Indefinite Wikipedia ban

Well, that didn't take long. Despite playing Wikipedia's consensorship games, and contributing GREATLY to it, I still get the boot based on Wikipedia's far-too-anal "civility" policy (more like be a good little lemming and do not dare dissent from the "appeal to majority" fallacy). Typical--online oppression is dispensed FAR too easily.

Comments

[Laady]

Meh, rules are rules, some are strict, some are too lax. *shrugs* It's just Wiki, right? ;)

[Eep²]

Yea, well, it's just annoying that a community-based website has to be so anal--I mean real life isn't anywhere as strict as Wikipedia is (or even Vox is). Wikipedia is more like a collaborative anal gang bang with itself, or something. Sorry, but I don't swing that way. It's too bad, too, since Wikipedia has great potential (as does Second Life, which I'm also banned from). Unfortunately, the oppression factor of these applications and websites hinder their potential and will, most likely, never reach mass appeal.

[Laady]

I thought Wiki was already pretty big?

[Eep²]

It is, but Wikipedia isn't regarded very highly among serious academic institutions for its volatility and susceptibility to vandalism and bias. Wikipedia has a long way to go--especially in its navigation system. Wikipedia claims it's not a democracy (and many other contradictory things)--but it forgets the most important thing it isn't: it's not balanced when it comes to handling oppression and its overbearing consensus+censorship ("consensorship") interpretation of "civility". Wikipedia gives too much power with too many people (admins who don't even follow the rules), which is why it is an oligarchy. Hence, it will never be mainstream until it can learn to accept differing viewpoints that aren't sugar-coated in "niceness"--the real world ain't nice (in fact, it's quite downright harsh at times).

[Laady]

*shrugs*

I don't know much about it. All I know is that I don't go to Wiki expecting reliable information. I always research what it says elsewhere because I know, as you said, people have differing viewpoints and I don't always want differing viewpoints. A lot of the time, I just want information -- the truth -- so that I can make up my own mind.

[Eep²]

Well, the thing about Wikipedia is, that the "truth" is whatever "consensus" dictates it to be. For example, it's verifiability policy explicitly states the threshold for something to be included in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Hence, Wikipedia reliability is flawed from the get-go. Wikipedia consensus affirms what is included and what is excluded from Wikipedia (whether or not it's verified) by including some topics and not others, based on their "verifiability"--a fallacy based on faulty generalizations such as a biased sample based on an appeal to majority fallacy and begging the question (circular logic). Hence, Wikipedia contradicts itself multiple times--a metacontradiction.