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.