Wikipedia is now officially a super dirty porn site!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulva

 

you don’t have to understand english at all, just look at those dirty pictures they posted on the site.  Posting one picture is fine, do they really have to show you so many different pictures of the same thing so many times, shaved, with pubic hair, even with a picture of when a woman was sexually aroused?!

parents, do you want your children to look at dirty pictures like that? ! If your children are not allowed to watch R rated movies, why should they be given the freedom to look at those dirty pictures which R rated movies won’t even show? It is about time for all public schools to ban dirty porn sites like this!

Wikipedia is going downhill, this is the reality now!

According to the September 28th of 2009 Time magazine, wikipedia has reached its 820,000 user in March of 2007, it has never peaked that record ever again. That is more than two years ago!

Now it is the reality. That article was being nice, it didn’t go anything deep other than the things wikipedia OCD people confirmed.

Less than 15% of the editors are actually women, and it is no wonder wikipedia attracts so many OCD nerds working for it free of charge. Nerds can’t get women in real life, and they can’t get any online, either. That is why they like wikipedia so much, because on that site, they don’t have to be concerned about what women might think of that, they can just do whatever their impulses tell them to do.  That is why there are so many wikipedia administrators that are totally OCD patients! They can’t help it, they like to piss off people. They can’t do it in real life, but online, they don’t have to fear any consequences. They can stalk anyone who is trying to edit wikipedia.

Even the wikipedia management people admit that it has created bureaucracy, so people don’t get motivated to edit those articles any more. Touche, all the serious editors already knew that long time ago, they got harassed by all the OCD wikipedia administrators, so they don’t want to waste their time any more for a useless site any more!

Where are the “dilligent” OCD administrators when they are needed the most?

PC world just published a new article, “The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders” .

If you ever pissed off one of those OCD wikipedia administrators, they will literally follow you like typical cyber stalkers. anything you do on wikipedia will be reverted. no matter if you are correct or not. They “devote” all their free time to piss off regular wikipedia editors, no wonder they were not able to catch any of the following blunders. Because their sole purpose is to piss off as many people as they can, they certainly don’t have time to catch the real mistakes.

For more information, just click on the following link.

http://tech.msn.com/products/articlepcw.aspx?cp-documentid=21535424&gt1=40000

1. Robbie Williams eats domestic pets in pubs for money.
2. David Beckham was a Chinese goalkeeper in the 18th century.
3. Paul Reiser is dead.
4. Sinbad is dead.
5. Sergey Brin is sexy, dating Jimmy Wales and dead.
6. Former British prime minister – Tony Blair worships Hitler.
7. The Duchess of Cornwall’s Christian name is Cow-miller.
8. The University of Cincinnati’s former president is a whore.
9. Robert Byrd is dead.
10. Ted Kennedy died in January.
11. John Seigenthaler helped assassinate John and Robert Kennedy.
12. A yacht killed British TV presenter Vernon Kay.
13. Conan O’Brien assaults sea turtles while canoeing.
14. British TV gardener Alan Titchmarsh published a new version of the Kama Sutra.
15. Sienna Miller has modeled nude.

Wikipedia, the best free pron site ever!

So do you know what an anal ring is? And can you google it and find some pictures of that?

No, you can’t. But don’t worry, wikipedia is here to help, as I have told you guys before, wikipedia is the best free porn site ever.

Children and teenagers can use wikipedia as freely as they want. And parents are never worried about them using wikipedia, right? After all, it claims that it is an online encyclopedia, that sounds so serious already.

Anyway, back to my topic. Here is the a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiche_piercing

Now you know. It even has a real person picture on it. And who is that person, well, he is just one of the nice wikipedia contributor. He did it free of charge. So parents, do you really want your children looking at pictures like that on wikipedia?

So it seems that wikipedia just forgot to tell everyone that it is the best sex encyclopedia ever!

Why does wikipedia block many proxy server IP addresses?

There are many users all over the world who have to use proxy server in order to get on some web sites, because their own governments have blocked some of the web site access. For those of you who don’t know, IP address is like your personal phone number. Every time, you get on that web site, if you don’t use a user name, whenever you edit some articles, your IP address will be recorded.

We all know wikipedia are run by some no-life losers in real life, who just have too much free time in their hands, who can spend hours on that site to piss off, stalk, thereten some good editors. Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit anything. Is that right?

Well, they constantly blocking people’s IP addresses. Once that IP is blocked, it will depends on the OCD wikipedia administrator’s moods, they might unblock the IP later, or block it forever. If that IP is blocked, then no one uses that IP address can  edit any more articles.

