In a message dated 3/11/2007 8:51:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gwern0@gmail.com writes:

No. USENET was/is a lot worse. Spam is permanently a fact of life there (wasn't the first ever piece of spam a Usenet message?), they invented the trolls and are trolled by Scientology to a more significant degree than Wikipedia (when was the lest time you heard of User:Anon.penet.fi being sued by the Church of Scientology on the wiki?) And they have real cabals on Usenet, not to mention the whole idea of canceling posts, cross-threading, etc. Say what you will about Wikipedia, but it's a much more pleasant, less volatile and less transient place to work. The two are different fundamentally, anyway.

I disagree. First, the USENET doesn't masquerade as authority. Second, there's a poor setup with admins taking sides and mechanisms not functioning properly on Wikipedia. Third, anonymity gets more credibility than using your real user name, at least in a case I have.

As to the first complaint, Wikipedia gets high rankings on search engines, which I think inappropriate. Also, they even have articles trying to convince Wikipedia's authority.

I'm a bit distressed and haven't had a chance to read topics other than those I responded since at least the 11th, but I'll leave it at that for now.

As for the second complaint, admins, in my opinion, use policies on terms that in ordinary circles would be neologisms and don't make sense. Policies also get contradictions such as "interest in article" should lead to work rather than "interest in the outcome" on one hand, but on the other it's considered COI to have an interest in the article. Furthermore, "have good faith," but "meat puppets" count as "sock puppets," though they're viewed as other rather than the same user.

Admins also use personal power for attack. I was attacked by someone who claimed to be a senior in high school, English a second language, couldn't even follow Wikipedia policy and spell the reason for blocking me correctly.

Third, I don't see what I want about users displaying their real names versus keeping completely anonymous. I display my real name and use my grandfather's name but state my real name on my user page whereas those who are anonymous seem to have better credibility because I got blocked whereas another, anonymous user who used ad hominems did not, and I was a long-time editor who didn't even violate the 3RR, certainly not on purpose, and I got no warning besides. Moreover, mechanisms I used did nothing, and complaints I filed got rejected, even during an "election."

To conclude, I'm a bit distressed, as I said, and I'm writing this more off the cuff to share ideas, so that makes me defensive about my position. I hope to manage it well.

Thanks!

Vincent Bartning UN: John Wallace Rich

************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.