User talk:4uckipedia

February 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to The Adjustment Bureau has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Adjustment Bureau was changed by 4uckipedia (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.900773 on 2015-02-14T17:53:52+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This was a false positive, but you may want to look at getting your username change, as it resembles "Fuckipedia" and could imply that you are here to troll or vandalize. See Username_policy for more information. You can request a username change at Changing_username. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm supposed to post here or on your talk page. The reason my username is 4uckipedia is bc Wikipedia makes it so damn hard just to sign up. I tried for 10 min to get a regular username, each time having to go through putting in a password and doing a captcha (ie there is no"check availability button), and all the ones I wanted were taken or rejected for being "too similar" to one that was taken. Literally, I tried so many different names and iterations, it was ridiculous.  I have NEVER had that difficulty with ANY other site, including sites that guard much more valuable information.  It pisses me off that a wiki-type encyclopedia site thinks it needs to protect its content and its users more than email, gaming, or even monetary exchange sites do. So while I'm not here to troll, I'm also not here to lick wikipedia's boots.  Your site has lost all user friendliness in the name of "not rocking the boat."  I mean, what, too many Colbert fans alter a page on elephants and input bad information, so suddenly anyone who wants to edit a Wikipedia page has got to bagged, tagged, and identified?

The fact of the matter is, the site work best under its original operating principles: since the site is controlled by the entire Internet community, the most relevant information will be present on the site the majority of the time. If incorrect information pops up, it gets struck down by attentive members in the community, the more incorrect it is, the quicker that shut down occurs. While that system results in a dynamic, volatile editing process, the information that ultimately crystallizes from those edits will be the most relevant information to the community, because the parties who are most interested in that information being relevant are the very parties who participate in the editing process. But Wikipedia has put up road blocks to that type of operation. The entire process of editing has been regulated by the Wikipedia administrators, and that regulation makes it harder for certain types of edits to occur. Namely, the types of edits that do not fit the narrative that Wikipedia has been pushing since this very policy was first introduced. That narrative: That departing from any commonly held belief is a volatile change, and that too much of that change is bad for the human community. The narrative is that free expression over the Internet is bad, that freedom of anonymity is not a meaningful freedom, and that anonymity itself is a danger, a tool only used by people with ill-will and ill-intent. It's: that if people have access to unfiltered, unregulated information, if they have the ability to be informed without relying on their governments or their leaders, they will change, and grow; they will change to become more connected, more informed, and less dependent on government. That this change in the peoples' ability has the potential to make the previous system, of being informed through connected world leaders, obsolete. That a lack of regulation will cause changes to occur more quickly and more frequently, and, ultimately, will result in a world with "too much" freedom. Too much freedom, the narrative continues, will cause "anarchy". And so, therefore, it is the job of the gatekeepers of information, private businesses such as Wikipedia, to prevent society from changing too quickly, by stifling their ability to quickly access and/or change the information they themselves created, and which you control, without administrative oversight.

Well, change and volatility are inherent to freedom of expression. If Wikipedia wants to make it hard for its "user-generated information" to be changed, then perhaps it should consider offering its services through a means more suitable to that mindset. Mail by post, perhaps? Or AM radio? I just know that if Wikipedia wants to make it difficult to change or alter your information, then the Internet is not the place for them.