Dark Side of Wikipedia

The article presents a biased history.

Form the article:

> And anonymous Wikipedia editors maintain a stranglehold on selected topics. Kohs demonstrates with the case of Morgellons. The Mayo Clinic calls it "an unexplained skin disorder characterized by sores." But the Wikipedia page dismisses Morgellons as a "delusional belief."

From Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/art-20044996?pg...

> Morgellons disease is an uncommon, unexplained skin disorder characterized by sores, crawling sensations on and under the skin, and fiber-like filaments emerging from the sores. [...]

> Researchers with the Centers for Disease Control note that the signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are very similar to those of a mental illness involving false beliefs about infestation by parasites (delusional parasitosis).

From the CDC: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

> Results: We identified 115 case-patients. [...] Solar elastosis was the most common histopathologic abnormality (51% of biopsies); skin lesions were most consistent with arthropod bites or chronic excoriations. No parasites or mycobacteria were detected. Most materials collected from participants' skin were composed of cellulose, likely of cotton origin.

> Conclusions: This unexplained dermopathy was rare among this population of Northern California residents, but associated with significantly reduced health-related quality of life. No common underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation.

I think the most relevant paragraph from the article is:

> Kohs sees himself as an equalizer. His business helps clients, including supposed victims of unfair edits, navigate Wikipedia's unbridled landscape. Wikipedia banned him for violating the policy against paid editing and when Kohs criticized the policy and continued under a borrowed account, Wikipedia editors targeted him.

> Kohs: Wikipedia is often edited by people who have an agenda.

Oh, the irony... Greg Kohs offered Wikipedia editing services for paying customers, that's why he has been blocked. Not because he's a selfless freedom fighter who's being pushed down by the man.

Makes you wonder what Full Measure News' agenda is.

This guy sounds like the kind of person who shouldn't be writing for Wikipedia.

The joke is, there's a lot of problematic things on wikipedia e.g. the editor who keeps a stranglehold on the page of his guru. This article doesn't really address them, though, and make wikipedia look pretty reasonable.

Yes, people edit Wikipedia with an agenda. It's an encyclopædia which attempts to be objective, any edit is political.

Jesus, what a baby pretending to be the victim. Admins only step in when you've been breaking rules such as by edit warring—which means refusing to discuss changes and just redoing edits to get your way—or by constantly using personal attacks, which surprise: the message he quotes accuses him of. This guy has a lot of trouble understanding that when you enter someone's house, you have to follow their rules. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't mean "the encyclopedia anyone can add indiscriminately to", it's still an encyclopedia. It's really funny how he accuses others of having an agenda when he's literally being paid to edit on the behalf of others.

As for the case with them tracking editors, it does sound pretty malicious on the surface. However, any edits made without an account are tied to IP addresses, which would easily explain that and is prominently noted when you try editing while logged out. About the Casino employee, the only reason they would be emailing his workplace would be because his edits are against policy. (also only editing access is revoked, never reading) The locations of logged in users can only accessed be accessed by admins when it is strongly suspected you are using multiple accounts, so, again, kid crying when he's the perpetrator. Of course the information about trusting Wikipedia bears repeating as with all user-editable sources. [0]

I get that its cool to hate Wikipedia these days, which is why this is on the front page, but please remember that this is a resource that all of you use daily and yet you all get by fine with it. Yes many of its articles suck; yes it has problems with systematic bias, paid editing, and other issues; but most of the "controversies" you'll hear about are from disgruntled people who never took the time to understand the community and then just run to the media to play the victim. (And I daresay: their "fixing" of bias is actually an attempt to introduce it) The only way Wikipedia can be made better is by the efforts of its volunteers–that's you—so if you see something wrong, be bold [1] and bring it up and I promise most users will take it in good faith. [2]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith