User:Frescard

Everything else fluctuates. And doesn't really matter for Wikipedia anyway...

Since vandals, trolls, and fanatics seem to be the ones in control right now, I'm very ambivalent about contributing to Wikipedia right now.

It is a phantastic concept, and I would love to see it bloom, but with the way the current editing structure is set up, I don't quite see the point of spending hours and days, finding appropriate content and references, only to have it deleted by some bigot, just because he thinks an encyclopedia should be the vehicle for his propaganda.

As it seems, I'm not alone with this frustration:


 * Why I Quit Wikipedia, by Mike Harris
 * Why I stopped, by User:DV8 2XL


 * User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion

Informed and mob consensus, by LinaMishima
Wikipedia is based on the idea that improvement happens via consensus. Consensus can be a powerful means to ensure accuracy, as long as the principle of informed consensus is followed. Informed consensus is the idea that all involved provide sound reasoning and are prepared to listen to provided reasoning, based on evidence. Those with the most soundly reasoned points become the most listened to. Variations upon the concept are used throughout science and industry, and the established means of checking scientific research, peer review, is quite similar (being a method of informed evaluation and requests for improvement). However it is often the case that public forums (in the general, rather than online sense) and other places soliciting community involvement become controlled via mob consensus, whereby the loudest particapants are the most listened to, and generally dictate the outcome of the debate. Wikipedia appears to seriously suffer from the clash between those who wish to discuss things professionally and academically, and those who wish to hammer a point home in a mob style manner. In such cases, it is inevitably those who are not using reason who win, for they do not require any thought, effort or personal involvement to drive their point in, and those who prefer reason are not able to counter them without resorting to similar tactics (which they find abhorant).

See also:
 * Referees
 * Wikipedia needs editors
 * The Wikipedia Review
 * Who Writes Wikipedia?