User talk:LatinoMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

This user subpage was nominated for deletion on December 3, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Please don't forget to vote in support, opposition, or state your neutral position at Wikipedia Boycott Campaign.

Why the possible boycott?

Wikipedia Boycott Campaign, another image

Given that Wikipedia is constantly accused of opposite things: being leftist, rightist, pro-American, anti-American, statist, anarchist, inclusionist, deletionist, authoritarian, chaotic, you name it... what is your particular issue over which you are threatening a boycott? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

For details check out the article - Criticism of Wikipedia. --JuanMuslim ^1m 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not a reponsive answer. More to the point, what IS the point? Would Wikipedia even notice a "boycott"? --Calton | Talk 00:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The point would be to call attention to systemic issues. A boycott by 100s of Wikipedians and their supporters would be hard to ignore. --JuanMuslim ^1m 03:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's still completely unresponsive. What "systemic issues"? What would such (ill-defined) attention do regarding the completely undefined "system issues"? Is there an actual goal here, or is it just stirring up activity for its own sake.

Also note that there are thousands of registered users and hundreds of admins, so a few hundred Wikipedians doing nothing wouldn't even be noticed, especially if they're doing nothing under undefined motivations to enact unstated changes. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I take all comments into serious consideration. --JuanMuslim ^1m 06:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If one feels that Wikipedia is too US-centric/leftist/whatever, I think a boycot of likeminded editors would only guarantee that the problem would get worse. Tuf-Kat 06:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's kinda what I'm referring to by systemic, so the boycott wouldn't be about certain people boycotting but about encouraging everyone to boycott and encouraging people not to use Wikipedia at all.--JuanMuslim ^1m 06:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean like forever though necessarily.--JuanMuslim ^1m 17:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why?

Just curious - what suddenly made you come up with this idea? Brisvegas 23:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One day I was wondering, "Am I the only one who sometimes thinks about packing my bags and getting the heck out of here?" --JuanMuslim ^1m 05:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No, and yet... I think this place is big and disconnected enough that a hundred, even major, Wikipedians boycotting would maybe have minimal effect. Wikipedia isn't like an oil company or a brand of soda. I've never had to buy anything to be here or pay anything. Boycotting what is, basically, a voluntary endeavor seems a tad pointless. More volunteers will come in time to replace those who bailed. Even an effort to discourage the place online will likely not help either. There are already a fair amount of people online who say Wikipedia is evil, Outrageous and repugnant, unreliable, useless, biased, etc. In the news it's been called flawed and irresponsible. I think some of this includes former members. Yet it keeps chugging along. I've been sorely tempted to boycott at times, but it wouldn't improve anything here. Also I think I can do some good here by trying to make interesting sourced articles on interesting or important topics. That a certain percentage of those will be wiped away in the tide like so many sandcastles is frustrating, but I've learned how to make that happen less often I think. (Personally though I'd favor stricter rules. Like severely cutting back the abilities of anonymous users. I wouldn't want that totally ended as I got into through anonymous stuff, but maybe prohibit them from the deletion or creation process)--T. Anthony 10:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That said there is a problem with the whole concept of the place which at times bothers me and makes me uncertain how to deal with it. That being I don't believe that a concensus of people will necessarily lead to the truth. I think it's an interesting idea in theory, but if it were reality I'd convert to Quakerism. What I think almost inevitably happens instead at times is that you accept an article must have certain errors and half-truths, because they are necessary errors and half-truths. If you do not allow them you will never reach concensus. So every article is ultimately a compromise and to a degree it's a compromise with reality. Also Wikipedia at times seems to encourage it be used in an academic setting and I think that's a mistake. I would never use Wikipedia in any academic paper, because I would never use any encyclopedia for that. I'm not sure that there is any respectable college in the nation that would accept using an Encyclopedia, unless it's a specialty encyclopedia that is one of the few sources of information on the topic. Therefore, in theory, I could see using Orthodox Wiki although I wouldn't recommend that either. All that said I think they do some good. They deserve to be treated with some caution and criticism, but not outright boycotting.--T. Anthony 10:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi juan .. I,m new here and i have to admit that i don,t know much details how things r working here , but as a new comer and new muslim memeber in the Encyclopedia i think the quitting of good muslim editors in wikipedia is not good solution for our issue , whatever is the insulting and offence that we feel , we have a duty to express our religion in better way ... Salam alikum --Uf.Chaos 14:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons I wouldn't boycott

