Blackmoor Vituperative

(aka, “Why I am not editing Wikipedia anymore”, or “Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo“)

The problem with Wikipedia is that there is no editorial oversight: in other words, “anyone can edit”. What this means is that anyone who wants their personal opinion or political agenda given the veneer of authenticity has only to outlast anyone who disagrees, and it is a sad fact of human nature that fanatics are rarely the most mentally competent people. At some point it becomes an academic question whether an editor is merely incompetent or is editing in bad faith (see Derek_Smart for an example of this phenomenon). Besides, the vast majority of the human race should not be allowed near a computer, much less be allowed to use one to edit an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has policies in place which ostensibly are to assure that information is neutral, verifiable, and the result of consensus, but these policies are much like “gun control”: they only limit the behavior of people who are not themselves the main problem. A user who edits the same article every few minutes, all day, every day, and reverts anyone else’s contributions without discussion has only to bide his time before more reasonable people give up in frustration (see coercive monopoly for an example of this in action). This isn’t productive, and currently it isn’t avoidable: it’s a direct result of Wikipedia’s policies. Wikipedia’s policies make it nigh impossible for the rest of us to get anything done when some individual decides to obstruct consensus and flout Wikipedia’s policies.

This is why reasonable people don’t participate in Wikpedia for very long, and why Wikipedia articles ultimately can’t be trusted to be factual: the inmates rule the asylum. In fact, the examples I cite above are extremely mild examples of what is wrong with Wikipedia. I selected these articles to show that it is not only serious and controversial subjects which suffer from bad information being added to Wikipedia: it is a systemic problem, affecting even trivial subjects. It’s a damned shame, too: Wikipedia could be one of the greatest achievements of mankind, if only there was competent editorial oversight.

And yet I have fought an uphill battle against the lunatic fringe, trying in vain to keep Wikipedia on track and operating according to its stated policies and goals. Why? I couldn’t tell you, but I have come to the conclusion that it’s a lost cause. I spent a full year fighting the lunatic fringe on the Open gaming article, for example, and although that battle was eventually won, to the benefit of Wikipedia and anyone who can read, the entire thing could have been prevented if Wikipedia only had a competent editorial review board — and there is nothing to prevent another loon from showing up tomorrow and starting it all over again. This is the crippling burden that every article struggles under, and it is an absurd waste of time and energy.

I hope that some day the Wikipedia administrators will come to their senses and institute a competent editorial review board, and Wikipedia can finally begin to live up to its potential. Until then, I have a wife, a job, and more hobbies than I can keep up with, and I don’t have the time for this nonsense.