Wikipedians, read this carefully, because I expect that if you actually care about your community, you fix the problems with it rather than ignore them. Your inability to hear criticism as an entire community is what makes you a cult. So, do you want to hear my criticism, or not? Deletion of this page by any admins will confirm to me that you are in fact a cult. But don't worry, I have everything here saved. If this is deleted, I will be going more public with what I've found.
Hello! I am a Theology graduate, and I love studying LGBTQ+ Theology and Jewish Theology. I also minored in Computer Science.
I was not welcomed here very nicely, but rather with condescension, disruptive edits, and people weaponizing unspoken rules and misrepresented guidelines. So I decided to look more into Wikipedia's culture. Here's what I found.
After spending time reading what happened to User talk:Clarawood123 in various places, including here and here, I have decided that Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia as none of the editors care even remotely about accuracy, and I have decided that admin abuse and toxicity, the stonewalling, and @ User:jytdog's carelessness about the WP:3RR guideline, and @ User:Bbb23's uncalled for guilty until proven innocent approach to Clarawood's situation during the "sockpuppet" investigation, as well as how much support jytdog received tells me that I do not belong anywhere near this place, and I will be continuing to warn everyone against using Wikipedia and towards using something reputable, like Britannica Encyclopedia, which has better articles in general, and many that are free.
Frankly, Wikipedia's culture based on what I have read is that of a full-blown internet cult. No thanks, I'm out.
P.S. In support of Clarawood123, because what the mods and other editors did to them was completely uncalled for, I'm sharing their original Clarawood page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Clarawood&oldid=714622457
Of course, I didn't stop there, I continued to find information about Wikipedia's toxic culture. I found much information from Quora, which then led me to Wikipediocracy and Wikipediasucks. Of course, I knew right as I seen the Clarawood123 that this place was cultish, but I didn't know to what extent until I uncovered the rest of Jytdog's story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User talk:Montanabw&oldid=718559870
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User talk:Irene000&diff=prev&oldid=719813469
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_227#Arbitrary_break
In this Talk page, there is concern about medical videos from a corporation being pushed onto medical articles without much discussion by both Doc James and Jytdog, and yet more abuse from Jytdog calling people names, and abusing his position and power to punish a user for correcting inaccurate information just because it went against Jytdog's edits, and again using his same tricks of saying people who even slightly question him are just out to get him or are liars, etc. This paragraph is of note:
Doc James, Jytdog, and their acquantances frequently use COI to fillibuster, go around the 3RR guidelines, abuse new users, just like they did with Clarawood123, and prevent discussions.
Jytdog's pattern has been noted by many people, and many of the admins and other editors have sided with and supported this person, unfortunately. Here's what The Garbage Scow notes:
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=177&start=10#p6026
Jytdog misrepresents the guidelines to harass and bludgeon people, and the community lets him get away with it... again.
Even after Jytdog harassed and very clearly violated rules, other editors, especially Doc James, came to his rescue, villainizing everyone else in the process:
Basically, these people are saying that because you do so much, you are allowed to get others unfairly banned by lying about COI violations that they didn't commit, or that you can wrongfully call someone up without permission and intimidate them with derogatory comments from beginning to end (as expressed very clearly by the victim of the intimidation: Beall4).
Midsize Jake over at wikipediocracy wrote the following:
My experience is perfectly consistent with this. Wikipedia is structured like a cult. It has no real judiciary process to wrestle with disputes in a way that brings the correct outcomes and a sense of justice. Rather disputes are handled as a popularity contest, and much like cults, there are unspoken and often-changing rules that new users are expected to absorb over time, and anyone who dares disagree with an admin will see the whole mob run them over. It takes a guilty-until-proven innocent approach, and new users are condescended and "hazed" as a way of inspiring compliance and reducing individual identity. Most importantly, admins and "prolific" editors are seen as those who can do no wrong and should not be questioned, even after they harm others consistently - this is the most serious attribute that makes a community a cult. This is certainly not a new criticism, as Wikipedia has been described as collectivist before, as mentioned in the Criticism of Wikipedia page. I go farther - Wikipedia is not just collectivist, it's a cult, and it was structured that way deliberately because it keeps people in the ecosystem and working. But like all cults, the community devolves into toxicity and frequently pushes away outsiders.
P.S. This essay on clueocracy is untrue and complete BS.
Wikipedia's governance is frequently unjust. If they want to fix their problems, they should reinstate every account of the new users that have been abused here and they should punish those who have abused new users.
This involves removing every admin who supported people like Jytdog and Doc James, and enforcing rules against litigious behavior by experienced users. What Bbb23 and Jytdog did to Clarawood, opening an investigation on a bogus COI, should have resulted in what would be called "sanctioning" in real government systems - the inability for editors to bring cases against other editors. Lastly, apologize to all of the victims of this toxic community and actually listen to them.
But they won't do any of that, because they like the toxicity. They are a cult, after all.