But... but... if I boycotted, think of how much crap I'd have to clean up when I got back :O (and, could you even get all boycotters to agree with what the problems with wikipedia are?) gren グレン 08:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure you would have to get all boycotters to agree on the exact reasons. Your other points are interesting. I guess it would all depend on the goals of the campaign as well as the means. --JuanMuslim ^1m 06:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm, you created it yet you're not even interested in doing it yourself ("neutral")... I can't see much point in it in any case, it's not like it will achieve anything except letting the admin+user cliques run rampant. --Chaosfeary 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to start some dialogue on the idea.--JuanMuslim ^1m 15:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Juan. I'd like to request that you remove User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. While I agree that there are plenty of issues that Wikipedia should deal with, a boycott isn't a very good way of solving them. I think a page discussing shortcomings and possible solutions (other than boycotts) would be much more productive. Thanks for your consideration. Carbonite | Talk 04:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll see how the vote goes. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like there's much support thus far. Even you haven't supported it! ;) What are you hoping to accomplish with the page? Carbonite | Talk 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The vote only began last week. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I would support the page if 1) you gave some idea of what these serious problems were specifically (everybody knows there are problems, but which bother you?) 2) you gave some idea how these problems might be fixed; or, alternatively, why you fear they might be unfixable. I'd also appreciate a renaming to something like "Wikipedia In Peril", but I could support the current title if your reasons for feeling WP is broken were compelling. WP is interested in encyclopedia-building; constructive criticism is an essential part of that. A page saying little more than "Things are terrible. Maybe we should all leave" is really only blind criticism, and it helps few, if anyone. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, my original idea was to leave everything as broad as possible; now it looks like I've given a too narrow focus for people to vote on. Check out the original page...[1] My original idea would allow boycott participants to select different levels such as 1 to 5 based on their temporary, boycott involvement, but then I decided to take a different approach, and that's what my current subpage looks like. --JuanMuslim ^1m 07:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the comment from my userpage to the talk page. He was commenting on whether or not to have my subpage deleted.--JuanMuslim ^1m 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This is horrible

Wow this is just horrible, "Acknowledging that Wikipedia is an inherently flawed system that should be ended rather than amended." Yeah so is capitalism, but do you see anyone ending that? most of the people who come to Wikipedia for information dont even know about POV or vandelism untill they actually dive into the site, and even then it isnt as rampant, and as big a problem as you are thinking it is... this is quite sad, and I would approve a delete of this article and Criticism of Wikipedia. There is only one reason why Wikipedia has done better then Everything2 and other "open Encyclopedias" it is because EVERYONE is allowed to edit ANYTHING. Theoretically and in reality this system work, no matter how much minutia you are talking about. I hope they decide not to delete article, it would show the flaws of the people who dont have any social skills. JedOs 11:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL :) --JuanMuslim ^1m 12:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning capitalism: you might want to enlighten your ignorance on the matter before you start making such strong assertions about it. -SamOdio 04:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Only you can prevent forest fires

Ever hear, "Only you can prevent forest fires"? It applies in Wikipedia also. And from what I see, you help support Wikipedia, by making sure everything is "factual". A boycott would not do anything for the project, its just non sensical. Time will show that Wikipedia will work, its kind of like Evolution. If you and other people do their deeds then in the end everything will be fine. Dont worry time will show. JedOs 11:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that this is not a false assumption and that in reality we are not digging ourselves into a bigger and bigger hole? --JuanMuslim ^1m 05:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the first large scale attempt at flat knowledge. Not knowledge funneled through a company, a standard or the "academie", but people learning how to interpret, direct and give each other knowledge. Knowledge has been sitting under authority for a long time, and we need to give this project our all if we are going to change anything. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Situationists gave up as soon as some form of bias became apparent? Nothing, that's what, and Universities would still be running under modernist formalism and objective utopian disillusion rather than contextualism and conceptualism. I think another analogy to add to JedOs' original would be the "give a man a fish/teach him to fish" fable. Vanessa kelly 07:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is controlled by a small group of people(Jimbo Wales, Arbitration Comittee, Wikimedia, ect.). Wikipedia is not a true :source of free information. It simply pretends to be such. 142.150.204.138 17:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read?