Then what is the case of making false claims that “anyone can edit wikipedia?” Because only those who haven’t pissed off those OCD wikipedia administors can edit any articles. No matter how good your knowledge is, once your IP address is block, you can’t never edit again.

And they don’t have to go through some investigations or anything similar, a single OCD administrator can practically block any IP addresses s/he doesn’t like. Even if s/he himself might be on drugs, drunk, or anything which may cause his/her unstable emotions, if s/he doesn’t like you, s/he can block you. So even if you are an expert on that article, you just can’t edit.

For those who live in those countries who have to use proxy server in order to get on some web sites, they can’t edit wikipedia. Wikipedia people are so paranoid, they have blocked so many IP addresses, anyone who uses a proxy server can’t edit any articles because their IP addresses are all blocked by wikipedia’s OCD administrators.

In conclusion, wikipedia, don’t lie to the world, you don’t even follow your own rules!

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.

Googah talks about those obsessed OCD wikipedia administrators.

After this person read the following post, s/he wrote a reply which deserves to be posted as a new article.

http://wikipediaocd.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/another-wikipedia-ocd-administrator-exposed/ 

Some really good points are being made here. I feel like there are A LOT of people on Wikipedia are not really there in order to make useful contributions to anything. Some of these people called themselves “administrators,” while others are just random people who appear to spend 60 hours a week on there. Since they are so obsessed with Wikipedia, a normal person with a job has a hard time ever winning anything against these people.

It is really disturbing when you work really hard on an article only to find that some outside person wants to get into a big editing war with you. I don’t have any problem with this when I am aware that the person has put some effort into the article. But you are right when you point out that a lot of them just want to get involved in petty little fights.

It is also unfortunate that few of these people are really interested in making compromises. Although I have not personally run into Gogo-dodo, I understand what you are talking about 100%.

Wikipedia sucks, read all the comments.

 I found this site online, it has some very interesting comments by all the users who are fed up with the harassment that OCD administrators are given to them. There are too many of them, so I won’t copy and paste here.

http://www.kbcafe.com/rss/?guid=20060410082920

a perfect article about wikipedia OCD administrators from “Onideus Mad Hatter”

This particular user Gogo-dodo also edits articles without even reading them. Recently I tried to put up a page about myself, which was NOT written by me, but another individual who attempted to post the article on Encyclopedia Dramatica (only to have it vandalized). I put up their article and included the reference to where it came from originally.

This user Gogo-dodo, along with various other Wikiaddicts responded to the article almost instantaneously. Literarily the response time was about three seconds from the time it took to post and click refresh.

What was most interesting wasn’t simply the fact that the Wikiaddicts didn’t read the article, but the generalized presumptions that they came up with. At first they attempted to claim that the article had to be removed because it was a hate article…at which point I tried to explain to them that it couldn’t rightly be a hate article if it was about me and I was putting it up.

So then next they completely contradicted their own original argument and claimed that it was being used as a personal soap box article to try and promote myself…which was a very telling accusation since much of the content in the article wasn’t exactly presenting me and my endeavors in the most favorable light (or at least not the light I would like them presented in personally), in other words it was directly explaining the observed nature of my posting habits, neutral and unbiased.

So after they got soundly bitch slapped twice in a row, they then went on to try and claim that the article held no significance and that, that was the REAL reason it was removed (apparently they can just reinvent the REAL reason over and over again until they get their way).

That accusation too was also incredibly absurd as well since the articles purpose was very clearly to act as a warning sign for communities I choose to involve myself with. Since the article explained my posting tactics and methodology from a neutral observer stand point it served as a very useful tool to communities to avoid getting into a conflict with me.

So ultimately it became obvious very quickly to me that these Wikiaddicts weren’t even ~really~ interested in the articles themselves, but solely over the politics and procedures of creating and editing pages. Essentially users like Gogo-dodo don’t care about politics as much as they do about trying to win the election so to speak. “Winning” is their goal, and they can justify almost anything to themselves simply by ignoring the original/updated article outright.

It is indeed and very much a form of addiction and one that I believe is wrongly pushed and promoted by the owners of Wikipedia, as is seen by their various editor “trophies” and no form of editing time restriction. In the end though I think it’s highly likely that it’ll come back to bite them in the ass. All it’s going to take is just one lawsuit, claiming that the Wikipedia owners wrongly promoted and pushed the addictive nature of the site onto them with no form of post time restriction and that’ll be it. The great big Wikigiant will come tumbling down its ever spiraling out of control editing beanstalk as it were.