Wikipedia’s so-called vandalism

What exactly is “vandalism?” And how do you define that?

Wikipedia OCD patient, also known as OCD administrators spend many hours on that site reverting their so-called “vandalism.” To them, vandalism means anything that they don’t like to see or disagree. Sometimes people create new articles, if those OCD administrators don’t like them, they will delete those newly created articles, and call those as vandalism. And there is no need for discussion or talk, because one OCD administrator can revert, delete any articles that s/he likes. They are basically nobody in real life, but they get the ultimate power rush by getting on the OCD site.

And seriously, has anyone checked those OCD administrators’ psychological status? Are they stable? If a schzezophenia patient says that a wikipedia article is vandalized, shall we believe him/her? If we should not believe a schzophrenia patient’s definition of vandalism, then how can we say that those OCD administrators’ vandalism definition is always correct? Many of those OCD administrators spend many hours a day on that site, what kind of normal people will do that? Those administrators are not normal to begin with, now they got the power to revert articles, to piss people off, that site is just perfect for them to fulfill their compulsion.

To revert a “vandalized” article, a single administrator don’t have to check with others, s/he can just do it as many times and articles as s/he likes. There is no quality control or balance check on that site. It is a well known fact that those administrators only have one-track mind, they will only defend their own OCD patients – administrators. Their philosophy is that administrators is always right, normal users are always wrong.

The problems that wikipedia has right now will only grow bigger and bigger as they attract more and more OCD administrators. They don’t get paid for what they do, they keep coming back for more, because that site satisfies their disorder and reward their complsive behavior.

Wikipedia is not a “free” “neutral encyclopedia”, it is only a site that is by the rich, for the rich.

It claims that it is a “free” “encyclopedia,” but it is a complete false claim. First of all, it does not and will never include articles such as, “Wikipedia generated Obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Second, it is “free” only to those who have money to use or owe a computer. Therefore, its editing is also not neutral, because only people who have access to computers can edit. So the articles on that site is very biased due to the fact it is edited only by mostly people who are not poor, who have spare time to waste.

That is true especially for those teenagers or younger. A child of parents who work at Mcdonald’s, etc certainly does not have the money to owe a computer or to pay for the high speed internet. When a seven-years-old rich kid may owe several computers, s/he certainly can have time and resources to edit the “encyclopedia,” that is why we see that there are so many articles about cartoon characters, plots, etc. Some poor kids in many other countries have never used computers even once.

Therefore, it is a solid fact that articles and opinions that wikipedia have represent mostly rich people’s points and views. Even if they may have articles that are about poor people, those articles certainly won’t be neutral, because they are written by the rich people who have free time to waste, who owe computers and who can pay for high speed Internet.  Take “US history” for an example, if it is written by a native American, it would be an entirely different view. It would put more emphasis on the brutal savage killings that white european men had done to the native Americans.

The pictures that are uploaded will never reflect the poor people, those pics are taken by rich people who have leisure time and who can buy digital cameras. Even for those wikipedia generated OCD patients, they can spend hours on there, because they don’t need to work so many hours a day, and they don’t have to worry about where to get the money for the rent, food, etc.

After all, most people around the world are not rich, many have no computers or digital cameras. Therefore, wikipedia should stop calling itself “free” and “encyclopedia,” it is a site that is operated by the rich.

check out this typical wikipedia generated Obsessive-compuslive disorder patient – AuburnPilot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=AuburnPilot

This typical wikipedia generated Obesessive-Compuslive disorder patient AuburnPilot is seriously addicted to the Internet and wikipedia. Just check out his “contribution.” For example, he got on 3-28-2007 at 01:18, ended at 09:10, that is about total of eight hours! He wasted his another eight hours of his life time “editing” an online encyclopedia.

And what was he doing for the long hours? Well, that is also a typical pattern like many of the wikipedia generated OCD patients, he spent almost all the time on reverting people’s editions, meaning, he was just there to piss other people off. And the rest of the time, he was just “talking” to other users. He was not on wikipedia to edit any articles at all. Wikipedia is a perfect site for obsessive compulsive disorder patients like him. He does not need to contribute, he is just there to fulfill his urge of expressing his serious disorder.

Anyday and anytime, wikipedia has many OCD patients who are addicted to that site, who are just wasting their life away by “editing” the free encyclopedia. As long as wikipedia exists, those people will not have a normal life. That site is their lifeline, they can’t live without it any more. They have no social life, and they have no need for food or water. Many of them probably don’t have a job, either. That is why they can spend so many free hours on there doing nothing, but reverting and reverting.

So as you can see, wikipedia generated obsessive-compuslive disorder is a real serious disease. Not many people realize that that site is like a black hole that continues to create more and more OCD patients worldwide.

why wikipedia’s quality is deteriorating?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/24/tech/main2392719.shtml

“Microsoft acknowledged it had approached the writer and offered to pay him for the time it would take to correct what the company was sure were inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles on an open-source document standard and a rival format put forward by Microsoft.”

