Oct 20 2009
Wikipedia is stupid because it doesn’t care about me
This is another of those ‘…is stupid’ posts that addresses the flaws in a particular website, item or entity whilst conveniently ignoring the many positives said thing has to offer. It’s the second such article, following on from last week’s Twitter post, so I suppose that makes it an official series now.
Anyhow, get ready for more nonsense you’ve heard hundreds of times before only worded slightly differently and with one or two pop culture references thrown in there for good measure.
Everyone is always banging on about how Wikipedia is so awesome. Not a day passes without the mainstream media reporting how founder Jumbo Whales broke a nail, choked on a pretzel or broke up with his girlfriend via the site. Yes, everyone’s favourite free online encyclopedia has its good features, but sometimes you get the feeling it’s built up to be something it isn’t - namely the greatest thing since sliced luncheon meat. In a rational world, that would be nigh on impossible.
Because for its vast expanse of knowledge and devotion to the dispersion of information — which, I will admit, is a very noble and worthy cause – it’s essentially just a gigantic forum with thousands of moderators and hundreds of trolls. As everyone knows, forums are for geeks and people telling newbies to ‘Google it or GTFO’, and Wikipedia is just one such community that ‘got lucky’ and made it to the big time. The really big time.
The number one reason why Wikipedia is stupid is because it doesn’t care about me or my achievements. I once won two tickets to the 1997 Super League Grand Final, and on another occasion managed to sink a three pointer from mid-court at the local basketball arena. Granted, it was only a kiddies’ one meant for five-year-old budding Scottie Pippens, but it should still be more than enough for me to have my own article about myself at Wikipedia.
Unfortunately for my ego, the fools keep deleting my entry from their database, no matter how many times I recreate it with new ‘evidence’ to back up my claims. Apparently, I am ‘non-notable’. In Wikipedian circles, there is no greater insult than being branded as such, which effectively labels you an outcast in their exclusive community of anal fact-checkers and vandal-reverters.
There is, however, another way to catch their attention, and that is to embrace the dark side. Yes, it’s time to break out the bitter cynicism and become a power-crazed Wikipedia vandal, blanking every page in sight and leaving silly messages on administrators’ userpages. Then they’ll have to take notice of you - with a bit of luck, you may even be elected for President like my hero and role model, Willy on Wheels.
Try it yourself: a one-man attack on the cyberspace establishment armed with a mouse, a dynamic IP changer and access to the Internet.
Addendum: Wow, I had no idea Neil Buchanan was in a band that had a few commercially-released albums. This Wikipedia thing is brilliant… oh, fiddlesticks! I just defeated my own argument again.
