This user subpage was nominated for deletion on December 3, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

The purpose of the " Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" would be to call attention to the systemic issues plaguing Wikipedia as explained within the Criticism of Wikipedia article.

Disclaimer: This is not an actual boycott. This is discussion about a possible boycott; its purpose and means, etc.

Details

All details about the possible campaign are all subject to change. Feel free to make recommendations, comments, etc on the talk page.

Possible slogans for the boycott could be

• Imagine a world without Wikipedia. That's our mission.
• Imagine a day when Wikipedia truly benefits society. That's our mission.
• Imagine Wikipedia living up to its ideals. That's our mission.

Aspects of the boycott could include

• Acknowledging that Wikipedia is an inherently flawed system that should be ended rather than amended.
• Acknowledging that Wikipedia can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations, etc.
• Acknowledging that Wikipedia is based on false assumptions and ideals.

Consequently, the boycott could seek

• To refuse to participate in contributing to Wikipedia as well as encouraging others to do so.
• To actively discourage everyone from using Wikipedia as a research tool
• To encourage everyone to use legitimate sources for research.
• To encourage professional organizations to officially denounce Wikipedia as a research tool.

Participants could consist of

• Wikipedians as well as non-Wikipedians. Eventually, the boycott could consist primarily of non-Wikipedians.

Possible templates

{{ User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott}}

User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott

Vote Today!

Please vote Oppose, Support, or Neutral. You may offer your suggestions, make comments, etc at the talk page. Many of your questions may already be answered at the talk page. Longer comments may be moved to the talk page. Current tally - Support: 16; Oppose: 35; Neutral: 5.

• Neutral-- JuanMuslim ^1m 21:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's ironic that a user with so many edits can call for a boycott (you've made almost 4000 edits...). And as they're almost all concerning religion, you are what would be politically termed "a single issue voter".

Your stance that wikipedia "can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations" and "Wikipedia is an inherently flawed system that should be ended rather than amended" is not a boycott, but a call for the closing of wikipedia. Therefore your idea of a boycott merely propagates the stereotypes of religious intolerance. It is like a creationist calling for a 'boycott' of the science of biology. -- Quiddity 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your questions at the talk page-- JuanMuslim ^1m 16:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose See no reason to boycott Wikipedia, and if I did, I wouldn't even sign a wikipetition stating that I opposed editing the wiki. Babajobu 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Is it April Fool's day already? This place is getting more an more like Lord of the Flies every day. Who has the conch? And fat people with glasses better look out! FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What do fat people with glasses have anything to do with this discussion? -- JuanMuslim ^1m 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a reference to Lord of the Flies -- Swift 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Boycotting Wikipedia won't solve any problems. We need users to work on Wikipedia to address the issues in order to get them solved. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Can the issues ever be solved?-- JuanMuslim ^1m 23:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral-- µ ³ºÅº»¿À±¯´µ¹± * (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC), I do consider Wikipedia to be a spurious source and very bad to use with any type of research! µ ³ºÅº»¿À±¯´µ¹± * (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The only thing wrong with Wikipedia is that its approval process is weaker than other resources...(More at WBC talk page) -- Peter McConaughey 00:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose You have to be joking. A boycott would not fix anything. The only reason why Wikipedia has succeeded is becuase other "open encyclopedias" have more strict rules, and is not fully open to the public to edit. You obviousley have been watching too much of Bill O'Reilly JedOs 11:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And, perhaps, this is also the reason it is failing to reach its ideal. -- JuanMuslim ^1m 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Many users feel that one of the inherent flaws of the current system is that it is far too accessible for outsiders to edit. Personally, I think we should restrict editing to people who bother to register a user name. If IPs are being used to vandalise pages, then a block of the IP could affect legitimate users. On the other hand, exclusive editing through user names would make blocking vandals far easier. Still, this does not warrant a total boycott of the project. Brisvegas 06:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Why did they delete my changes is they scared of the truth man? Wiki brah 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (BrAsilian slutz still dont like Wikimedia)

Comment I think someone must have deleted your vote, thinking it was a joke. You know any registered user can vote on Wikipedia, so I guess everyone has a legitimate vote to boycott Wikipedia, too. So why do you support a full boycott of Wikipedia? -- JuanMuslim ^1m 16:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think she can answer you because she's boycotting Wikipedia. -- Peter McConaughey 15:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose as well. A boycott is not a productive way to solve this problem. Vanessa kelly 07:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I have actually been critical of this place before I ever came here. Going here has made me realize in some ways I was unfair, but in other ways it has problems I didn't even imagine...(More at WBC talk page) T. Anthony 10:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