“Catherine Brooker, a spokeswoman for Microsoft, said she believed the articles were heavily written by people at IBM Corp .”

you would think that there are so many administrators with obsessive-compulsive disorders, they want to keep every article as perfect as they can be, they should immediatly find out about that mistake which Microsoft pointed out. Clearly, microsoft waited and waited, nothing happened at that site. So that is why they had to pay someone to correct the mistake.

That makes we wonder how many people are getting paid to write articles on wikipedia, so those businesses can say what they want people to believe. Of course, none of the administrators on there know anything about it, they are just busy reverting and reverting editions that they don’t like.

wikipedia’s OCD patients are everywhere.

66.222.186.152 from Burnaby, BC, Canada, send complains to: abuse@telus.com

128.32.112.233 from UC berkeley, send complains to: noc@nak.berkeley.edu

So I posted my article “wikipedia genereated obsessive-compulsive disorder” on another site, and somehow, those two OCD patients found my talk page, and truly vandalized it.  They were able to do their dirty work, changed the list of OCD patients on wikipedia into my user name. how typical of those wikipedia OCD patients. If someone did that on wikipedia, they will call it vandalism. But they did the same thing on the other site, and they didn’t feel any shame of vandalizing other people’s talk page at all.

Warning to those two wikipedia OCD patients, I am watching you. you need help.

Wikipedia’s administrators psychological problems.

Why do those administrators like to volunteer their time on that free “encyclopedia?” Do they not have a life? How many hours per day do they spend on that site? What do they get in return? They are not getting paid, the onlysatisfaction that they are getting is the psychological thrill. As I have said it before, doctors, lawyers, CEOs or anyone who have a busy family life certainly won’t waste their time on that pathetic site. Can you image Donald Trump or even his children spending their time volunteering for that site?

Those wikipedia administrators are nobody in real life, that is why. And has anyone checked on their mental and psychological statuses before giving them the rights of administrator? How many of them have lost control since they got the power? Let’s have a look at this perfect psychological problematic model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=khoikhoi

Just check out the time this OCD patient aka administrator khoikhoi spends on this site. The only time when he is not online is the time when he is sleeping. It makes one wonder if this person actually has a real job in real life? He spends at least 4 or 5 hours once he gets on that site. And most of the time, he is reverting articles that he doesn’t like. And every revert he makes will only adds one moreenemy in his life.

Is wikipedia’s existence making him a better person, unlikely, that site is making him even more addicted to the internet. Before wikipedia, he conspicuously already have internet addiction, and he was a nobody, now he is a suddenly a somebody – an encyclopedia “editor.” He suddenly has a purpose in his life, that is to spend all his free time on that site. Wikipedia is extending his obsessive compulsive disorder forever.

This person khoikhoi truly needs help. He has internet addiction and OCD all are caused by wikipedia.

And there are many more administrators like him are very active on wikipedia, they are spending too much time on that site fighting the unnecessary editing wars with people that they don’t even know. How many of wikipedia administrators are normal, how many of them have serious, severe personality disorders? no one knows. Their odd behaviors truly demonstrate that they need some serious help.

wikipedia and penis interest.

The penis article on wikipedia obviously attracts many editors. It is constantly updated, pictures are taken down or added. Not so long ago, they had a picture of elephant penis, now it was taken down. And in last year’s article, it had a picture of genital herpes, now it was deleted also.

Here is the page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&oldid=97139992

Now the article has a new picture of a pierced penis. Can you find a picture of that in any of your local libraries’ encyclopedia books? I doubt that, thanks to the “wonderful” wikipedia, even a little kid now gets a rare opportunity to look at erected penis pictures and a pierced penis picture. Talking about good sex education, you get it all on the free sex encyclopedia.

anyone under 18 should be banned from editing wikipedia for possible wikipedia addiction and wikipedia generated OCD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_of_Naruto:_Shippūden

“The plot of the second part of the manga and anime series Naruto”

Yes, that is one of the article on wikipedia, it is several pages long. You would think that just one article about one cartoon is good enough. Are you surprised that there is a seperate article about a “plot” that appeared in one of the cartoon.

And there are many many more similar articles about many cartoons, articles about each inidividual characters that appeared in those thousands if not millions cartoons. How valueable are those articles? zero. Who has time to read those articles, and why does anyone who has a normal social life even care to read about every little characters that ever appeared in a animation tv show?

Yet who are those people who wrote those articles? who else, bunch of nerdy teenagers. While other cool popular teeangers are busy having sex, socializing with other people, those nerdy teenagers stay at home, watch cartoons, then get on wikipedia spend their time writing articles about those cartoon characters, and start editing wars with other nerdy OCD administrators and teeangers.

Those teenagers already have no life by staying at home. Now wikipedia gives them a false sense of pride by calling them “editors” of an online “encyclopedia.” All of sudden, those nerds become someone important. If they are not able to have any social interactions in real life, at least, they can communicate with strangers all over the world on wikipedia. It makes them feel as if they are “contributing” for the good of the society.

oh, come on, who cares to read about what they wrote about millions of the cartoon characters?

