# On hating Wack-o-pedia, again... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 19, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060 "2015-04-19T19:27:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/61 "2015-05-01T03:14:55Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > In other words, give up your anonymity! Give it up now! I don’t feel his hand should be forced into giving up his identity, but OTOH, when I see him saying that he’s a “world expert” or a absolute authority on a subject as his credentials for why he’s right and you’re wrong about something, it might be nice if he backed it up. I guess the question (for me) is, how many times can you claim something like that before it’s fair of us to ask for you to verify it or stop saying it. I suppose we have other professionals on the board who’s credentials we’ve never asked for (Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers etc). I’m not sure what the difference is here, the tone maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/62 "2015-05-01T03:48:09Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > I guess the question (for me) is, how many times can you claim something like that before it’s fair of us to ask for you to verify it or stop saying it. I suppose we have other professionals on the board who’s credentials we’ve never asked for (Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers etc). I’m not sure what the difference is here, the tone maybe. I suspect because most of the actual experts I’ve seen here are content to let their expertise speak for itself through their posts, rather than simultaneously bragging _and_ being coy about what they know. [QUOTE=Mister Toad] The clever men at Oxford Know all that there is to be knowed. But they none of them knew one half as much As intelligent Mr Toad! [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/63 "2015-05-01T03:57:32Z")
> [@Penfeather](#): > > I suspect because most of the actual experts I’ve seen here are content to let their expertise speak for itself through their posts, rather than simultaneously bragging _and_ being coy about what they know. That makes sense. I always find it funny that in online dating sites if in the first line someone mentions that they’re intelligent, when I scroll down to education it’s almost always either “Some High School”, “High School” or “Some College”. I understand that you can be smart without finishing secondary school, but when I see that, listed right at the top, my first thought is ‘who are you trying to convince?’. If you’re smart, it’ll speak for itself, if you have to tell me you’re smart, well, are you? ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/64 "2015-05-01T04:50:50Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > That makes sense. I always find it funny that in online dating sites if in the first line someone mentions that they’re intelligent, when I scroll down to education it’s almost always either “Some High School”, “High School” or “Some College”. I understand that you can be smart without finishing secondary school, but when I see that, listed right at the top, my first thought is ‘who are you trying to convince?’. If you’re smart, it’ll speak for itself, if you have to tell me you’re smart, well, are you? Well, there are plenty of people here who are expert in some pretty arcane areas - there’s one bloke who makes his own bows and arrows, and is apparently a published authority on it - and they manage not to turn talking about it into some sort of fan dance. It’s not as if you’re going to be sniffed at here for being a flint knapper or a particle physicist, or even the guy who knows everything about Ace the Bat-Hound: it’s when you loftily declare your own expertise but refuse to say what it’s even in that your assertions start to smell a bit off. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/65 "2015-05-01T05:01:00Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Then you’ll have no problem citing your publications that the field and your peers have read to form that opinion. Ideally, though, those peers should do the citing to avoid a conflict of interest. > > I mean, it couldn’t possibly be that, despite your obvious expertise and renown, you haven’t actually got those publications, right? I’m more than happy to give **Amateur Barbarian** the benefit of the doubt: he wants to retain his anonymity. His posts, unlike [checks forum] yours, are stongly tinged with intelligence and sobriety. Heck, even I am an acknowledged authority in some niches (and have even had my works cited at SDMB!), but the niches are so narrow that to reveal them would quickly lead via Googling to my true name. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/66 "2015-05-01T08:15:21Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’m more than happy to give **Amateur Barbarian** the benefit of the doubt: he wants to retain his anonymity. His posts, unlike [checks forum] yours, are stongly tinged with intelligence and sobriety. > > Heck, even I am an acknowledged authority in some niches (and have even had my works cited at SDMB!), but the niches are so narrow that to reveal them would quickly lead via Googling to my true name. The point was to cite those publications when editing Wiki rather than simply claiming expertise. I’m not asking him - or you, for that matter - to prove it here. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/67 "2015-05-01T14:48:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m not asking him - or you, for that matter - to prove it here. Would it matter if anyone did “prove it”? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/68 "2015-05-01T15:01:08Z")