Wikipedia:replies

Obviously, you've read Criticism of Wikipedia. Have you spent as much time reading Wikipedia:replies? You might also benefit from some of Carl Shirky's articles, especially his early work on social software [2]. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion.--JuanMuslim ^1m 06:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Recommendations for Wikipedia

Voting

Maybe one recommendation is that voting on Wikipedia should become more centralized, perhaps sometimes only administrators should be allowed to vote depending on the article, circumstances, etc. Other times, it seems that experts should decide on the importance of articles as opposed to letting all people decide if a particular article is acceptable for Wikipedia publication. Sometimes, it may even be necessary to delete certain articles without them coming to a vote as well as to override the decision to allow certain articles to be selected for possible deletion. --JuanMuslim ^1m 09:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if people could receive email notifications when articles in their watchlist are up for votes for deletion. People shouldn't have to learn months afterward that an article they think was important has been deleted. They could at least have the opportunity to download a personal copy of the article before it's lost forever. It would also be nice if people could recieve email notifications about the outcome of a particular vote. --JuanMuslim ^1m 13:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good information to know if there's an expert on anthropology, etc who can give us his/her opinion about the relevance of a particular article? Maybe there could be some sort of system for rating articles and users, or at least a process for knowing accurate info about that person. Userpages and talk pages for each article really help, but sometimes you need more information about articles, users, etc. Many times our articles on Wikipedia, etc are limited by the lack of information. --JuanMuslim ^1m 13:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

User pages

I was wondering if there is a way to prevent people from editting your user page. Many people get busy, and when they return to wikipedia, maybe their userpage has been vandalized. Maybe there should be a way for someone to block their own user page edits whenever they want. Of course, admins could override the block if needed. --JuanMuslim ^1m 22:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That'd be good. Only the user should be able to edit their own user page. That seems like common sense.--T. Anthony 06:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

When away from Wikipedia

Does it get frustrating when you leave and return after some time to see that someone has thoroughly editted/vandalized an article you've worked on, and now that you've returned you have to edit the page again? Many Wikipedians don't want to edit Wikipedia every day, but its almost like we're forced to use it every day?--JuanMuslim ^1m 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could have an option to receive new messages left on your user/talk page via e-mail. Also, maybe people could receive an e-mail notification when articles on their watchlist have been updated. --JuanMuslim ^1m 05:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I never gave them my e-mail address and I also don't plan to. I would like it if people gave you warning before they put something on delete. I had the List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination), named something else when on delete, on my watchlist after creating it then found out it was on delete. This kind of annoyed me because no one had even said they had a problem with it.(And the problem they had, that it was advocacy for that religion, made no sense as I'm not remotely of that faith)

Personally I guess I'd be tougher then they are. I think I would end the ability of anonymous users to create or AfD articles. Granted I partly got into Wiki through creating articles like Burmese Way to Socialism or The Sorrow and the Pity, but I might've gotten involved anyway and even if not it still might be worth it. If possible I would also make it required that you fill out a sources section when creating an article.--T. Anthony 16:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess the e-mail idea would be out of the question. How about a newslist you could subscribe to? Maybe various WikiPedia newsletters, eg one for VFD, etc? That would be a lot of info. Maybe different VFD newslist based on your interests, expertise. --JuanMuslim ^1m 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mailing_lists--JuanMuslim ^1m 03:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

It would be great if admins could protect certain sections or paragraphs of an article. That would be definitely better at times than protecting an entire article. I don't know if its possible or not yet. --JuanMuslim ^1m 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

IP Addresses/Sock puppets/etc

What does Wikipedia do to prevent socket puppets. I think that the issue is much more worse than most people think. Do you know what an IP address is? Did you know you can perform pings on IP addresses online? For example, you can use dnsstuff.com to ping IPs. --JuanMuslim ^1m 18:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Complaints about Wikipedia

Wikipedia and donations

How is Wikipedia planning to distribute the funds it raises? And, how does it use is funds? I mean it can't cost that much to run the servers that the information runs on. And, we're all slaves of Wikipedia. I think that the adminstrators who donate the most time and energy should receive some sort of compensation. --JuanMuslim ^1m 16:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in learning about the Budget for Wikipedia.--JuanMuslim ^1m 04:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments Moved from the Voting Page

