User:Ben Culture

I am not necessarily leaving as of now, but I am definitely "consulting a divorce lawyer" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I used to tell people "Wikipedia will prove to be one of the greatest accomplishments in human history!"

Yeah.

Well.

That won't ever fucking happen.

I now tell people "Wikipedia is exactly what the majority believes it is: Unreliable, personality-driven nonsense." I cannot imagine it will get better, when it has been allowed to slide for so long. Wikipedia, in short, does not work like it used to, and soon enough -- in my lifetime -- it will cease to work at all. It will be sold to a private corporation, who will turn it into something explicitly commercial. Wikipedia is failing.

The number one reason?

LACK OF ENFORCEMENT OF WP:CIVIL.

Admins don't seem to do anything when presented with a WP:CIVIL problem. One particular admin I brought a problem to did nothing but refer me to essays, more essays, a page of guidelines, and some more essays. The most destructive essay I've read yet is WP:BRD. This non-policy is a disaster, which long-term, "decorated" editors are abusing to keep their favorite bad, biased articles in exactly the condition they left them in. "Oh, but it was a Featured Article!" I'm not fucking impressed. Too many articles -- and too many editors -- are being decorated with meaningless awards that create a pseudo-superiority. If you've been here for a decade and have contributed at least twice as much as I have, you've probably been decorated. Get decorated enough, and soon you're "made", as they say in the Mafia, and no one will ever discipline you.

There are far too many essays, guidelines, and flat-out policy pages, and the process for making a complaint about another user abusing you has become dizzyingly bureaucratic. Far too complicated.

There should be no difference between editors. There should be exactly two kinds of Wikipedians: The editors, who aren't special from each other, and the admins, who actually enforce the fucking rules. Everything else should go. It's nonsense. It creates inequality.

Likewise, there should only be two kinds of articles: Those being considered for deletion, and the rest of them officially unfinished. When an editor starts thinking his latest edit has "completed" an article, that's where trouble starts. I have seen terrible, slanted, and outright deceptive articles granted "Featured Article" status. This should not happen. All articles, unless being considered for deletion, should be equal to the rest. Do you see little bows or stars or special pink boxes on certain articles in an actual, physical, encyclopedia?

Of course you don't! That's because those are THE REAL FUCKING THING. Glamour and "Featured" and "Good Article" status -- none of that happens in a real, fact-based, verified encyclopedia. All articles are equal, in a real encyclopedia.

In my efforts to bring a "made" but horribly uncivil editor to justice, all I've been met with is cynicism, veiled accusations, provoking comments, and references to about 16 long, complex, unofficial essays, and one or two long pages of actual guidelines.

It's become too exhausting. WP:BOLD is dying. People are abusing WP:BRD (Be Bold, Revert, Discuss) to game the system: They Revert, but refuse to Discuss, so no consensus can take place. Thus, according to this idiotic non-policy, the article must stay reverted. By refusing to discuss it -- they win! They get to keep the article their way.

I have never met a useful admin.

I have never encountered such knee-jerk hostility slicked over with a greasy sheen of politesse.

The average long-term, obsessive Wikipedian is a flaming, edit-warring, hostile jerk.

I have never encountered such inequality of rights (in practice) among members of any Internet site.

Wikipedia is failing. It is dying. I'm too fucking digusted for words.

If you're thinking about getting out, yourself -- do it. Your serenity will thank you, eventually.

--Ben Culture (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

♯♮♭♮♯

I have consulted articles on pop-culture topics a few times, but have not edited much of anything since I wrote the above. I don't feel nearly as aggravated, frustrated, or dirty now, but I still approve of and believe in everything I said. I'm not happy about it, but I'll settle for second best: Being right.

In a discussion with a (spectacularly useless) admin, I asked her, "Why don't you discipline this [outrageously rude] guy? Are 'some Wikipedians more equal than others'? [That's a reference to Orwell's Animal Farm]. A complete stranger to me entered the discussion and said, "Ben, some Wikipedians are more equal than others." As I recall, my response began with "That's why it's not a real encyclopedia."

My contributions strengthened articles for over ten years (I went a long time unregistered), and were almost never altered, much less removed. It's fucking sickening that this page is now the only place where I can be reasonably confident I won't be immediately reverted.

--Ben Culture (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)