Wikipedia Is Getting Worse As It Gets Better

not to mention Wikipedia inevitably becomes restricted to the ideological desires of a group of like-minded people regardless of what other facts get presented.

Wikipedia: The world's whine imposter encyclopedia, lol.

Though, it can be useful in pointing the reader to other good sources of information, in regards to the topic you are interested in.

Don't know what you guys look up on wikipedia that makes you feel that way, but I've never had problems with it.

marvin nubwaxer i saw the complaint from bagpipes 10 and wonder if he means giving equal voice to topics such as creationism or conspiracy theories or climate change denial.

Thank you for confirming the obvious to anyone who has tried to post on wikipedia or make an edit to any existing article on wikipedia and thank you for pointing this out to the general public. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia where true facts get published, it is a place where senior users can edit and remove any new edits or additions to articles written by new comers, no matter how good their facts and sources are.

Case and point, I wrote an edit on an article which is in my industry and all of my edits were removed by senior moderators even though I had facts from scientific sources in my edit. My edit was completely removed because it went against what was previously written, even though I had credible scientific journals and facts supporting my edit!!!

ARTICLE I WISHED TO EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_ionizer

SCIENTIFIC SOURCES I INCLUDED WHICH WERE REMOVED BY A SENIOR EDITOR, EVEN THOUGH MY SCIENTIFIC SOURCES GO AGAINST WHAT IS WRITTEN IN WIKIPEDIA

==Scientific Books and Journals I attempted to include which were removed==

Shirahata, Animal Cell Technology: Basic And Applied Aspects Shirahata, Animal Cell Technology: Basic And Applied Aspects http://books.google.com/books?id=iE-alhelixoC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=Shirahata+water&source=bl&ots=GdAKZrexCn&sig=wu0Nf04M7Rk-szfd6fwvch_vhXY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Shirahata%20water&f=false Shirahata, Animal Cell Technology: Basic And Applied Aspects

Sekiya S, Ohmori K, Harii K. "Treatment of infectious skin defects or ulcers with electrolyzed strong acid aqueous solution" Treatment of infectious skin defects or ulcers with electrolyzed strong acid aqueous solution" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9012904?ordinalpos=41&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Sekiya S, Ohmori K, Harii K. Treatment of infectious skin defects or ulcers with electrolyzed strong acid aqueous solution

Kim MJ, Kim HK. "Anti-diabetic effects of electrolyzed reduced water in streptozotocin-induced and genetic diabetic mice"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16945392?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Kim MJ, Kim HK. Anti-diabetic effects of electrolyzed reduced water in streptozotocin-induced and genetic diabetic mice

Ye J, Li Y, Hamasaki T, Nakamichi N, Komatsu T, Kashiwagi T, Teruya K, Nishikawa R, Kawahara T, Osada K, Toh K, Abe M, Tian H, Kabayama S, Otsubo K, Morisawa S, Katakura Y, Shirahata S. "Inhibitory effect of electrolyzed reduced water on tumor angiogenesis". Ye J, Li Y, Hamasaki T, Nakamichi N, Komatsu T, Kashiwagi T, Teruya K, Nishikawa R, Kawahara T, Osada K, Toh K, Abe M, Tian H, Kabayama S, Otsubo K, Morisawa S, Katakura Y, Shirahata S. Inhibitory effect of electrolyzed reduced water on tumor angiogenesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175936?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Ye J, Li Y, Hamasaki T, Nakamichi N, Komatsu T, Kashiwagi T, Teruya K, Nishikawa R, Kawahara T, Osada K, Toh K, Abe M, Tian H, Kabayama S, Otsubo K, Morisawa S, Katakura Y, Shirahata S. Inhibitory effect of electrolyzed reduced water on tumor angiogenesis.

