Wikipedia talk:Wikipedist

restored content.

this article clearly differentiates wikipedist from wikipedian, and therefore has a right to exist. Constant removal constitutes either:
 * Vandalism
 * Censorship
 * Spite

You choose! Heenan73 14:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Repetitiously censored text
While Wikipedian is the generally accepted term for a person who writes and edits articles for Wikipedia, Wikipedist is arguably a more appropriate name, just as encyclopedist means someone who contributes to an encyclopedia.

The ending of Wikipedian, on the other hand, suggests someone who is part of a group or community. So in this sense, Wikipedians are people who form The Wikipedia Community; while a Wikipedist, in contrast, may work side by side with community members, but have a personal agenda, sometimes in competiton with the aims and objectives (and policies) of Wikipedia.

An example is those who spoof Wikipedia for reasons unknown, which may include personal amusement, graffiti or simple anti-establishment gestures.

Some take their agenda further, with loose-knit alliances of wikipedists supporting spoofs and the prevention of spoof correction.

With Wikipedia's credibility undermined by such behaviour, it might be argued that Wikipedists are a serious threat to the future of the project.

Example
The anti-Roma spoof Vampire watermelons is an interesting case in that the spoof has persisted for many months, despite repeated attempts by Wikipedians to remove it, correct it, or place links to it in context.

The Wikipedists defense is to challenge Wikipedians to 'prove them wrong', while the guiding principle of Wikipedia would suggest that the onus of proof lies supporters of the spoof.

The one source cited does not support their case.

The spoof has persisted long enough to be spreading across the web, with copycat mentions now being cited as proof, in a classic circle of falsehood.