**Amateur Barbarian** suggested that experts should have special status when it comes to editing Wikipedia pages, so if such a system was implemented (and it’s not going to happen), yes, he would have to prove his expertise somehow. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/69 "2015-05-01T15:20:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Would it matter if anyone did “prove it”? Yes, **Effie**. Despite your continuous melodramatic lament, people on this board remain unconvinced by your global warming JAQing because your “arguments” suck, not because people in are inherently unable to process facts or reconsider their opinions in light of contrary evidence. But, you know, I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/70 "2015-05-01T15:40:45Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Heck, even I am an acknowledged authority in some niches (and have even had my works cited at SDMB!), but the niches are so narrow that to reveal them would quickly lead via Googling to my true name. Unless you are the only acknowledged authority then no one can truly know if you are John Buttsniffer Smith or Jacob Buttlicker Jones. Other so called authorities, such as Qadgop, on this board get a pass because you can take what they post and look it up to verify it yourself elsewhere on the intartubes. Just saying, “I am the expert because I say so.” cannot be second-handed verified. Also I am the acknowledged authority on knowing that FXMastermind is the acknowledged authority on Global Warming. ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/71 "2015-05-02T03:39:42Z")
I’m surprised that “So-Called Expert”" hasn’t been taken as a user name here. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/72 "2015-05-02T15:41:41Z")
That pretty much covers every user ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/73 "2015-05-03T09:03:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That pretty much covers every user Back off, man, I’m an expert in my field. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/74 "2015-05-03T12:40:56Z")
You might be, but the internet sort of doesn’t give a crap. Even when the internet knows somebody is actually an expert, or famous, or whatever, they still get treated the same as everybody else. In fact, if a Wikipedian knew you actually were an expert in a field, and you showed them how wrong they were, it wouldn’t matter. Truth is what the consensus says it is, not what some really smart person says. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/75 "2015-05-03T12:51:01Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > That you can even frame that question is its own Q.E.D. to my entire contention. > > And really, I shouldn’t have to explain that any further. But let’s put it this way: If WP is going to set itself up as the Encyclopedia For The Digital Age, it can’t just dismiss the components that made real encyclopedias trustworthy, valid, useful and reliable. It can’t straddle the Limbaugh Line and say that it’s just a pop reference for entertainment purposes only, then sit there in a suit and tie and demand donations and support to continue Its Important Mission. > > Either it’s a real reference - which means it needs something a lot like traditional editorial and validation processes, extended and adapted to allow trivialities like Brady Bunch entries alongside serious stuff, and an end to this self-appointed, basement-troll, Proud 2BN Aspie “editorial” structure - or it needs to admit it’s just an intellectual junkheap, and distance itself from any claim, its own or third-party, that it’s a “reference” above any level but a fan-published Brady Bunch episode guide. > > Since Whippy has no mechanism for validating expertise, ‘cites’ are its only tool, reinforcing the basic flaw of the Googleverse that if it isn’t already listed somewhere, it doesn’t/can’t exist. Even Google works to improve that situation; Whippy simply sits smugly on its own shitpile and calls it genius. Why can’t it be both? As long as they have the server space why can’t it talk about both The Brady Bunch AND how snake venom works (or whatever would make you feel better)? It sounds to me like you just have a bug up your ass because your stuff keeps getting edited out. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/76 "2015-05-03T13:02:53Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > … you just have a bug up your ass because your stuff keeps getting edited out. That’s the actual official Wikipedia motto ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/77 "2015-05-03T13:05:16Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I included the word “comprehensive,” which the site most certainly is. (It has essentially no competing sites of any kind.) If it were a print book, they might still object. The real problem is it seems like somebody knows more than an editor on Wikipedia does. And they hate that shit with a passion. Nobody should be better than Wikipedia. I know that is true, because I read it on Wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/78 "2015-05-03T13:21:10Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nobody should be better than Wikipedia. I know that is true, because I read it on Wikipedia. Does it count if you’re the one who wrote it and it’s got one of those little ‘needs citation’ flags next to it? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/79 "2015-05-03T13:34:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Be bold but not reckless in updating articles, and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected. [Wikipedia official page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) That is a flat out lie. But Wikidiots believe it is true, so to them it is. Truth is whatever the consensus says. And anybody can be the consensus. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/80 "2015-05-03T13:39:04Z")
The people who actually run the site might actually believe their own bullshit, but it’s still hilarious. “Peer review” is redefined, as are all things on Wikipedia, and they have no problem telling you this. > [@](#): > > Wikipedia’s peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any “grade”. Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking. > **[Wikipedia:Peer review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review)** > > Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in... It doesn’t matter if you are Freeman Dyson, your peers on Wikipedia can be teenagers living in a basement, smoking crack or pot, laughing about how stupid Dyson must be. Or a disgruntled idiot on the internet with a bug up his ass. That’s peer review/ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060.md?page=5)