Good.

One less wikinazi to remove things that they deem unworthy.

Good riddance.

Actually, Wikipedia is extremely good

I've gotten interested in the Caucasus, its languages, peoples, and history, and I've found information on Wikipedia that you'd be very hard pressed to extract from any conventional library, even the greatest (LOS, Harvard, British). Some of the information may not even be available in English other than on Wikipedia.

The fly in the wiki ointment lies with controversial topics: living people and religions seem to be the particularly outstanding in this regard.

There are some curious anomalies relating to such topics. I accessed the article on Stalin, and it displayed a Wiki-warning that it might be biased. Well, yes, it was biased in Stalin's favor, but as a basic biography it wasn't bad. The bias was very easy to discount.

WRT the Church of Xenu, they'll never give up, having the tenacity of a mindless animal that clamps itself to one of your limbs and chews away ferociously no matter what you do.

Clearly, articles relating to the Church of Xenu need to be locked so as to prevent anonymous editing. Why the people in charge at Wikipedia can't see this, I do not know.

Big effen deal

I am shocked, shocked that Wikipedia's pristine reputation has been besmirched yet again, and that this trashy little website looks saw luminous by comparison.

Damn, and it seems I forgot to pack..

..my careface. Wikipedia, MyTwitBook- truly Cade Metz has some pointless obsessions. She/he/it is very two point oh.

Conflict of Interest was crafted for me

Come on, Cade -- how could you mention that the Conflict of Interest policy was drafted in October 2006, without even mentioning that it was the SAME MONTH that Jimbo banned MyWikiBiz from editing Wikipedia.

I was the CAUSE of the Conflict of Interest policy!

Your readers want to know things like that.

Comedy/Tragedy

Metz's alright - I quote enjoy the ongoing reality net soap that seems to sustain the very core of wikiland. At least El Reg is trashy on purpose.

But it'd be nice if Reg bootnoted something once in a while recalling that the 99.999% of wikipedia that doesn't have anything to do with: cults, uber-admins, Jimbo Wales and/or his friends or ex's, or short-selling - is often the single most balanced and best referenced source available on the subject.

What's bizzare is the way stuff that touches any one of those dodgy areas, eventually turns out to crossover others. In an upcoming episode: Gary Weiss is revealed to be the gay lover of David Miscavige, and in the Dramatic Conclusion Wales's son is secretly engaged to Bryne's daughter...

wot?

"...this trashy little website looks saw luminous by comparison"

What the hell does that mean?

What do you expect ?

No movement that starts from small beginnings and grows rapidly is without the inevitable problems caused by human fallibility and egos. As time goes on, the procedures for resolving disputes become more sophisticated and bureaucratic and so the growth of the movement slows down as it acquires weight and substance. When they eventually build their glorious head office to house all the bureaucrats who manage their by then massively legalistic and heavyweight process, the movement will by then have lost all momentum and become a crusty and old institution.

We've seen this dynamic with so many movements throughout history which have changed history and I doubt Wikipedia will be exempt from this kind of organisational bloat tendency. While it has all of 23 paid staff it's still a very lean, dynamic and highly flexible organisation. As to how bureacracies manage to increase in size, see also Parkinson's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law .

Wiki Joke

Many colleges wont accept citations from wiki in their papers. I winder why?

@RW

RW said "I've found information on Wikipedia that you'd be very hard pressed to extract from any conventional library, even the greatest "

Yes, but how do you know its correct? What alternate sources are you comparing against, given that its not in the greatest libraries around? You need to substantiate the material or its worthless.

I'm afraid that if its missing from elsewhere there may be a good reason - like eg its false, inaccurate or biassed. This subject of this article sort of proves the point; anyone can put anything on Wikipedia - and remove anything, accurate or not. So material's presence and apparent rationality merely means it hasn't yet been either vandalised by a zealot or monomaniac, or authenticated by a genuine impartial observer.

someone's been smoking the

wiki backy - anyone got any skins?

Prem Rawat's sordid racket

I've tangled with Rawat's cult. They paid Schillings and Schillings (expensive London lawyers at the service of wacko cultists, it seems) to write to my employer trying to get me sacked.

Nasty people, but not as nasty as Scientologists, true. Equally deluded, of course -- but you could say the same of Aum Shrinko, or Al Qaeda operatives.

Nothing to worry about there, then!

Wikiwhackies Vs Scientologists

Who'd win?

Wikicomedy?

I'm not clear how Wikipedia can be described as a human comedy when Conservapedia is right across the street.

Paris because... well, nobody else ever seems to have a very good reason either.

Wikipedia just like a..

set of books. Someone earlier mentioned that a library is a better source.

Well we would like to think that is the case and historically Libraries are the central source for all good reference knowledge on a range of topics but just because a book has been written and published does not mean that it too is 100% accurate!

People have falsified information in books to skew the reader into thinking something different the only reason this comes to light in Wikipedia is due to its transport medium and quick accessibility as opposed to books.

This is not a new problem nor is it any different from what has happened for 100's of years in books.

@ Gregory Kohs

"Your readers want to know things like that."

Don't kid yourself - the comings and goings of wikians are web soap opera - sometimes mildly entertaining, often engendering a feeling of schadenfraude but ultimately meaningless to grown ups.

(Get a) Grip (on Yourself)

This touches on one of Wikipedia's fundamental problems. An editor who is intimately familiar with a topic is presumably in a better position to write about that topic - and is more likely to edit it - than an editor who is unfamiliar with the same topic; but because the editors are not vetted, there is no way to filter out people who have a mass of specialist knowledge but who are also twisted and wrong. This is a continual problem with the more esoteric subjects, the ones that tend to attractive single-minded autistic people (e.g. quantum physics, grammar), that are hard for general readers to understand.

Certain topics, particularly the medical ones, have to be taken on faith; the reader has to trust that the editor knows what he is talking about, and that he has not slanted the article in a certain direction. Wikipedia cannot defend itself against a David Irving type, the kind of clever vandal who can assemble a mass of reference work, and then selectively mistranslate, misinterpret, spin and pluck this reference work to support a particular point of view.

Wikipedia really needs people who have a good general standard of education; who can evaluate a diverse range of topics; who can write well; and who know their own limitations. Editors who are self-aware and can tell when they should step aside and let someone else do the work. Who are pure as the driven snow. Who will know which topics to not edit under any circumstances. Unfortunately for Wikipedia such people are rare.

Where entertainment knows no bounds

Once again, for interesting reading, I'd direct people to check out the "Wikipedia Review" website (easily found via google). I'm glad I found it before I got sucked into the wikiblackhole.