Wikipedia isn't as great as people think. It becomes apparently obvious when you start to edit, what it really means and what it really stands for.

The ideals of Wikipedia isn't to present the facts freely to people to view. It doesn't have any desire for that.

Wikipedia: Where Fact is Based on Popularity

People just seem to miss out that it isn't trying to get the "facts" it is trying to get the most popular ideas on there. Facts are undisputed pieces of information, but that isn't what gets put on Wikipedia all the time. Anything that is remotely controversial, political, religious, etc becomes a distortion of public opinion rather than fact.

I think this is driving us back to the old collective thoughts of the "flat earth". Just look at controversial topics that seem to be dominated by popular opinion rather than fact. Environmentalism is a key topic where everything is distorted to a "liberal bias". I hate using that term, but it's true. There is no factual information on environmental pages, just anti-Mankind dogma.

I was recently editing a page on a "fiction character" in a television show I watch. This show is more controversial since it deals with more adult themes. I added in something about the character being molested. I was immediately banned for vandalism for one week. Here is the diction from the administrator that gave it: appears to be vandalism. See how it says "appears". It doesn't say anything about facts, it just boils down to opinion.

No one should support such a flawed ideal. When it comes to basic things like tables and golf balls it is pretty accurate, but when it comes to anything where there is a little more emotion, it turns into a popularity contest.

Flawed ideals should be ostracized, not supported.


Posted by Christopher | 11:34 AM | | 0 comments »