Comment KKW7 Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better.


Wikipedia bans hundreds more paid editor accounts and deletes affected articles


Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 2, Interesting)

by on 2015-09-02 16:39 (#K7NM)

I suspect they'll have better luck deterring this nonsense if they actively shame the companies who pay for/execute the biased bullshit.

They'll never win the cat-and-mouse if they just ban accounts.

Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1)

by on 2015-09-02 21:54 (#K8JV)

It isn't just paid editing firms they have to worry about. Wikipedia's policies, in general, are entirely untenable, requiring overwhelming force of numbers that just can't be sustained.

Citizendium did a better job than I can, explaining why Wikipedia doesn't work:

* no coherent narrative
* disconnected grab-bags of factoids
* degraded by minor ill-judged tweaks
* intelligent laymen are often mistaken
* "squaters" always win
* blatant and shameless levels of bias
* Vandalism is a headache
* part anarchy, part mob rule
* disputes sometimes go on interminably

Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1)

by on 2015-09-06 15:24 (#KKW7)

I get what they're saying, but here's a random topic I thought to compare: (nope, HTTPS isn't available)

Wikipedia's article is not only far more complete, it's also better written! The Citizendium article over-emphasises comparison against the M-16, and is openly biased in so doing:
The AK-74M fires the same ammunition, but is made of lighter and more rugged materials and features a side-folding stock.
But no mention is made of the advantages of the M-16.

Citizendium have some interesting ideas, but I really can't see them getting anywhere near Wikipedia.

More examples: there's no article (literally nothing) on OpenCL, for instance, or even CUDA! There's an article on the GPU, but it's absolutely laughable.
This would be fine if Citizendium were a newcomer, but at this stage, it's not.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk