Criticism of Wikipedia


I have produced several webpages of information to document the tactics of two individuals who disrupted my contributions while I was involved in Wikipedia, and have provided links to them on this one page so that they can all be found from here. They told a lot of lies, a massive amount of lies, so it might take up to a minute for the following pages to appear on some computers.

If you have any doubts that they told so many lies please examine the evidence when it appears, and don't just read it and assume that it doesn't matter, or that someone else will do something - please feel free to take some initiative and do something about it yourself, because I don't seem to be having much impact . . .


1. Criticism of Two of Wikipedia's editors (Part 1) where I provide a copy of the article that I wrote for the encyclopedia, and their criticism of it here

2. Criticism of Two of Wikipedia's editors (Part 2) where I discuss their massive number of lies and misrepresentation of the facts, and the policies, etc. here

3. The chronic fatigue syndrome and Da Costa's syndrome where I describe how they were defaming me and falsifying the history of the topic here

4. The typical behaviour of my two critics where I describe their extremely bad manners, their sly edit war tactics and how they used them to discredit me. I also describe how they told lies to gain support from other editors, and how they cheated and managed to get me banned, and how they secretly gave an Outlaw Halo award to the only administrator who was was willing to degrade himself by ignoring all the rules here

5. They were falsifying history and acting like trolls to deter me from contributing verifieable information here


The civilised world is based on the principles established by Abraham Lincoln's famous words . . . "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

However, according to one of Wikipedia's policies "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy".

My two critics treated it as a place 'of policy manipulating edit war lords, by edit war lords, for edit war lords', who role "play" edit war "games" where new contributors, readers, and the public are blatantly treated as "PC Cattle".


Why criticise Wikipedia; it does matter because:

It is important to criticise Wikipedia because it has, in recent years, become a convenient source of instant information for most people. This is due to the fact that it has become number one on the internet search engines for most topics, even if the information is poor quality or wrong, so if some of the incumbent editors fill particular pages with lies, then the first thing that the public get to see is the lies, and first impressions tend to last even if they are 'wrong impressions'. One such page is the Da Costa's syndrome which affects 200 million people.

Throughout history vested interest groups have tried to control knowledge in their countries, or empires, but now they can control the knowledge of the whole world by controlling Wikipedia, especially if nobody notices that it is happening, or thinks it matters, or if they think that it is too difficult to stop, and if nothing is done about it.


I am sure that Jimbo Wales established Wikipedia with the best of intentions, and that most of the editors who have contributed to it are genuinely trying to provide a top quality source of reliable information.


However, I am reporting on my experience when I was trying to contribute to an article, but had to deal with a couple of individuals who always tag-teamed together in a "my turn", "your turn" manner to criticise and delete almost everything I wrote.

I wouldn't object if they did that properly and for good reasons. However, they had a contempt for the truth, and ignored all the rules. They also told a massive number of lies, and appeared to be able to get away with it, and eventually managed to get me banned.

As they say - 'Sometimes "it" happens'.


While I was involved in the various discussion groups which they set up, and where they tried to convince other editors to block me, they were telling lies at such an astonishing rate that I simply couldn't keep up the pace of proving them wrong, Nevertheless I wasn't going to let them get away with it so I have described their great volume of lies one at a time.


Forum shopping - should have a sub clause - the shopping spree

You could be excused for thinking that my criticism of them is excessive, but need to see my response in relation to what they did to me in the twelve month period while I was contributing to the article.

Both of them had been in Wikipedia for four years and knew and often influenced, wrote and changed the policies, but I didn't. One of the policies relates to the fact that you are allowed to set up a discussion if you want to block another person from a topic. However, you can't impose your own opinions and dictate what everyone else should do, but must gain a consensus of opinion. You also need to choose the discussion carefully because if you don't get consensus you are required to accept the situation and stop complaining, or stop being disruptive yourself and co-operate with the individual, or go and edit other topics.

If you don't get consensus the first time, and then set up more pages to achieve the same objective then you are violating a part of the "Consensus" policy called "Forum shopping". The objective is to get hundreds or thousands of other editors to see it in the hope that a few of them will agree with you. In other words you are obviously subverting the consensus process of trying to get a result of six who agree, and then misrepresent it as six out of ten, when in fact, it may by only six out of 100.

This is a summary of some of the discussions where they tried to get help blocking me. First of all, my main critic was named "WhatamIdoing", and always tag-teamed with an incompetent side-kick named Gordonofcartoon. They took turns deleting information, and setting up discussions - one would set it up, and the other one would join in to agree. Together they deleted my contributions to the Da Costa's syndrome topic page, and then set up discussions on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page, Conflict of interest number one, and then Conflict of interest number two pages, and they came to my own Usertalk page to annoy me, and they set up Wikiquettes Alert, Materials for deletion, and Request for comment, and Request for comment talk pages, and a Reliable sources noticeboard, and Accessibility. They also set up secret discussions which I was not intended to find so that I couldn't defend myself by putting my side of the dispute. Those included Civil/POV pushing, WhatamIdoing's own talk page, and several Administrators noticeboards. Gordonofcartoon set up the Arbitration page to ban me, and WhatamIdoing wrote the largest essay of criticism, and gave a barnstar to the administrator who 'ignored all the rules' and banned me before I had the opportunity to reply to the lies in that essay.

Shortly before I was banned Gordonofcartoon issued me with a veiled threat . . . "Do we want to up the ante" . . . so I gave this reply . . . "Would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry" . . . They fancied that they could insult me for a year and that I couldn't insult them so they responded out of sheer and sullen spite by organising a way to get me banned, but they couldn't do it within the rules, so they arranged it by using their "ignore all rules" policy. However, they actually achieved their objective by breaking the rules of normal and fair disputes i.e. by cheating.

Their behaviour was shameful.


They feathered their own nest with rules to suit themselves

My two critics were amongst the first to start editing Wikipedia, and had been there for about four years. Their tactics involved writing and rewriting the rules so that they could always win, regardless of the merits of their arguments. For example, if they lost a dispute in the first year because someone proved that they were telling lies, they would be the type to write or use a rule which said . . . in Wikipedia - the truth doesn't matter'.

If they lost a dispute by ten to one against in the second year, they would write, or 'use' a policy that said . . . 'in Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus which usually, but not always means majority . . . and when determining if consensus exists or not 'numbers don't matter'.

If someone added information in the third year that those two individuals didn't like, and if that person argued that 'all' people are invited to provide 'all' information from 'all' sources, they would write or 'use' a policy which says . . . Wikipedia is not a democracy.

If they lost a dispute in the fourth year because they had been blocked for violating the policies, they would write or use the idea that . . . in Wikipedia the 'Ignore all rules' policy is a major policy.

If a member of the public joined in the fourth year, with the idea of providing factual, proven, verifiable, and useful information from reliable sources, and was winning all of the disputes in the normal manner, then my two critics would get them banned by arguing that . . . in Wikipedia 'the truth doesn't matter, consensus decisions are not determined by majority, and Wikipedia is not a democracy, and they would then arrange for an administrator to ban them by using the ignore all rules policy

It is virtually impossible for anyone to win disputes against shameless cheats like that.

They deliberately lied about the quality of my research

Between 9th and 18th December 2007 I added some information into the Wikipedia article about Da Costa's syndrome, in which chronic fatigue is one of the main symptoms. My findings were similar to a Russian study except that they didn't include the response to exercise, and other researchers were having difficulty getting results because the patients refused to complete their type of exercise program.


From 1982 -1983, researchers at the South Australian Institute For Fitness Research and Training examined more than 80 volunteers with persistent fatigue and found similar results, and a training programme was designed on the basis that they would participate if they kept within their own limits and improved at their own rate. Eleven who didn’t train were examined 6 months later with no significant change. Ten completed three months training of 2 hours per night twice per week, and six completed six months or more. Three cases improved but plateaud after three months below 600 kgm/min, and 3 of those who were initially recorded as below 400 kgm/min showed significant improvement. Twelve months after starting the training programme one of the participants entered a six mile marathon and completed it. Although the results were not published in medical journals the general findings were reported in several Australian newspapers."


