User:Dharmabum420

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After spending a lot of time on the Wikipedia, I've found that it's depressingly bereft of people who give a sweet fuck about writing an encyclopedia, but is full of the kind of people who itch to get in on the board of their condo's strata council. You know, the kind of bureaucracy-obsessed cocksuckers who like to sit at a little table in front of 18 people, keep minutes and feel important over tabling a vote that dishwashers can't be run after 9pm rather than 10pm, never realizing that there's around six billion people in the world who couldn't give a sweet fuck.

It depresses me to think that this eclectic, Google-age project is rapidly becoming as stodgy and anal-retentive as any edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, only with a lot more grammatical errors. And Christ forbid that some jackass who thinks the Earth is flat initiates a protracted and moronic mediation because you keep saying it's round. It has eroded my patience, and most importantly, any enthusiasm about the project at all.

When I see crap in an article these days I suppose I'll shrug my shoulders and say to myself as I read an article, "Well, that's wrong, that's wrong, that's POV, and that comment needs a citation... ah, fuck it, let someone else worry about it," rather than try to fix the problem. And I see now that outside of a core group - no more than a few hundred people, most of whom never seem to actually contribute anything new to an article - of admins and people involved in the various idiotic bureaucratic committees, a sad majority reach this point after a year or two.

I salute the resilience of those few editors who have been here for years, who keep making valuable and intelligent contributions, who never give a fuck about becoming an admin, or staring at an IRC bot with their finger hovering over the revert button (or, more accurately, stuck in a Skinner box looking to increase their edit count), never worry or post about policies concerning user boxes and notability, but just make the fucking articles better. You are the few, and your patience is infinitely greater than mine. Good luck. - dharmabum

As an addendum, some specific complaints:

• Copyright paranoia, mostly in regard to images. On the one hand, I do appreciate that the whole WikiMedia project needs to protect itself from copyright violations. But we all fucking know that there is a cadre of copyright freaks who clearly derive some sort of pleasure out of finding even the most obscure reasons to delete any image uploaded. Most recent example: some jackass arbitrarily deciding that an image of a magazine issue's cover can only be used to illustrate an article about that specific issue rather than the magazine in general, then rampaging their merry way through every article about a magazine they can find without discussing it or looking for anyone else's opinion.
• Deletionism; it's rampant and more and more of the people who slum around AfD looking to shoot down as many new articles as possible seem to adhere to its ideals. While it's obvious that Billy Joe's article about the club he and two of his friends formed in their junior high lunchroom doesn't belong, there are a ton of good articles that get deleted. Sometimes it's lack of simple patience; the Lonelygirl15 article was a great example; how many people participated in deleting and then recreating that article, when simply waiting a week or two to see where it went was all that was necessary? Or how about the idiocy that has gone on over The Game (which you just lost)? The sheer volume of people who get involved every time some jackass decides to nominate it for AfD couldn't be a better testament to keeping it around, but no, these cocksuckers decide that they need the NYTimes to write a front-page article about a word-of-mouth game whose object is to forget its existence in order to devote a scrap of MediaWiki's servers to it.
• "Dispute resolution", especially as it relates to admins. Some of the horrible admins I've seen on this site - unsurprisingly, most of these shitty admins are people who never did anything but vandal fight, couldn't spot a dangling participle or a split infinitive if their mother's life depended on it, and then go Nurse Ratchet upon being granted even the tiny bit of power adminship brings - are treating users that are fairly new and unfamiliar with the ugly underworkings of Wiki-policy like shit. They're blocked or castigated on their userpages, or worse, never really understand what they did wrong. Then when they want to formally say to someone in a position of authority that "this admin treated me like an asshole," they're pointed to a bunch of policies about requests for comment and requests for moderation and requests for arbitration and decide they don't have the knowledge or desire to go through weeks and weeks of this gobshite. So they give up, and nobody ever notices the cocksucker of an admin treating people like shit.
  • Even worse is the fact that even if you go through all of the various "dispute resolution" processes in dealing with a problematic admin, you pretty much need to prove that they used their admin powers to exterminate the population of a small West African country in order to see them reprimanded in any way. And even mass genocide probably only warrants a temporary reprimand.
• As stated above, various policy freaks really piss me off, and sometimes it spins wildly out of control. Look back at the mess that was the committee who decided that they had the right to decide whether any given subject that someone wanted to create a Wiki-Portal about was a worthy subject to have a portal dedicated to it. There was about 3 or 4 people who actually participated in the project, and they shot down pretty much every single person who proposed a project according to their own narrow criteria. Eventually the farce ended, but it took months, many potentially interesting portals never got created, and many contributors probably decided to fuck the whole lot once dealing with the belittling things these 3 or 4 cocksuckers had to say about a subject that was near and dear enough to them to want to create a portal about it.

Postscript, part 2: (aborted: I wrote out three paragraphs trying to mitigate the harshness of the above comments. Then I re-read it and decided that it wasn't worth it.)