Wikipedia – Rotten Apple with Deceptively Shiny Skin
In a comical though aggravating action, initiated by a single Wikipedia admin, my account has been suspended under the false allegation that I have posted to the Domaining page from “multiple user accounts“. One rather paranoid admin contacted another admin and accused me of posting to the Domaining page under multiple identities. LOL! In a sudden, swift action with no recourse or dialogue with me whatsoever … my account was suspended.
Can you believe this? Just like that … completely blocked.
Even more incredible are the layers of intricate mazes, links, & instructions (difficult by design I assume) required for one to challenge the anonymous goober who got the account suspended in the first place.
This is a real revelation. If you’re like me, you have used Wikipedia and had no idea what silliness goes on behind the scenes.
Previously, I liked the site and had never thought much about the people who are admins there. It’s a real study in personality disorders and the inevitable larger-than-life egos that ”admin privileges” often foster. At Wikipedia, you’ll find aspiring scholars with a C+ aptitude.
Ultimately, domaining should not be redirected to cybersquatting, and currently … it isn’t (thankfully). I would not be at all surprised if a single individual sabotages all the hard work that has gone into this effort. Wikipedia operates with pseudo journalistic integrity, and apparently is shaped by the opinion of a few literature majors who long for a ’position of authority’ and are infatuated with power.
No offense to Lit Majors. The real culprit is anyone who cannot concede when they are wrong. I’m sure there are good people within the greater Wikipedia community. But, there are some rather serious & ingrained problems which are undermining the premise of quality one would presume exists there. “Discussing” content at Wikipedia has the back-and-forth flow of an argument between juveniles.
Thus far at Wikipedia, valid arguments on domaining are met with instant redirection to non-relevant points (known as change the subject because you’re losing the argument), or worse, people begin to pull out their opinion as “fact”, and repeat it 4 times … as if repeating it will somehow make it magically true. Believe me, this is a tiring exercise to witness. And I saw it over and over as critics tried to discredit domain name investing with transparent & empty insults. The stench of envy filled the air.
I’ve contacted the two people who decided to suspend my account. I’m really curious if they’ll have the decency to engage me in conversation to further explain their decision.
Since the suspension is built on something which I know is false, it will be interesting to see what develops. I expect cowardice, and avoidance, from the two admins who froze my account. Engaging in “healthy debate” is something they are not yet ready for.
This process is a real peeling back of the layers at Wikipedia. I am finding a rotten core, sadly.
they are retarded admins
I tried to get them to clean up the affiliate marketing page with no luck. It was full of spam, where supposed experts referenced articles from their own web sites repeatedly. Unfortunately, those same spammers have nothing better to do than undo your changes every other hour.
Trying to contribute any positive change to wikipedia once the page is up is a real study in frustration.
I have emailed each of the two Wikipedia admins, twice each, confronting their decision to block my account and asking for them to have dialogue with me. Neither one has responded. So, thus far they are capable only of a hit-and-run hatchet job. And leaving the scene of the crime.
A third admin who reviewed my request for reversal of account suspension offered ” … your edits appear to be the same in function to that of at least three other registered usernames. Declined.”
He is stating that I have three other registered user names (“at least three”) based on the appearance of my “edits”. The appearance? That’s the evidence? Show me the evidence! Utterly false. Nuts. I have only had one account. Period. And how is one supposed to defend oneself against such baseless claims?
I have emailed each of these admins with all of my contact information. They are literally hiding behind their anonymity. Their actions, their failure to be accountable for their abusive decision, and the concealing of their identities, is plain sinister.
Great work your page [still] reads really well. Its strange how some people become obsessed with the system they are trying to help build. DMOZ had [has?] similar issues with admins/editors who are supposed to be contributing to create a great system stat using their power to obstruct and settle petty differences.
In the end all it does is damage the system itself because people with a genuine interest are no longer prepared to give up their time for free as they can’t be bothered with the pettiness. It would be a shame if Wikipedia goes the same way as DMOZ.
“In the end all it does is damage the system itself because people with a genuine interest are no longer prepared to give up their time for free as they can’t be bothered with the pettiness”
Very well said gpmgroup. Wikipedia admins wanted major media references not realizing, for example, that major media turn to Ron Jackson’s DNJournal.com and Andrew Alleman’s DomainNameWire.com for their reliable information.
There are no domain industry experts working for major newspapers. The newpapers have to access inside industry experts to obtain any point of view. Unless you’re talking Wikipedia admins, who just decide on the spot whatever their leanings dictate.