User talk:VeriouDubious

I don't click on links to Wikipedia anymore, and I'd never use it as a source for anything, since realizing that the content is moderated by narcissistic people with no qualifications, who's primary goal is deleting content as fast as possible, without any basis (the criteria is so subjective it can be used to delete literally anything). They typically do no research, and have no regard for the effort someone put into contributing, and literally compete over who can delete fastest. The Admins are like a flock of circling vultures seeking carrion, only they don't wait to see if something is really dead, they attack first. Maybe hyenas is a better metaphor, as they probably giggle while wiping out hours of work by editors trying to contribute, for free mind you, with a single click.

Since realizing how it works, not only would I never donate, I would like to see it go away. It's a detriment to the culture of the internet in my humble opinion. This is the result of allowing thoughtlessness to rule in a wild west fashion. You can't operate that way and be taken seriously.

The way Wikipedia works, with an ostensibly open editing policy, but a fascist regime in the background, makes absolutely no sense. It's inconsistent and arbitrary and completely disfunctional.

There are countless examples of artists, academics and celebrities unable to correct information or their own historical record for lack of "secondary sources". Think about that for a second...

Hello
Hi,

I see that you are understandably angry at the way Wikipedia has functioned, and I can only assume that there must be some article of yours that was deleted by others. Can I help you in any way, and see if there can be anything that can be done to resolve this situation? Also, please note that we usually do not allow people to edit from more than one account, so if you have another account, I suggest that is the only account you edit from.

If there is anything I can help you with, please ask.

Regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I only ever tried to edit once, years ago. My experience was so horrendous I never tried again. I'm not an editor. I am a disgruntled one time former attempted editor. The vague implied threat is nicety though. Thank you? I should say that I do not believe that all of the admins are horrible, or even a majority of them, but there are enough to make it not worthwhile for most would be editors. Luckily I'm not noteworthy in any way, so I don't have to defend my own life history, and I'm not an expert at any particular subject, or Wikipedia would probably make me suicidal or homicidal, if I paid it any attention.

I think the problem is that there has never been any real accountability for people once granted the title of admin. As a result, the reputation of the entire site has suffered greatly for the actions of a few sociopaths.


 * I agree with you that the actions of a few editors do look bad on editors as a whole, and worsens our image towards newcomers. I am sorry that you had a bad experience with some of the editors, and can only hope you'll reconsider and try editing again. There are other editors genuinely interested in helping others and we do survive without being homicidal or suicidal.
 * Please consider joining active editing again.
 * Regards,
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems you are sincere and I appreciate that. My impression at the time was that any one of the admins could arbitrarily wipe out anyone's work, and most likely one of them would, no matter what, as it was just a game to them. Almost everything submitted or contributed by a non-admin, no matter their credentials, was going to involve an argument of some sort after initial deletion. That was my experience and there are many similar accounts by lots of different people. I hope that's changed, but I don't have a reason to think so. I'll keep an open mind. I'd like to see Wikipedia improve, I really would. One way to immediately improve it would be to fire all the admins.. or well, just have spam filters. It couldn't get much worse.


 * Hello,
 * While admins technically do have the powers to wipe off articles, they almost never do it arbitrarily or on a whim. One possible reason for this could be that on Wikipedia, articles are supposed to follow a few major policies or else they can be deleted immediately. For example, we take copyright violations very seriously. Likewise, articles need references to back them up. But I agree we often fail to convey that effectively to editors who make the article, causing a communication gap between them and the ones who tag it for deletion; causing our newscomers to not understand the policies. Whatever the case be, we end up scaring off the newcomers we get, which is not good.
 * The issue hasn't particularly changed yet, but we've come a long way to get it solved. We're still working on it though, and meanwhile, would like to have more editors, who we can get to edit constructively. There are some solutions we cannot try, but yes, we are working on the others which we can. I sincerely hope we can get this problem solved.
 * Meanwhile, if you are still interested in editing Wikipedia, I would be willing to help you in any way I can. Please do consider trying to better WIkipedia from the inside. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)