why are the wikipedia administrators all annoymous and so shady?

How the Wikipedia reputation engine works and why Wikipedia should not allow anonymous edits

http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2009/02/how_the_wikiped.html

This is an interesting article.

“A lot of people think of Wikipedia as being 10 million people, each adding one sentence,” Mr. Wales said. “But really the vast majority of work is done by this small core community.”

New York Times wrote: “The bulk of the writing and editing on Wikipedia is done by a geographically diffuse group of 1,000 or so regulars, many of whom are administrators on the site.”

According to this article, “these people are NOT experts in any field(or they don’t have to be). They DO have to be experts on understanding and enforcing Wikipedia policy.”

Oh, no wonder, now we know why sometimes the things you wrote in those articles were reverted or deleted by those administrators. Some of them have several accounts which wikipedia encourages that. So they can edit an article with one name, and after you made some change to the same article, the administrators will immediately go back and sign in with their administrator user name, and revert your new change.

And who are those administrators? You don’t really know other than their user name. What kind of education do they have? If they are doing such great works for the “humanity,” should they feel proud to tell us their real names? No, they can’t, because what they are doing are not really that glorious.

Wikipedia announced: Ted Kennedy died. Wikipedia’s reputation is going downhill by the minute.

I have stopped “editing” the stupid wikipedia for a long time now. After all, would you waste your time arguing with some lowlife on the street? If you don’t do that in real life, why should you waste your time arguing with some uneducated lowlife administrators on wikipedia?

If wikipedia is so wonderful, I wonder how come I haven’t heard any “great” news about that site any more. So I did a little search online.

Here is an article from The Guardian, Tuesday 27 January 2009 “Wikipedia editors may approve all changes”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jan/27/wikipedia-may-approve-all-changes

“On the day of Barack Obama’s inauguration, the site reported the deaths of West Virginia’s Robert Byrd – the longest-serving senator in American history – and Ted Kennedy….”

Now isn’t that wonderful, we know sooner or later, those two people will die. However, Wikipedia is able to predict the future, and they chose that particular day when those two shall die. Fortunately, they didn’t die as wikipedia wished. Where are the wonderful wikipedia administrators, we know that they spend almost every free minute on there, how come they didn’t catch those two big mistakes? Oh, we forgot. Those administrators don’t have a life, so they don’t have time to watch TV or listen to radio. Their sole purpose is to revert and revert, try to piss off as many editors as possible. They don’t really care if the content is correct or wrong as long as it seems to be right.

Jake Wartenberg commented “A lot of editors are becoming disenchanted with the project; we are losing them all the time.”

Co-founder Jimmy Wales finally suggested that “many future changes to the site would need to be approved by a group of editors before going live.” Now where are they going to find those educated editors to approve those future changes? After all, well educated people don’t have time to sit in front of the computer and wait and approve those new changes in all those articles. Only people who have no life can spend hours and hours on there.

What will those uneducated administrators do from now on, they certainly don’t have the knowledge to know if a new change in an article is correct or wrong. If they can’t get on wikiedpia, revert and revert, they won’t be able to get the almost drug-like high. Many of them stay up all night on that site, who knows what kind of things they use to keep themselves awake all night long. mmm.