User:とある白い猫/Wikipedia is badly broken

Wikipedia is broken!

A comprehensive investigation of the source of the malfunction in the hope of a repair

Wikipedia is broken

Despite what policies and guidelines state below is the actual rule. This is based on my three year experience in my attempts to contribute to a wide range of topics.

Some of the issues mentioned below are actual timered bombs that will go off sooner or later unless defused. Currently there is no effort to defuse these.

A bit of terminology

Good user: A person who is here on Wikipedia to genuinely try doing something productive

Wikipedia is

...a soapbox

1. On particularly controversial topics "no one cares about" such as topics that covers material that are not related to the "western world" in a manner "everyone knows"
2. To give a more direct example and applying Godwin's law...
   • if someone were to do something as ridiculous as to tag parts of France or Poland or Belgium or Greece as a part of Germany or Nazi Germany it would be removed rather promptly and the person daring to add it would probably be blocked - again rather promptly.
   • if the covered topic is not a part of the classical definition of the western world then it is a different story. You can for example mark parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria as a part of Kurdistan. Any attempt to remove such controversial and unsourced references will be reverted. Users making such edits will be threatened with blocks.

To put it in few words controversial topics not covered by mainstream "western world" publications have little to no regulation.

...a battleground

1. Disruption is the unofficially accepted/required procedure.
2. If you want your edit to a controversial article to stick, you should be prepared for a brutal fight (that is as brutal as an online website gets).
3. It isn't possible for good users to edit controversial articles that are not related to "western world".
4. Such articles can only be edited if you have an armada of sockpuppets and meatpuppets at your disposal.
5. Administrators will go out of their way not to encounter and confront such groups. Confronting such groups will only win enemies to the person daring to "stand in their way".
6. The Arbitration Committee will only make rulings that punish "good users". For example the rulings on the Armenia-Azerbaijan case gives a lot of room to interpretation. The intentions behind this may be "good" but the end result is not.
   • The amount of "good faith" Arbitration Committee is willing to show people is directly proportional to the amount of disruption the people are causing. The more disruptive the person is the more arbcom will overlook it.
   • Arbcom will not look into disagreements before they get completely out of control. They will decline such cases particularly if the dispute is between a small number of users.
7. People enforcing these rules subjectively interpret the arbitration rulings to eliminate new "small players". The big disruptive users, the source of the problem, are untouched or are given mild blocks that are merely symbolic as such users use their secondary or tertiary accounts.

To put it mildly controversial topics not covered by mainstream "western world" are at the mercy of those disruptive editors with a COI who do not want good reasonable editors anywhere near these topics.

...censored

1. Any view that isn't sanctioned by the "western world" will probably get minimal to no coverage. It will be declared as a "minority opinion" and will not be allowed in articles.
   • Governmental sites from countries that are not a part of the classical definition of the western world will be declared as non-reliable sources.
2. Discussing Arbitration Committee's conduct is strictly banned. You cannot question or criticize arbcom in any way on Wikipedia or on the various mailing lists. There is no "checks and balances" reviewing arbcom.
   • That check supposed to be Jimmy Wales in the past (it is explicitly stated that Jimmy Wales reserves the right to abolish arbcom) before the foundation was formed. Now the check probably belongs to the foundation whom to date has made no attempt to intervene or even comment on any matter arbcom looked. I heavily doubt such a comment was made to arbcom privately in the mailing list.
   • Arbcom today focuses less on resolving actual disputes and instead more on delegating it back to the community to sort it out.

To put it in few words topics not covered by mainstream "western world" are often intentionally or unintentionally censored to a biased point of view. This is due to an absence of regulation.

...a bureaucracy

1. If you want anything resolved you should be prepared to get involved with various WP:DR processes that are known to not work such as WP:RFC, WP:3O and etc.
2. None of the said processes resolve anything - unless of course the conflict is resolved by people leaving the project in disgust.
3. Even the most trivial interwiki task such as a routine checkuser of a known problematic user will be subject to ridiculous amount of bureaucracy.

To put it in few words, getting something resolved is becoming harder and harder each day.

...paper

1. Topics certain individuals do not wish to see covered are unwelcome on this encyclopedia.
2. Authors daring to write such articles are to be prepared to put up a good line of defense in the hostile environment they contribute.
3. Various topics had been subject to coordinated deletion efforts. Most notably articles on fiction-related (TV episodes and characters, video games and characters) or non-fiction-related (townships, individual short articles on various scientific topics such mathematics and astronomy) topics were among the target.
4. These removals are not necessarily based on any kind of discussion. Often they are also not based on a consensus.

To put it in few words, material you would not find in a traditional encyclopedia are at risk of out of process deletion on the spot.

Wikipedia is not

...an environment in a spirit of mutual respect

1. Mistreating people by denying them the slightest bit of respect and courtesy is common practice.
2. Certain individuals are more equal than others. People without a sysop flag are given very little notice if at all.
3. "Good users" are frequently subject to bad faith accusations. The are often accused of hidden agendas - generally by people who actually have such agendas and desire not to have objective people getting in their way.

To put it in few words, Wikipedia is a hostile environment you would not want to even try getting close to.

And the point of this essay is?

What is the point of me writing this?

I feel Wikipedia is badly broken.

This is merely a means to brainstorm the idea.

By reading this page you have already entered the process of fixing Wikipedia assuming you are not genuinely trying to wreck it.