|
Here is my anecdote: I wanted to know more about my representative to the state legislature. First I went to Wikipedia. It had a stub page, with only basic biographic information. Checking elsewhere, I found that the FBI and IRS raided his office, home, and business some time ago. His chief of staff, his business partner, and and a former staffer that became a judge were all convicted of fraud and/or tax evasion. Other than this, his political career was a whole lot of nothing. So, having done this research, I put it into the relevant Wikipedia article, with appropriate references to news articles and legal documents, carefully noting that he himself was never charged with anything. Reading between the lines, I realize that the authorities tried to get his subordinates to roll over on him, but failed - but that kind of subjectivity doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Anyway, less than a minute later, the change was reverted because of "vandalism". Whoever reverted it had either not even glanced at the change, or was a supporter of this politician, protecting his page from negative information. Probably the former, but who knows? This was the last, and worst, example of me wasting my time trying to contribute to Wikipedia. I have had every single change I have ever made to Wikipedia reverted (going back years). Sometimes I have done it anonymously, sometimes I have logged in; it doesn't make any difference in my experience. What seems to matter is if you're willing to put in the time to master Wikipedia's bureaucratic procedure, which I am not. I just don't bother anymore. So to me, this article makes perfect sense. But I have to admit that I still read Wikipedia all the time. It is without question, the most useful web site there is. It's not as comprehensive as I would like, and for subjective information it's actually quite bad, but I think that in general it seems to be getting better over time, on both counts. So I don't know if you can say it's declining. By the way, despite him either being a crook, or merely employing crooks on his staff, I voted for him anyway, just last week. I really don't have a vendetta against this guy. |