User:Theinactivist

I'm tired of Wikipedia. I know what you're thinking, this user hardly did anything. The problem is that I realized after such a small time that despite all its regulations Wikipedia has accomplished no more in representing accuracy above public opinion than has Yahoo! Answers. In fact, Wikipedia even has a frequently-abused rule that states in no unclear terms that Wikipedia represents the views of the majority public. '''And when was the last time you saw an article checked, double-checked, triple-checked for the accuracy and completeness of its claims, even in consideration for Good Article status? For me, it was never.''' Sorry, but that isn't good enough. I can do better than you Wikipedia, and I can do better than reading the edits of even the most expert of your editors. Wikipedia, you derive most of your sources from the mass media, and your information is less accurate than theirs. Wikipedians regularly fight to uphold the opinions of the mass public even when they must resort to using blogs and parody sites, and regularly |dismiss accurate and pertinent information when it does not conform to public opinion. (Of course those examples are just the latest ones I've seen. I'm not making a true case here when it will assuredly fall on deaf ears.)

Sorry, but even the most core idea of a body containing the world's complete knowledge -- or rather, a summary thereof -- is a ridiculous one, and can only spur slouching ignorance and dogmatism if used for anything beside passing trivia -- and even, then, perhaps. So why do we have articles on biological molecules? Why articles on politics? When the slightest bit of skepticism on Wikipedia demonstrates statement after statement that does not match its source, it is obvious that nobody cares to be skeptical about the claims; we all just ask "does this sound right to me?" Sorry, Wikipedia used to sound right to me. Then I decided to give it a moment of thought.

~Theinactivist