It is a waste of their life. And it creates personality disorders if those teeangers stay on wikipedia for too long. No one who has a real social life can possibly spend hours and hours on that site writing articles.

Teenagers are the group that most likely to form internet addiction. Their brains are still developing. wikipedia creates addiction and OCD especially for teenagers who are lack of self-control.

Therefore, for your own teenagers’ good mental health, all parents should ban their teenagers editing wikipedia articles. It is ideal if all parents just simply block the wikipedia access for their own good. There are plenty real reference sites online that are free and free of errors.

reply to a wikipedia administrator – why wikipedia is not realiable, and why it creates OCD.

“I have a job, I don’t suffer from OCD and I edit wikipedia… free of charge. I’m an admin too.”

How many hours do u actually spending on editing, and how many hours do u spend on reverting articles, banning users, etc?

“Your entire post is an insult to the 5000 or so active editors who dedicate their hard work to building a FREE encyclopedia so mouth-breathers like you can look up big words.”

yea, right, some administrators have serious obsessive-compulsive disorders. I have met quite a few administrators who kept reverting vandalized articles, because they have obsessed.

Here is a perfect example of what one of the OCD administrator did.

== Hey, thanks for reporting me ASSHOLE!!! ===

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penwhale&oldid=106705031#Hey.2C_thanks_for_reporting_me_ASSHOLE.21.21.21

Thanks for reporting me for reverting vandalism and removing spam. I had trouble with a spammer who added spam then get pissed because I removed it so he decided that since he couldn’t have any external links that he’d remove them all–even though there had been prior discussion about the one that was there–the only external link I’ve ever seen without advertisements.

Maybe you could watch the articles that I am constantly removing spam from? Everyday websites with advetisements for prostitution are adding external links to Wikipedia and I remove them as quickly as I find them but they keep coming back. Why don’t YOU watch those articles, SHITHEAD?

”’ASSHOLE!!!”’

You fucking cocksucker. If I’m ever blocked again for removing spam or reverting vandalism I AM GOING TO BE THE ONE ADDING SPAM PROMOTING PROSTITUTION TO EVERY ARTICLE I CAN FIND. Just to spite you, asshole! Without ME these adult-related articles would be NOTHING BUT EXTERNAL LINKS AND IN-ARTICLE SPAM. GOT IT ASSHOLE???”

” The requirements to become an admin is basically a firm grasp of the rules, the ability to get along with people you might not like in a civil manner and a few months experience editing. “
no, most administrators are there to piss people off. I personally met one administor who locked an article, because I changed a word from “after” to “since.” that OCD patient is called khoikhoi. he is an administrator who does nothing but to revert and revert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_China&diff=110138079&oldid=110134942

“Who can take the site seriously? It has been cited in over 40 court cases and used as a source in several hundred newspaper articles. “

yea, when was the last time that it was quoted? Sooner or later, the courts will realize that wikipedia is not a reliable source. And we also have to ask what kind of information did they cite? Was it anything serious or something that everyone already knows?

“You think taking pride in your hobby and wanting to see it improve is a OCD, then I somehow doubt you have even bothered to read the article on it.”

well, let’s put it in a layman’s words. your hobby is reverting articles, pissing people off on that site, because in real life, you are a nobody. you are given a false sense of pride because no one listens to you in real life. Can you image a lawyer, a doctor, a ceo, an actor, or someone who has a family who have kids volunteering for wikipedia?

wikipedia’s administrators don’t have a lot of things to do in real life, they don’t have much social life, that is why they are volunteering on that site.

“If someone is sick… truly sick with addiction to the internet then that’s a terrible thing, but it’s not the fault of wikipedia. It’s ridiculous to imply that somehow wikipedia is responsible for someones physiological problems.”

We all know that there is internet addiction. read that example that I just gave to you. some administrators already have a tendency of OCD, now they are fully developed OCD patients. wikipedia should add the newest disorder, newest addiction, – wikipedia addiction and wikipedia generated OCD.

“Let me ask you a retorical question and I hope you spend some time reflecting on it: Why do you get off on tearing things down?”

Yes, go ask some of the OCD administrators on wikipedia, why do they get off by protecting vandalized articles, etc?

go to wikipedia, and search for “Chinese government” and “Government of China”, see if you get the same article. And who is the vandal? Well, I tried to correct it, but the serious OCD patient + administrator khoikhoi vandalized them, and redirected the same topic to two different articles, then put those two topics under protect.

And that is why wikipedia generated OCD is a serious disease and disorder. that is why no one should use wikipedia as a serious reference if it can’t even recognize that those two topics mean the same thing.

another false wikipedia biography profile. someone is suing one of the wikipedia editor.

Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author of what Zoeller says is a defamatory paragraph about him on the Wikipedia site.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/11769&t51hb

That site has plenty of unverified fake altered biographies, because no one is paid to verify all of them. It is a good thing that some colleges now ban their students from quoting that site full or errors. After all, a little kid can get online and edit those biographies as long as his/her editions look real and “professional.”