::NeutralI left and then returned, but my attitude is much more critical than it was in December. Essentially there's not much advantage of using Wikipedia versus using a Google search with quotes. The only ones are convenience and a lesser, but not non-existent, chance of getting something written by a hate-group or porno-site. Learning to properly search with words like "sex" or "Ku Klux Klan" excluded makes the place have even less utility. Essentially it has the same benefits and faults of Google/Yahoo/Internet-culture so if it ceased to exist I'm not sure there'd be much harm done. There might even be some benefit as people on Internet debates would be forced to cite more credible sources. That said it's fun to use and its useful for obscure pop-cultural or trivia information.-- T. Anthony 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support The place has systemic problems that I've come to believe are inherent and unresolvable. Biases that existed, and were even acknowledged, when I first came have not been improved on at all. I could say more, but I think that's enough.-- T. Anthony 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Anybody that would use any encyclopedia for detailed research is not a serious researcher. An encyclopedia is meant to be an inexpensive way to garner general information and possible pointers to primary or secondary sources for further substantiation. Wikipedia is excellent for this. - Nv8200p talk 14:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent point. Encarta is for sheeple. Wikipedia is for thinking beings. -- Peter McConaughey 14:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose... not really sure if this is a joke or not - sounds far to stupid to be true... I'm guessing everyone has fallen for some crazy prank. Deano 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Prank? Nope. This is meant to create some discussion. -- JuanMuslim ^1m 16:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I guess this is an exercise in following process. Two quotes are appropriate: "Trying is the first step towards failure." and "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try." -- Kat 01:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mithridates 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Why on earth would you want to get rid of the platform you're standing on? This page is part of Wikipedia. Greatgavini 16:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the only "platform" available. -- JuanMuslim ^1m 13:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Support Over-addiction and internal pressures by harassment from other users would kill my life eventually on wikipedia. I felt like hooked to heroin or opium at one time, but got over it after tremendous pressures applied on me by users such as Fabartus and Mel Etitis. Pressures include repeated reverts and making use of legal rules on wikipedia to make people suffer for the thrill-Mel Etitis. There are relatively few users who actually care for the other's emotional feelings. This will inevitably destroy sanity and logic, in turn making a good user into a bad user. Mr Tan 15:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Nuetral. It is no secret that I personally maintain a critical view of the Wikipedia project. On the other hand, I intend to keep an open mind about the project, and have no intention of "boycotting" Wikipedia anytime soon. -- Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 03:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose.-- Ahmed 14:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- user:zanimum
• Support, to be contraversial. -- Jono 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Putting up a page within Wikipedia to advocate not using Wikipedia? That ought to be cited in the definition of hypocrisy. *Dan T.* 15:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, oh noes, people are going to refuse to use the resource we've offered them..! What shall we ever do!? // paroxysm (n) 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• support I'm not leaving, but I like this idea. Everyone stop complaining. Think about it. Who would support such an absurd boycott? Tiresome ppl who we would love to see voluntarily leave! :-) Lotsofissues 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you really want everyone who doesn't agree with you to leave? -- JuanMuslim ^1m 23:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• support - I hear you, and I like what I hear :) - K a s h ^{Talk |}
• support - I think this is not an unbiased encyclopedia, a lot of people writing articles on stuff they nearly know doesn`t contribute at all to the general enlightment of people. This project should and definitely will be canceled. I guaranteed

email 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• oppose - I support your right to boycott, i certainly understand why; however, maybe your impression of wikipedia is influenced by the type of articles which you are involved in. I see that you are interested in religion, perhaps you are sensitive to other peoples stereotypes or simple ignorance; in this case, I would say that you should not lose your desire to communicate, we are all ignorant, but recognize that the most persistant truth may only be recognized through adversity. I would like to add that as a learning tool, wikipedia encourages me to study diverse topics, and to recall information which i learned elsewhere in order to communicate that to others. SCmurky 05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose See the talk page for more of my reasoning but if we do not try, then we will never know so we might as well try. Hey, something really good might come out of all this! -- Hydraton31 11:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Now, one thing that I do recognize is that there is definitely a lot of room for improvements. Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Note The following section is from another Wiki for discussion about a possible Wikipedia Boycott.