Approval Process

The only thing wrong with Wikipedia is that its approval process is weaker than other resources. The managers here are very talented, but they simply don't compare to the approval-editors at the Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, or Webster's. Wikipedia can never hope to be much more reliable than Encarta while a handful of partisan administrators approve or disprove each article. But that is no reason to give up on Wikipedia. This project has one thing going for it that no other resource has, the darwinistic power of thousands of competing ideas. Throughout history, ingenious individuals and small groups have made great accomplishments, but none have come remotely close to the steady progression of evolution, enabled only through the competition of disparate patterns and thought processes. As Wikipedia keeps growing, each article will be approved by increasingly more administrators. Soon, there will be so many admins per article approval that personal bias will no longer be a factor. To be sure, the threshold for gaining equal power at Wikipedia is rather low. You simply have to show that you won't use that power to POV an article. All we need is a few more tools to make it easier to de-op admins who abuse their power, and Wikipedia articles will become a lot more reliable overnight. I would think that a simple hidden vote would do the trick. --Peter McConaughey 00:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Underrepresentation

I have actually been critical of this place before I ever came here. Going here has made me realize in some ways I was unfair, but in other ways it has problems I didn't even imagine. That said it does some good work and I've learned a bunch here. It's also a work in progress and I think discouraging good people from coming will only worsen it. If anything I think people should maybe encourage underrepresented groups to join. I don't know many people from Africa online, but I've seen some Hindus online and they seem to be strongly underrepresented here. Muslims and mainline Protestants also seem underrepresented. From what I can tell there's a strong youth bias. Most things concerning the age of Wikipedians indicate there are more Wikipedians under 21 then over 30. That's likely due in part to underreporting of the older editors, but I think it could be for real. Yet on many forums I hang out I'm actually younger, at 28, then most of the posters. So I think there's lots of problems, but a boycott wouldn't solve them. Especially as Wikipedia isn't a company in the sense of most things you'd boycott. I do favor boycotting Yahoo, and except for a few slip ups I've done so, because of what they did with that Chinese dissident. However Yahoo is a business and also if Wikipedia starts handing over political dissenters to repressive governments then I'll go for boycott.--T. Anthony 10:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Comment, I can't vote to boycott something that I spend a lot of time and effort on, but the incident regarding "User_talk:65.81.97.208" and John Seigenthaler Sr. proves one thing true: DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A TRUE SOURCE IN ANY PAPER RESEARCH OR DOCUMENT don't even believe some of the things you read unless you have another source, for the love of God!. That is one of the many reasons I have voted abstain here and on the deletion page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just one remark before I remove this page from my watchlist: That is like saying "don't use anything on the Internet as a source". The key is, never single-source anything. And, with reference to using Wikipedia as a source, I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment-I've already voted, but I agree do not use Wikipedia for any research paper. An addendum to that is you can use Wikipedia to find books or papers that you can cite in a paper. However I'm talking about Wikipedia itself and on that end as an aspiring academic I warn very strongly against using it as a source. To be honest I think people should avoid using any Encyclopedia as a source unless there is no other option available. Does this mean if no other source, not even an Encyclopedia, is available that you can then use Wikipedia? No, it does not. For history writing especially most professors I've seen will need author names and things they can track down. You can't really do this with an evolving encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I think you can use Wikipedia for less formal research needs, like discussions with friends or writing for some online magazines. Possibly even giving a college lecture as long as you can back it up as is generally conceded. However for research papers or the like it's almost worthless except again as a source for names and books you can use.--T. Anthony 11:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This view is in large part why I like lists, well some lists. Lists that are about important people, concepts, etc.--T. Anthony 11:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm, hi. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone can edit

Wikipedia has been built by editors from all walks of life, and the key point of this encyclopedia is to allow everyone to edit. That is the problem to an extent ; unverified information (which is most likely false) can easily be distributed on Wikipedia and its mirror sites. A chain reaction of misinformation takes place such as the John Seigenthaler Sr. incident. Thus, anyone who researchs Wikipedia does so with grave risks. Also note that other Internet sites (such as Encarta) are much much more verifiable and valid than Wikipedia, although they do not have the same number of articles or the same amount of information. So no, I did not say or imply that internet sites are bad. Sorry, but Wikipedia is a bad source to add in a paper, so much, in fact, I have had several professors warning the class against its use. You are correct to say that no one should single source anything (as I stated earlier); but the key is, never source Wikipedia is you don't have to. All qualified and highly educated editors are severely outnumbered by spammers, vandals and trolls that swarm this site like bees. It is virtually impossible to create a holistically unbiased knowledge base. Even the qualified editors here amount to some of the problem involved here, as they are probably not professionals or experts about what they are writing (as I am not); they probably have emotional undertones in what they are writing; and Wikipedia itself and the community involved may be bestn assumed as bias, as original perspectives (such as a scientologist working with the Scientology article; or an African American writing an article for Afrocentrism) are often shunned and dismissed as NPOV or vandalism. Such leads only to ruin. Wikipedia for all the reasons stated, is simply not a reliable tool...be honest, if you had a critical essay to write, would you honestly rely on a one page article from Wikipedia, or a 500 page book from your local library, or, even Encarta? Most people agree, Wikipedia is simply not something to rely on wholely. Such could lead to ruin. Wikipedia's argument is that it improves everyday by the work of altruistic editors who take out portions of their lives to create a free knowledge base; however, the amount of sloppily written one sentence articles (e.g. that we all created when we were newbies) severely outnumber the better ones. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

