WHY WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN APPLE?

WHY WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN APPLE?

WHY WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN APPLE?

When I wrote my first article to Wikipedia, I thought it was an excellent project until one of my articles was suggested for a removal by voting. I won, but the manner of suggesting it for voting was a little bit ugly which resulted in an unnecessary correspondence that could be a source of five good articles.

In Wikipedia, the editors are either inclusive or exclusive, which means that there are two wings - the inclusive one is willing to include anything into this encyclopedia, the exclusive one is more selective.

Five reasons I think Wikipedia is not for me

I need to repeat again that Wikipedia is good. But this community has some mistakes that they do not want to correct.

1) I think that anonymity is a bad thing. Anybody can use any nickname and there is no guarantee that a Wikipedia editor understands the subject he or she edits (or deletes). It is probable that he or she may know about it, but I do not have any visible proof of this. Anonymity makes a number of decisions (and things) very unclear.

2) This means that anybody can delete anything and will often delete even valuable information, because he is not qualified to understand it.

3) Some people think that the more information is in it, the better. However, this is often worse, as it is only distractive - many articles contain warnings about missing citations, so all these texts are actually not necessary. Texts without citations should be either immediately deleted, or placed with all articles into something that would be called "Untrusted Source".

4) I developed a FreeBSD distribution (MaheshaBSD) and information about it was put to many websites (for example: http://unix.org.in/2010/08/maheshabsd-a-live-cd-from-the-himalayas/), but editors of the English Wiki deleted my entry about this distribution and with very unclear communication.

5) In the English Wikipedia, I wrote an article about goddess Khemukhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khemukhi) but the editors do not know (even after reading that entry) that 64 yoginis was a secret female cult and no trustworthy references about such a cult could ever be found. No entry about goddess Kehmukhi has ever been written on the English-speaking Internet waters - 64 yoginis were such a secret cult that citations about this goddess are simply not available.

My article says that "The information on 64 yoginis (goddesses) is very little and it is very hard to say what 64 yoginis accomplished, as this cult used communication impenetrable for outsiders - Twilight Language. 64 yoginis believed that by various practices (black magic, too) they could achieve immense supernatural powers. Their temples are roofless. This particular aspect shows that in their religious practices and thinking they did not follow the orthodox Brahmanic paths.

Every time I open Wikipedia I think of editors that fight among themselves for power. These are the reasons I ignore a personal donation appeal from this encyclopedia founder. I asked my friend to donate to OpenBSD and he did. Only the good apples are in this OS and it needs more donations than anything else (donate to OpenBSD).

POST COMMENT

that's why We're a Better apart Team Htc G5 Gains A Great Fame Nagpur – the expanding realty scenario Giants Hold getting together with to Confirm They Stink Cycle of Creation Process What Kind Of Gowns To Wear For A Happening Eve The Real Cause Of An Ovarian Cyst Justin Bieber Hermaphrodite - Is Justin Bieber a Hermaphrodite? Shocking Truth! Tom Coughlin Is prepared to proceed on ESPN's observe record of NFL's Indispensable Players does not increase Up Marriage compatibility of Aries with Cancer Giants' Offense 'Not at the rear of At All' What Is The Reason For The Demand Of The Hand Tools