• supportThere are thousands of free encyclopedias out there. Wikipedia is just the hungry-hore of encyclopdias its not a non-profit foundation!!! They say there not for profit, they may even be registered as not for profit, but there is no way in the world wikipedia's operating costs would be so high. Running a webserver at 4petabytes of bandwidth costs about 1000 dollars a month-which is less than 1/4th of wikipedia's bandwidth. Wikipedia collects over 100,000 dollars a month in donations, were the hell is the rest going? Ill tell you were its going..Its going into the "operating costs" which basicly is paying wikipedia employees who just happen to have an average salery of over 500 grand a year! All that aside, the people who moderate there are absolute assholes, they know nothing, infact i owned a company listed on their wiki, i tried to edit our income per year because it was listed wrong, and guess what 5 secounds latter they change it back, then i change it again then i get ip-banned! Now don't look at me as if i am an idiot because of the spelling and gramatical errors ive made throughout this, im just very mad and i dont have the time to say it properly.

• Oppose Wikipedia does have problems, but it is a good place to start. Also, it is about the only thing out there that is free.

• Neutral-- JuanMuslim ^1m 21:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. All the anti-Wikipedia whiners are just pissing in the wind; Wikipedia gets more popular every time its critics open their mouths or pound on their keyboards. Dtobias 10:17, 28 January 2006 (EST)

wikipedia is a pie of shit software shut this junk down know they want you to edit page but they start baning your ass for doing so what the point of this crap site.

• Oppose As many problems as Wikipedia does have, articles which have been up for a long time do tend to iron themselves out. I agree with the pissing in the wind statement; you can't hope to do anything more than make more hits on the search engines for wikipedia. Boycotting is silly in this cse. Instead, offer some ideas on how to resolve some of the systemic issues, if you can. Otherwise, its just noise. 209.129.49.65 18:53, 10 February 2006 (EST)

• 'Oppose' 68.154.122.68 20:02, 10 February 2006 (EST)

• 'Neutral' I hate wikipedia especially for all the lies written about my country and its history,culture, etc there and when I tried to fix it my IP was blocked!! I suggest that nobody take wikipedia seriously and never use it for research. Talking about Wikipedia will just get more people to use it.

• Oppose Wikipedia is a wonderful resourcd Phoenix9 20:57, 11 March 2006 (EST)

• Oppose I hate to break it to you, but it is way to late. Linuxerist L / T 21:48, 12 March 2006 (EST)

• Oppose why are you wasting webspace? lol. nobody cares about wikipedia. its just a nice place to start general research :P no one would actually cite a wiki source. unless they're already failing in life. in that case, they're already fking themselves over... just let the rock keep rolling down the hill. trying to stop it will just be too hard.

• Oppose. This opposition will get nowhere. Even Bluwiki is a wiki. Wikipedia rox big time. Ambuj.Saxena 09:05, 23 April 2006 (EDT)

• Support. So it's look more democratic

• Oppose. Don't even know who supported above, and it's not even signed. Anyway, Wikiepdia is a very ambitious project but a very beneficial one also. This is why we should not boycott Wikipedia. -- Funnykid 03:06, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

-Neutral. As research, Wikipedia is a piece of crap. I prefer my University Library databases. As well, most of my teachers won't accept anything you cite from Wikipedia (Though you shouldn't cite encyclopedias anyways). What Wiki is great for is getting information on things quickly. At E3, when I wanted a summary of all the Wii news released, I could go there and get it. I support not using it as research, but for overviews, it's perfect. Mrmanme 04:47, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

• Support. Fuckipedia is a content thief

• Oppose. What nonsense.
• Oppose. WTF. Wikipedia is a good thing, and since nothing in the human world is perfect it shall grow further on. 'Fucks' go out to any of those wikipedia-haters, if you don't like it, don't use it! OMG really...