While I certainly won't defend Wikipedia, the same problem exists with any document. For all anyone knows the material in Encarta or Encyclopedia Britannica is utterly biased and incorrect, and you should never rely on it as a single source either. Encyclopedias invariably reflect the biases of their editors, no matter how NPOV they may claim to be. However, we can usually place some reliance on basic facts such as names, dates, places.

One major issue with Wikipedia is that, while anyone can edit anything, articles really are owned by certain individuals, typically whoever is loudest; the article will invariably reflect that bias. I've seen this happen as I run across controversial articles... then read the flame wars (yes, flame wars) on the talk pages. So much for Witty-quette.

Another problem: suppose I were to edit a biography about someone famous and add the statement "He's secretly been a member of NAMBLA for several years". Perhaps I know this person and know this to be a true statement. But since it's not publically documented, more than likely this statement would be deleted; the only factual evidence I can produce is my own personal knowledge, and that's not worth much.

But the statement "He worked on his college newspaper for several years," a relatively innocuous statement which I know to be false, is much more likely to be kept. The editors don't necessarily know any better.

The real point is: why am I being allowed to edit this article at all, and why aren't my changes verified by someone else before being published? While yes, we shouldn't rely on Wikipedia as a single source... with the status quo I don't know that I can rely on anything in Wikipedia at all! Every single statement would have to be verified against other sources, even something as innocuous as a middle initial or a birthdate--for all I know, someone decided to insert random middle initials or change birthdates in unwatched articles and the changes were, of course, never detected. I might as well skip the verification step and go to those other sources in the first place, those other sources are much less likely to suffer from problems stemming from deliberate malice. People have been deliberately malicious on Wikipedia, and this problem will only increase over time.

I've also seen a number of pseudo-scientific articles on here, usually in the medical areas. They're kept because the pseudo-scientists have far more time and stronger (monetary) motivation, are more vigorous, and are louder than the defenders. (The benefit to the pseudo-scientists is that they can use the article as proof their treatment works.) That's not right, and certainly not the way an encyclopedia should decide what stays. But there's simply no way I'd ever consider getting involved in such articles, even if they happen to lie within my area of expertise; I have better things to do with my time than fight constant ongoing battles against blatant quacks, and that's exactly what I'd have to do under the current system.

One more point: in order for Wikipedia to be more useful than a typical encyclopedia it has to contain information which doesn't exist in a typical encyclopedia. That means it's also more difficult to verify this information, and people are likely to skip that vital step. 12.103.251.203 06:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Boycott Wikipedia?

This Campaign is analogous to boycotting Google. It won't work, unless you're in China. --SeanMcG 02:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So, why do people bother to boycott Wal-Mart, Nike, etc?--JuanMuslim ^1m 23:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned above my symbolic boycott of Yahoo! and I've mostly maintained it. For the most part the only exceptions are by accident and when someone asks/needs me to check something on it. Although I did check Yahoo:Op-Eds and Comics once as I can't see Garfield or Ziggy at Comics.com. I felt guilty about that and haven't backslid since.--T. Anthony 15:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Would boycotting help?

I read the Campaign page and, following on from that, several other lists of complaints/problems with Wikipedia. While what you (and others) say is perfectly valid I am uncertain as to how a boycott would help. If a very large number of editors did indeed boycott Wikipedia then the few that remain would effectively be completely in charge of all editing which would probably aggravate many of the problems you describe such as bias. Fine, Wikipedia is not perfect and probably never will be but is anything perfect? Even more reputable sources of information with more stringent checks can be fooled, look at Dord, for example. The project probably needs more time to sort out these problems and let everything balance out and, perhaps, slowly, the problems will improve. They may not ever disappear but, over time, as people and editors learn, content may become much better eventually. If everyone just leaves nothing at all will improve and we will never see what might have become of Wikipedia, for better or for worse. --Hydraton31 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott

User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

From another Wiki

The following section is from another Wiki for discussion about a possible Wikipedia Boycott.