My two critics deleted that and similar contributions on the grounds that there was nothing about my research design in the 'real' medical literature, and while they spent the next twelve months telling all of the other editors that my ideas and findings were fringy nonsense and crap the were slyly rewriting it and transferring it themselves, or they or their associates were transferring it anonymously, or other editors were supplying exactly the same information to other topics, using different references.

When I wrote the history of the topic I noted that the symptoms were similar to those seen in the condition which is now called the "chronic fatigue syndrome". They argued with me so I pointed out that it had been put in the "Related" section of the page before I started on it, and then my main critic continued arguing that 'just because it had been put into the related section doesn't mean that it is actually related, it just means that one editor thought that other readers might like to have a look at it.


This is what is on the chronic fatigue syndrome page two years after I was banned

"Pacing is an energy management strategy which encourages behavioral change while acknowledging patient fluctuations in symptom severity and delayed exercise recovery. Patients are advised to set manageable daily activity/exercise goals and balance activity and rest to avoid over-exertion which may worsen symptoms. Those able to function within their individual limits are encouraged to gradually increase activity and exercise levels while maintaining established energy management techniques. The goal is to gradually increase the level of routine functioning of the individual.[75] A small randomised controlled trial concluded that pacing had statistically better results than relaxation/flexibility therapy.[76][77] A 2009 survey of 828 Norwegian CFS patients found that pacing was evaluated as useful by 96% of patients. [72]


See my contribution here

See the Wikipedia description of Pacing here

See a full report of my 1982 research in which all of my recommendations preceded the Pacing studies here


The information thieves and the Johnny come latelys

My two critics spent twelve months telling all of the other editors that I was a useless and worthless contributor who was using unreliable old and out of date references, and filling Wikipedia with fringy nonsense and crap and using those arguments to delete almost everything I wrote. However, I often noticed that they, or anonymous, or other editors were systematically transferring the ideas to other topic pages.

One of the first statements that I made was that the ailment was named after J.M.Da Costa, and I used his 1871 research paper as a reference. My second critic, Gordonofcartoon then went to the biography page for Da Costa and added that information there.

Some months later my main critic presented me with a list of symptoms and asked me a sarcastic and insolent question like this . . . 'please give me your opinion as an expert in this field, your opinion is original rsearch so we won't be able to use it on the topic page but give it to us anyway'.

The symptoms were obviously related to a group of disorders which included Da Costa's syndrome, or the modern diagnoses of Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome, or the Chronic fatigue syndrome. I didn't answer that deliberately stupid question, but i did notice that while that individual was systematically deleting slabs of information that I put on the Da Costa's page, another group of anonymous editors were systematically adding similar information to the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome topic.

One of the crucial parts of my theory is how poor posture causes fatigue where I suggest that repeatedly leaning forward compresses the air in the chest and impairs the upward flow of blood and can eventually damage the veins below to cause weak circulation, unstable blood pressure, faintness, tiredness, and problems with exercise. When scientists want to make the human body react as if it is under stress they ask the person to pinch their nose and keep their mouth shut, and forcibly breath out. That procedure is called Valsalva's maneuver, and it compresses the air in the chest and produces changes in blood pressure etc. I therefore added that information to Wikipedia. Other editors have since created a brand new page called "Defecation posture", and the following words were added later . . . "The sitting position can cause the defecating human being to repeat the Valsalva Maneuver many times and with great force, which may overload the cardiovascular system and cause defecation syncope" (syncope is fainting).

Another example of information transfer relates to my recommendation that DCS patients exercise within their own limits, which has been duplicated on the Chronic fatigue syndrome page in their descriptions of Pacing.

With regard to the quality of my references I based the information on reviews by the best researchers in the history of the topic, but my two critics argued that they were just ordinary insignificant doctors, and 'routine' articles, and required me to add more, and modern ones, so I eventually provided more than sixty. They deleted them anyway, and rewrote the article with their version. However, they essentially stole my main references which included J.M.Da Costa (1871), Sir James MacKenzie (1916), Sir Thomas Lewis (1919), Harvard professor emeritus Paul Dudley White (1951), and Paul Wood O.B.E. (1956). The reason they stole them is because it would be impossible to write an intelligent account of the topic otherwise.

There are other example where information that I provided, or very similar details have been transferred to other topics and it is still there.