• SUPPORT. Wikipedia is overrun by liars and propagandists whose only mission is to smother the thing in bullshit, and Wikipedia can do nothing about it since "democracy" and "cooperation" are more dear to it than the truth. Liars and propagandists have wormed their way into positions of administratorship--and the thing is *done*. As in: Fork sticking out of its back. It will ONLY go downhill from here. The "brain-drain" of intelligent editors has already begun.-- Jagmaya 21:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
• Oppose.. Woo hoo! I like conspiracy theories, but that is taking it too far. (^S^A^)

Neutral - Do I support Wikipedia the way it is? Hell no. Could I support it if there were about a dozen sweeping changes? Yes. The idea of Wikipedia, in and of itself, is great. �  Nathan ^{( talk)} 10:56, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

• Oppose - Now, one thing that I do recognize is that there is definitely a lot of room for improvements. Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Note The previous section was from another Wiki for discussion about a possible Wikipedia Boycott.

• Support,it is place where every one can edit,beacuse short number of other(religion or community ppls),one gets favour every time and taking decison by themselfs .Some time pages are vandlise ,many users do not know if those are real or not(at that moment).

Khalidkhoso 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose-Is this some kind of joke? Wikipedia will never be perfect, but the point of it is to correct itself. A boycott won't change anything, contributing to make the entire encyclopedia neutral is how the Wiki will eventually be fixed. I respect your right to a boycott and all, but a proposed slogan is "Imagine a world without Wikipedia. That's our goal". A boycott is the act of not supporting, not attacking the encyclopedia. Wikimedia provides you with the webspace you use to propose this boycott. Ironic much? Hojima chong 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support, Wikipedia is a carbon copy of CNN and SkyNews. Hypocrites gather and enjoy their free rides here. VirtualEye 08:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree that although there are problems with systemic bias and copyright infringement, the project itself has been successful in stimulating intelligent dialogue. The tendency of the self-correction of vandalism is a strong endorsement. If the project were so vulnerably flawed, it would have failed by now. I, for one, would like to see it continue. I second Hojima's points as well. Thanks! Mashford 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Oppose a world without wikipedia"? No thanks. -- Matt57 ^{( talk" contribs)} 19:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose there is no need to call wikipedia flawed system or to amend it or even to shut it down. Oren neu dag 18:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This vote is flawed. If I was boycotting wikipedia, then why would I be here voting? Bless sins 04:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I love wikipedia, and find it really useful. Boycotting it because it is not "perfect" is retarded (unless of course you guys are pulling a nice April Fools Joke. In which case, hats off to you -- You got me).-- 171.66.159.123 ( talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm sick of this wiki. I'm sick of fighting people with nothing better to do in their sorry lives but promote their radical political views. While not all users fit the description I just gave, enough are, and I'm sick of dealing with them. Well they can have their wiki. I'm done. YahelGuhan ( talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support — Wikipedia was started by an idiot, is moderated by idiots(some of whom are self-aware of their own stupidity, I'm going to resist the urge to link a person here *cough*dab*cough*), and mostly contributed to by idiots. But it's the de facto "all purpose information thing" right now... albeit a very flawed one. It's sad how many times I've seen great edits by knowledgeable people whitewashed by pathetic no-nothings with an agenda. ʄ!• ¿talk? 03:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Where else would I find the meaning, history, and the usage of the words support and oppose?
• Support - 100%. ^Izzedine 01:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: If anything, it is the Qu'ran that should be boycotted, not Wikipedia which strives to expand our knowledge base. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 17:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose: for obvious reasons - its a very useful encyclopaedia, but this is nothing to do with the Quran. Peaceworld111 ( talk) 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, censorship does and i'm not a bigot for pointing that out! My opinion was confirmed by the following event:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#Wikipedia_article

Anyway, it's my personal opinion and i don't care to argue any further. I'm not here for changing people's views. I just wanted to give this person a dose of his own medicine for even daring to suggest such a thing. As such, i countered "Let's boycott wikipedia!" with "Let's boycott the Qu'ran", to see how he would take it. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 08:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• comment I don't really think this guy is actually serious about the boycott anyway. One word: Wiki-troll. Peaceworld111 ( talk) 14:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Forget him! I just want you to know that i have got nothing against Muslims at all, and sympathize with them for the discrimination and racial prejudice they face around the world. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • "Imagine a world without Wikipedia. That's our mission.
  • Imagine a day when Wikipedia truly benefits society. That's our mission.
  • Imagine Wikipedia living up to its ideals. That's our mission."

The first is in total contradiction with the other two. Maybe if you actually thought about your proposal, you'd have support, but this is just horribly thought-out. 2birds1stone ( talk)