When the Great Ship Goes Down

I suggest that the debate internal to WP will eventually result in much material being sanitized and watered down; thus I don't think it's enough to direct readers to wikipedia:Criticism of Wikipedia. I suggest it might be wise to import such content into BluWiki now, before one or another well-meaning meddler deletes it all. — "Bear" 00:14, 25 December 2005 (EST)

man you people are weird

Why don't you get a forum instead of a wiki? --Nerd42 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2006 (EST)

Boycotting Wikipedia Is Silly

I believe the Wikipedia is a great project. It does not represent the ultimate truth but it is one of the most democratic projects around! It should never be your final answer but it is the best starting point to get information on a topic, often providing you with many links and books to continue reading. I think the wiki approach, of which Bluwiki is a part, is a great thing. When "Bear" suggests to copy material from the Wikipedia to this place, he misses an important point: Bluwiki is also a wiki and thus open for anyone to edit. --Ghormax 13:18, 23 February 2006 (EST)

What's silly is to organize this on a wiki page LOL --Nerd42 (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2006 (EST)

The whole idea is farcical, frankly, because no one is making anyone go to Wikipedia in the first place. As with any website of any nature, you can go elsewhere and you can do your own thing. To devote a movement to boycotting a single website is as perverse as it is pointless. Adam Gurri 20:39, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Utility is the ultimate argument

What exactly is going on here?? The "day when wikipedia is truly useful to humanity", or whatever that attempted slogan was, is here TODAY. I benefit daily from wikipedia. I am a computer science and mathematics researcher who is constantly needing to look up mathematical facts, formulas, lemmas, proofs, &c, and the best source for these, for a fair while now, has been wikipedia. And it's growing all the time! The very nature of the project means that of course there will be some false and biased content, but living on planet earth up until this point should have taught you when to use a slightly cynical, "grain of salt" approach. This is the best, most complete, most useful, and most free compendium of human knowedge that has every been created, and a fantastic, ongoing chronicle of the human experience. If you don't like it, or don't believe it, then please go elsewhere for your information. Your boycott will fail.

Power 2 the peoples.

Um... Duh.

Does anyone here actually think they'll gain enough support to boycott wikipedia? Do you have any idea how many people would have to stop visiting the site to make any sort of difference? This is a ridiculous idea. For or against, it's simply impractical and thus a waste of time, as is my own message.

Other Comments

A comment and a question if you would. First you might want to remove the redirect on your user page and change it too a link. It get confusing if you do an autoredirect. My question is why boycott wikipedia but not bluwiki? We use the same software and have similar policies. Just curious. Chotchki 13:04, 7 December 2005 (EST)

What is the difference between Wikipedia and other Wikis? --JuanMuslim ^1m 16:16, 7 December 2005 (EST)

That was an implied question to you. Why against Wikipedia but not bluwiki for example? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and bluwiki is a free-for-all wiki, but the same Mediawiki software powers both. Chotchki 12:11, 8 December 2005 (EST)

I love the Mediawiki software! --JuanMuslim ^1m 12:57, 8 December 2005 (EST)

My two cents: Personally, I find MediaWiki a reasonably useful engine. Having invested so much time learning how to use it, I prefer to continue to do so, rather than learn another markup syntax. WP, however, has become a behavioral sink. The database is still useful, but degrades, slowly, with every passing day.

I cannot think of anything WP and BluWiki have in common, other than their engine. Our content is different, our community is different, our policies are different. I hope it will remain so for a long time. It is not yet possible for me today to say very much at all about Wikipedia except in anger and frustration. I do not imagine BluWiki as a replacement for WP at all; we have very different missions. But I have passed from hoping that WP can be salvaged to hoping its replacement will establish itself quickly. — "Bear" 00:03, 25 December 2005 (EST)

I am of the opinion that wikipedia is compromised by the same lame deceptive forces as the rest of the media. Slowly people are learning that what it is filled with is not to be trusted. The weak empire they thought they had is falling like a house of cards.

Peace

Re: Sigh: There's no point in expressing boycott intentions here: If anyone wants to express their anti-wikipedian feelings it would have been better to create a seperate website and start the campaign there; doing it here would be foolish--its just like running into the shark's mouth for refuge when the shark wants to eat you. For now I contribute subtly to wikipedia--its become my favourite pastime, although I do not wish to be towed down by any particular obligations--edit disputes etc. Mr Tan (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LatinoMuslim (talk • contribs)