Nishikawa R, Teruya K, Katakura Y, Osada K, Hamasaki T, Kashiwagi T, Komatsu T, Li Y, Ye J, Ichikawa A, Otsubo K, Morisawa S, Xu Q, Shirahata S. "Electrolyzed Reduced Water Supplemented with Platinum Nanoparticles Suppresses Promotion of Two-stage Cell Transformation". Nishikawa R, Teruya K, Katakura Y, Osada K, Hamasaki T, Kashiwagi T, Komatsu T, Li Y, Ye J, Ichikawa A, Otsubo K, Morisawa S, Xu Q, Shirahata S. Electrolyzed Reduced Water Supplemented with Platinum Nanoparticles Suppresses Promotion of Two-stage Cell Transformation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19003049?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Nishikawa R, Teruya K, Katakura Y, Osada K, Hamasaki T, Kashiwagi T, Komatsu T, Li Y, Ye J, Ichikawa A, Otsubo K, Morisawa S, Xu Q, Shirahata S. Electrolyzed Reduced Water Supplemented with Platinum Nanoparticles Suppresses Promotion of Two-stage Cell Transformation.

Wikipedia is a very sick place to edit. What kind of encyclopedia allows anonymous, not notabale users to push their POV? Wikipedia does. What kind of encyclopedia is governed by anonymous users? Wikipedia is. Here are a few testimonials of a few of the most active Wikipedia editors who stopped editing:

"There are quite a few mentally ill people who edit Wikipedia. I have been stalked and harassed by more than one person here during my tenure, and while almost all of those folks were eventually indef blocked, after awhile, it gets to be too much. It is emotionally and physically draining."

"I'm just not interested any longer."

"There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do.There is no reason to continue here."

"Wikipedia was a great idea, but the structure dooms it - it has hit an ethical problem no-one who started it ever anticipated, and its decision making processes, and lack of responsibility, make it impossible for the community to fix it. Everyone with sense knows the problem, but minorities, and people who like to "play" wikipedia unimpeded, make proper radical solutions impossible. The one man who could make a difference isn't willing to try. So, I've had enough."

I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has unique issues with volunteer coordination and communication due to it's large scope, the novelty of an internet medium and it's need to remove itself from "publishing" the works it helps to create. Nevertheless, I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with the way the Foundation distances itself and the lack of good communication, especially in serious cases such as this recent leak. That someone had to "break ranks" for the committee to get any concrete information on the various issues at play seriously concerns me and we're still almost completely in the dark about what the Foundation is doing and how it plans to handle security going forward - so it's not just the community who's being left out here. (This user was an arbitrator)

"Ending my involvement with this farce."

"Contrary to part of the statement in the recent "decline" of my request, it would seem to me that encouraging Wikipedia (administrators) to "demonstrate" its own "fairness" and "justice" in the application of its own process would be a most "productive" contribution to this encyclopedia and would encourage other editors of my caliber to contribute to it. As the "process" stands, that is highly unlikely." (This user is an academic)

An award winning scientist had this to say about his experience with Wikipedia:

"The modern notion of Encyclopaedia was a product of the Enlightenment and intended as an educational vehicle to raise the level of the masses. The Encyclopaedists included some of the greatest thinkers of their time. They valued, above all: knowledge, understanding, truth. The "scientific method" was based upon the same foundations: empirical knowledge, verifiability and careful reasoning. These were the ideals of the Enlightenment , together with a belief in justice in society.

Wikipedia is an embodiment of the opposite. It is a return to the Dark Ages, with an element of chaos that is greatly enhanced by the mass communications tools available in the internet. It involves a reduction of all genuine achievements to parity with the very basest, most primitive notions of the ignorant and undereducated. The encyclopaedists would never have proposed that their work was to be an equal collaboration of the ignorant and the educated. It was to be a vehicle for raising the former from their ignorance by making the most valuable achievements of human endeavor available to all.

Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared to devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.

It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant"."

To have a complaint against Wikipedia, you must be able to give examples of false information contained in that resource. What's more, you need to show that the errors are significantly greater than any other resource. If you can't provide that information, your complaints are unjustified. The anti-Wikipedia group would have folks believe that much of the information compiled in that resource is wrong ... a ludicrous claim.

@bawellwater
to have any value in your complaint, you should at least give us some dialog that occurred between you and the other editors which would show unfair treatment. Your name suggests that you belong to a related commercial enterprise which obviously raises some flags here.