yes, but in many cases positions are entirely opposite and contradictory on specific issues and certainly towards any defenders of the status quo.

In relation to Wikipedia what purpose do you believe WR serves?


A tall and well fortified siege tower rolled up against the walls of the Mediawiki Foundation from which it is possible to take well targeted pot shots at them, and their senior Wikipedian defenders, which would otherwise be lost if facing the rabble of their unpaid serf infantry ... hopefully gaining their attention and bringing about positive change.

Does stating that reduce or increase the effect of such pot shots?
Why do you think it is important for Wikipedia users to have a site away from Wikipedia to interact?

The Mediawiki Foundation and their senior cultists are highly controlling and censorial. They are the opposite of "free".

Most of the cultists are unable to allow and deal with intelligent, informed and critical discussion on its own servers and the paid members and figureheads of the Foundation are highly motivated to defend or deny valid criticism in order to sustain their own personal interests within the cultic movement.

WR is a place where the voice of Wiki-cultists is inhibited and the habitually abusive stripped of their powers of censorship. In short, a place where the tables are turned on them. To that degree, it is highly successful.

In theory, sites like Wikipedia require community involvement to maintain their integrity, especially when it comes to the peer review that is supposed to keep information as factual as possible. Do you believe that the structure of Wikipedia helps it meet this goal? How does WR play a part in this success or failure, if at all?

Bullshit to the first theory. Bullshit to the structural theory. It saddens me that the Wikipedia is probably not doomed and that society will have to face its influence for at the very least a couple of generations. The world would be a better place without it as it is.

Relatively speaking, WR plays the role that revolutionary poets, cynics and satirists have always played throughout history ... and we are having more (intelligent) fun than they are.

The question you have not asked is ...

Do you think this is all worth the effort?

I am not sure. It is an entertaining and educational indulgence and I appreciate the wit, intelligence and repartie of many contributors; many of whom I would class as the very best of the Wikipedian community ... which is a revelation in itself as many of most of them have been banned.

'Jimbo's Great Porn War' appears to suggest we have a effect. The appearance of such 'names' as Larry Sanger suggests we are being taken more seriously than before. Largely though, my feelings about the value of investing ANY energy into the Wikipedia even to confront the indulgence and idiocy of Mediawiki Foundation is currently under review.

It is a useful learning experience and fine entertainment if one can afford it.