Is Wikipedia Failing?
Slashdot - 32 minutes ago
An anonymous reader writes "A growing number of people are concerned about where Wikipedia is heading. Some have left Wikipedia for Citizendium, ...

An anonymous reader writes "A growing number of people are concerned about where Wikipedia is heading. Some have left Wikipedia for Citizendium, while others are trying to change the culture of Wikipedia from within. A recent essay called Wikipedia is failing points out many of the problems which must be solved with Wikipedia for it to succeed in its aim of becoming a reputable, reliable ...

Article: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/searc...314235&from=rss

WikiWiffle

Jonny

This essay has now been userfied by Cyde, on a pretext that I was too bored to follow right now.

• WP:Wikipedia Is Failing
• User:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia_is_failing

However, in direct response to the citing of WP:Wikipedia Is Failing by Slashdot, User:Jeff Carr created a project page WP:Wikipedia Is Not Failing, which has been allowed to remain a project page.

You'd think, now wouldn't you, that NPOV would demand a neutral title like "Is Wikipedia Failing?"

Personally, I'm voting for WP:Wikipedia Is Mostly Putrid (WP:WIMP) ...

Jonny

From Cyde's edit summary:

Well, that explains that, then!

I guess logic isn't really their forté, is it? They protect the page, then use their own protection of it to justify "moving" it to make it appear to be just one person's opinion. Then they replaced the original page with this:


This page will be deleted within a week or so, probably.

I can't say I blame them, though... Who really wants to be criticized on their own website? Of course, if they were to admit that they didn't want such things lying around, instead of claiming all this phony "openness" and so forth, then they might actually have something there.

I did not see who protected it. It gets really hard to track down who did what to whom after a page has been moved and redirected a couple of times -- which is of course one of the reasons that these Anti-Wiki Admin Vandals and History Rewriters do it in the first place. It is possible that the protection was tagged or requested by the project promoters -- but the page was only semi-protected against new and unreg users, and lots and lots of WP pages are into those brands of safe sects these days, so I don't see the justification for the userfication. Oops, forget I said that ...

Jonny