Wikipedians, read this carefully, because I expect that if you actually care about your community, you fix the problems with it rather than ignore them. Your inability to hear criticism as an entire community is what makes you a cult. So, do you want to hear my criticism, or not? Deletion of this page by any admins will confirm to me that you are in fact a cult. But don't worry, I have everything here saved. If this is deleted, I will be going more public with what I've found.
Hello! I am a Theology graduate, and I love studying LGBTQ+ Theology and Jewish Theology. I also minored in Computer Science.
I was not welcomed here very nicely, but rather with condescension, disruptive edits, and people weaponizing unspoken rules and misrepresented guidelines. So I decided to look more into Wikipedia's culture. Here's what I found.
After spending time reading what happened to User talk:Clarawood123 in various places, including here and here, I have decided that Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia as none of the editors care even remotely about accuracy, and I have decided that admin abuse and toxicity, the stonewalling, and @ User:jytdog's carelessness about the WP:3RR guideline, and @ User:Bbb23's uncalled for guilty until proven innocent approach to Clarawood's situation during the "sockpuppet" investigation, as well as how much support jytdog received tells me that I do not belong anywhere near this place, and I will be continuing to warn everyone against using Wikipedia and towards using something reputable, like Britannica Encyclopedia, which has better articles in general, and many that are free.
Frankly, Wikipedia's culture based on what I have read is that of a full-blown internet cult. No thanks, I'm out.
P.S. In support of Clarawood123, because what the mods and other editors did to them was completely uncalled for, I'm sharing their original Clarawood page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Clarawood&oldid=714622457
Of course, I didn't stop there, I continued to find information about Wikipedia's toxic culture. I found much information from Quora, which then led me to Wikipediocracy and Wikipediasucks. Of course, I knew right as I seen the Clarawood123 that this place was cultish, but I didn't know to what extent until I uncovered the rest of Jytdog's story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User talk:Montanabw&oldid=718559870
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User talk:Irene000&diff=prev&oldid=719813469
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_227#Arbitrary_break
In this Talk page, there is concern about medical videos from a corporation being pushed onto medical articles without much discussion by both Doc James and Jytdog, and yet more abuse from Jytdog calling people names, and abusing his position and power to punish a user for correcting inaccurate information just because it went against Jytdog's edits, and again using his same tricks of saying people who even slightly question him are just out to get him or are liars, etc. This paragraph is of note:
Doc James, Jytdog, and their acquantances frequently use COI to fillibuster, go around the 3RR guidelines, abuse new users, just like they did with Clarawood123, and prevent discussions.
Jytdog's pattern has been noted by many people, and many of the admins and other editors have sided with and supported this person, unfortunately. Here's what The Garbage Scow notes:
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=177&start=10#p6026
Jytdog misrepresents the guidelines to harass and bludgeon people, and the community lets him get away with it... again.
Even after Jytdog harassed and very clearly violated rules, other editors, especially Doc James, came to his rescue, villainizing everyone else in the process:
Basically, these people are saying that because you do so much, you are allowed to get others unfairly banned by lying about COI violations that they didn't commit, or that you can wrongfully call someone up without permission and intimidate them with derogatory comments from beginning to end (as expressed very clearly by the victim of the intimidation: Beall4).
Midsize Jake over at wikipediocracy wrote the following:
My experience is perfectly consistent with this. Wikipedia is structured like a cult. It has no real judiciary process to wrestle with disputes in a way that brings the correct outcomes and a sense of justice. Rather disputes are handled as a popularity contest, and much like cults, there are unspoken and often-changing rules that new users are expected to absorb over time, and anyone who dares disagree with an admin will see the whole mob run them over. It takes a guilty-until-proven innocent approach, and new users are condescended and "hazed" as a way of inspiring compliance and reducing individual identity. Most importantly, admins and "prolific" editors are seen as those who can do no wrong and should not be questioned, even after they harm others consistently - this is the most serious attribute that makes a community a cult. This is certainly not a new criticism, as Wikipedia has been described as collectivist before, as mentioned in the Criticism of Wikipedia page. I go farther - Wikipedia is not just collectivist, it's a cult, and it was structured that way deliberately because it keeps people in the ecosystem and working. But like all cults, the community devolves into toxicity and frequently pushes away outsiders.
P.S. This essay on clueocracy is untrue and complete BS.
Wikipedia's governance is frequently unjust. If they want to fix their problems, they should reinstate every account of the new users that have been abused here and they should punish those who have abused new users.
This involves removing every admin who supported people like Jytdog and Doc James, and enforcing rules against litigious behavior by experienced users. What Bbb23 and Jytdog did to Clarawood, opening an investigation on a bogus COI, should have resulted in what would be called "sanctioning" in real government systems - the inability for editors to bring cases against other editors. Lastly, apologize to all of the victims of this toxic community and actually listen to them.
But they won't do any of that, because they like the toxicity. They are a cult, after all.